---

Statement by Msnicki[edit]

My experience was as a reporter at ANI in a case that (I learned later) began when DP blocked Barney the barney barney without proper warning as required by WP:BEFOREBLOCK over some minor incivility between Barney and Bearcat at WP:Articles for deletion/John Mutton where Bearcat was the nom and losing (and would lose) the debate. Bearcat (who's an admin) complained at ANI and 29 minutes later, DP blocked Barney without warning and without discussion for the duration of the AFD (96 hours). After Barney called DP Bearcat's "pet admin", DP allowed and even defended Bearcat as Bearcat baited Barney on Barney's own talk page even while Barney was blocked, effectively colluding to edge Barney closer to and eventually out the door in violation of WP:IUC.

After DP indefinitely blocked Barney even from his own talk page, leaving him with only WP:STANDARDOFFER, which starts by asking that the user wait 6 months, I asked DP to reconsider. I thought there could be an appearance that DP was becoming emotionally involved and that he should seek another opinion from another admin. I was more appalled by Bearcat's behavior. DP responded uncivilly but without ever discussing the substance of my remarks in a pattern that continues to this day. He has never been willing to discuss the substance of my complaint, which is that he showed poor judgment, made poor choices and got a poor outcome. I think he could get better outcomes simply by being willing to discuss past choices to see how they could have been made better, e.g., by being more receptive to others' concerns and suggestions but I've never been able to get past the tedious pattern of disrespect. Meanwhile, he's still never been willing to hand Barney off to another admin to see if there's a way to get this once productive editor back here and producing.

In the last round on DP's talk page, per Jehochman's suggestion that talk page discussion was a better vehicle, I tried again to explain my concerns 1, 2. DP interspersed his replies into the middle of my comment, mostly just denying everything. When I asked he not intersperse like that, 3, he removed my request, then closed the whole discussion, 4, claiming I'm obviously insincere.

I don't think he should be an admin because he shows no willingness to conform to our standards of civility yet expects to block others for the same behavior, shows poor judgment, makes poor choices and gets poor outcomes, then refuses to WP:EXPLAINBLOCK or consider others' input, the very input that might help him make better choices and get better outcomes. We lost a formerly productive contributor over something that started because an admin was losing an AfD and had a thin skin. Most admins should have been able to resolve this and get a better outcome. If DP were to give the Barney case up to another admin today, there's still some chance of a better outcome. Msnicki (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@jni, Barney is not a participant here because Barney is still indefinitely blocked, even from his talk page. Msnicki (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. On my talk page, jni points out that I seem to be complaining mostly about DP's block of Barney and has asked if I have examples where DP has been uncivil to me.

Yes. In the now-deleted RFCU, I gave a longer statement with numerous examples of DP's uncivil behavior toward me. Jehochman has userfied a portion of the RFCU; my statement can be found at User:Jehochman/Draft#View by certifier Msnicki.

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854#DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney, DP repeatedly accused me of personal attacks, harassment, lying, and bad faith and often used a vulgar tone, e.g., "you fucked this up and refuse to back down and eat crow", "that's being "angry" at you and your unfounded accusations and lies, plus your inability to address this with me directly rather than embarrass yourself with such false statements due to horrible assumptions. Yeah, I'm "angry" that I've lost all respect for someone who I once considered a respectable person", "You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me", "I said I would refuse to respond to your insults, false claims, and baiting, here is my response: I will continue to use appropriate restraint in all situations with all editors", "IMHO Msnicki should be blocked for these continued unfounded, unproven personal attacks", "Cut it out, becausr this bullshit harassment has got to stop", "This is a massive blemish on what has been until this date a pretty stellar wikicareer for you".

I hope this has been helpful. Msnicki (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman about Dangerous Panda request[edit]

I've simplified my original remarks. There is no need to repeat what I've already said elsewhere, such as on my talk page or in the referenced deletion review sustaining deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: You said, "About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed." - There is no process for an administrator to edit a live RFCU. That would be extremely contentious, and after a dozen or more people had commented, editing the presentation would create chaos and a lot of work to notify everybody and ask them to reconsider their opinions in light of the revised presentation. The inclusion of prejudicial material poisoned the well. Once that happened, the most efficient way to correct things was to restart with a proper statement and proper certification. In any event, this page is called requests for arbitration, not requests for second guessing administrative decisions. You are welcome to visit my talk page and say how you might have done things differently, but that's not relevant to this case, especially in light of the recent movement to eliminate RFCU altogether. I also think it's not relevant to discuss NE Ent's behavior. I recommend keeping the case focused on the heart of the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The community is in the process of eliminating RFCU as useless bureaucracy: toothless against malefactors, or abusive to the innocent. It seems that there has been a great deal of discussion at User talk:DangerousPanda, that issues have not been resolved, and there is no option but to regretfully accept the case. If you do accept a case, please model the level of kindness and fairness that you want administrators to follow. It would be wrong to desysop an administrator without first providing a warning or admonishment, unless the abuse is extreme. Just because somebody else has failed to behave the way they should, doesn't mean you should lower your own standards to that level. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nyttend[edit]

NE Ent is completely off base in his statement about the catch-22. As he was repeatedly told, both by others (perhaps by Jehochman?) and by me, the RFCU was deleted because it had not been properly certified: we always delete RFCUs when we do not have certifiers for the same dispute. I won't publish a guess of his reasons, but NE Ent is obsessing (along with others, if I remember rightly from the discussion I closed) about that one RFCU. As my closing statement said, this deletion was procedural, and it does not affect the possibility of creating a new RFCU on the same user about the same issue or about a different issue: just be sure to obtain proper certification next time. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I believe that arbitration requests about a single user generally take the name of the user; otherwise we could have lots of cases all called "unsuitability for admin role". I am thoroughly unfamiliar with all other aspects of this case, so I can have no reasonable comments on them. [PS, this includes accepting — unlike Jehochman, I have no opinion either way on whether this should be accepted or rejected.] [PPS, Jehochman has removed the content to which I was referring in the PS.] Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly agree with Dennis Brown: we definitely need to follow procedure in dispute-resolution situations, unless it's an emergency, or unless the parties agree to ignore procedure for whatever reason. Editors ought not be exposed to problematic situations just because some people decided to ignore the rules without very good reason; the dispute-resolution rules just almost never prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. And I also agree with Jehochman when he says that we mustn't accept as a single dispute something concocted out of incidents that occurred several years apart: RFCU policy clearly states that RFCUs must focus on a single incident. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lecen[edit]

Statement by Jimbo Wales[edit]

I wrote an opinion/admonishment about a particular incident of hostility towards another user more than two years ago. While I fully stand by the remarks I made then, I think that the passage of time means that more recent behavior is significantly more relevant. Speaking about general principles rather than the specifics of this case, I think that a generous and kind spirit should encourage us to both firmly reject such behavior, but also to warmly welcome change over time. I have no idea what the application of this would be in this case, because I have not reviewed the recent complaints and so have no comment about them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

There is no strict requirement in policy or practice for completing an RFC/U, especially where a admin conduct, judgement and use of tools is concerned. Numerous attempts have been made over the past four years, at ANI, talk pages, an aborted RFC/U, and a previous RFAR, to address chronic concerns about DangerousPanda's conduct in his roles as an admin. Outside of Arbcom, the community is ill-equipped to settle admin conduct issues, and is powerless to remove admin privileges. Further distrust, discord, and wasted effort will result if Arbcom declines to accept this case.- MrX 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI discussion in response to this comment is a good example of how the community is unable to deal with admin conduct issues. In more than four years as an admin, DangerousPanda (AKA EatsShootsAndLeaves, ES&L, DP, The Panda, B*******) has made many similarly aggressive outbursts, often directed at blocked editors. Such behavior violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ADMIN#Administrator conduct. This long-term pattern of condescension, brutishness, hostility, sarcasm, arrogance and general incivility runs contrary to fostering a collaborative editing environment, and is wholly unacceptable for an English Wikipedia administrator.

There have also been several cases of questionable judgement and hastiness in his use of admin tools, specifically the block and unblock tools, contrary to communal norms.

DangerousPanda is not receptive to criticism. When editors and admins have raised concerns on his talk page, and at other venues, his response has typically been defensiveness and avoidance. It seems very unlikely that further attempts to discuss his conduct with him will result in different outcomes. Editors concerned about these long-term admin conduct issues have nowhere else to turn.- MrX 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: In the past, DangerousPanda has temporarily stopped participating on Wikipedia when he has been called to account for his conduct.

• August 2012 after Jimbo commented about this
• August 2013 after an admin conduct Arbcom case was requested and declined
• August 2014 after being asked by several editors to explain his assessment of consensus after he unblocked Eric Corbett

Is seven days enough time for someone to respond to a RFAR about his admin conduct? I think so, and it shouldn't be a concern since he has apparently notified Dennis Brown, via the internet, that it will be a "few days" until he has reasonable internet access. Note that when Toddst1 disappeared under a cloud, Arbcom instructed that he shouldn't use admin tools. This would seem to be advisable here, given recent questionable conduct by DangerousPanda.- MrX 16:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda's 1200+ word statement falls far short of addressing the totality of the concerns raised, or the seriousness of the concerns. We have consensus that RFC/U doesn't work, didn't work, and won't work. The admin noticeboards are hysterically poor venues for resolving admin conduct issues. I defy anyone to point out examples where the community has successfully resolved long-term admin conduct issues at ANI or AN.

How much more time should the community waste on a single contributor who may simply not have the competence required by WP:ADMIN? Admin Dennis Brown seems to think that another 60 days of talk page discussions would be useful. Really? My effort is better spent on trying to improve the project as a whole. I'm not going to spend the next 60 days trying to engage DangerousPanda on his talk page, only to wait days or weeks for each response, only to be disappointed.

Can we please have more focus on the needs of the project, and less on ensuring that someone retains their power?- MrX 15:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Dennis Brown[edit]

The RFC/U was deleted because it wasn't properly certified. This has been verified by a number of people. Even so, the opening diff showing that Ent had tried to work out his problems with DP was two year old. The evidence also had tons of statements from "Arb reviews" from when DP ran for Arb, which were prejudicial and irrelevant as those individuals were speaking as to DP's fitness for Arb, not admin, thus they were completely out of place. Goals had to be changed, etc. In short, it was an abortion of an RFC/U. This is why so many of us tried to convince NE Ent to take it to DP's talk page first, something that MrX actually did (and did so in a proper, respectful and appropriate way). Once there, I think DP did come up short in answering questions, being more defensive than engaging, but that is just one step in the dispute resolution process. That would form the basis for a fresh and valid RFC/U, assuming you can get two people to certify it. Are there legitimate gripes or concerns? From what I see, yes, but there is a reason we have processes in place to deal with them, they just haven't been used properly. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{removed redundant paragraph}}

@Newyorkbrad et. al., I agree that 14 days is a generous but reasonable threshold. I would also note that without clarifying why he is a clear threat to the community, threatening to temporarily desysopping is an improper tactic, as it implies that the Arbs have already decided to desysop DP and that this case is just for public consumption. This is distinctly different from holding the case in absentia and desysopping afterwards. This is forcing him to pay the fine before the evidence has been presented. On the other hand, if it being used solely as a threat to force DP here, it seems to be assuming bad faith, and is improper. Without Arbs specifically stating the exact risks involved by failing to desysop, desysopping shouldn't be suggested as a remedy at this stage, and unfairly prejudices the case. Dennis - 2¢ 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned, you are missing the point that DP said he might be gone, on his talk page, before this Arb filing, so having you question his honesty based on hearsay is problematic. And NE Ent just announced that he won't have internet access for a week either [1], so it doesn't matter. Everyone agrees there are some problems. But there is no emergency. We need some perspective here, and less poisoning of the well. If you had just asked him to not use the tools while the case is pending, he would have. We've seen him do it with Jimbo. Not sure that is needed, but it would have been a less prejudicial act. I don't have a dog in this hunt as I genuinely like NE Ent and DP both equally well, but I know that neither is hell bent on destroying the Wiki. Dennis - 2¢ 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{removed moot paragraph}}

Statement by Bbb23[edit]

I agree with Dennis Brown and others that the RfC/U was not properly certified. I said as much at the time. However, it's not because one can't raise long-term conduct in an RfC/U or because the two certifiers have to agree about everything. Rather, it's because there was no attempt to resolve the dispute before initiating the RfC/U and because too much of it was old. It was a scattershot, poorly framed, poorly done RfC/U, and I was surprised that NE Ent would initiate it. Thus, this request should be declined because it's not ripe for the Committee. Another reason - and perhaps a threshold reason - why it should be declined is NE Ent concedes it's not a real request. He just wants advice. The RfC/U and subsequent events were a time sink. This is yet another time sink. Obviously, the arbitrators are free to provide advice if they wish, but this is not a constructive use of the arbitration process.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdell555: I have no intention of responding to your comments about me, but it would be good form to notify me of them using the notification system.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk[edit]

I have no comment on the underlying issues, but the committee or the community need to come up with a process for dealing with behavioral issues that isn't a complete joke. I don't think RFC/U forbids raising long term conduct issues, but RFC/U has not served as a useful check on behavior in a long time. Rather, it provides us with a convenient mechanism to deflect criticism of vested contributors and admins by saying "hey, the RFC/U for so and so is a red link" when refusing to act on thorny conduct issues on noticeboards--the implication being that to actually get some action an editor has build a case against an editor, have that certified then take it before the community where the same sclerotic practices that prevent us from dealing with admins/vested contributors with conduct problems work themselves out via dueling "summaries of conflicts". To top it all off, that process is merely advisory. It's a tremendous, staggering waste of time and I'm embarrassed for us whenever we point users to that process in lieu of actually dealing with an issue on a noticeboard.

Ripe or not, one of the reasons NE Ent is here is that community process has failed, systemically. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bearcat[edit]

I'm not involved in this particular dispute, and cannot address the substance of the allegations that are actually being made. However, because Msnicki brought my name into it in her statement, I want to correct the record about what she said about me and the matter in which DangerousPanda and I actually interacted.

I did not "lose" the AFD debate in question because I was in any way wrong about what Wikipedia's basic inclusion rules are — it ultimately landed as a keep because editors who had access to source repositories that I don't have, and were therefore able to locate more appropriate reliable sourcing than I could have done, put in the effort to improve the article to a keepable WP:GNG-passing standard while the debate was underway. I did not in any way misrepresent the fact that the subject's basic claim of notability did not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion rules in its original form — the article was substantively improved after I initiated the discussion. And I never had any objection to that kind of improvement, either — I said more than once in the discussion that while the claim of notability didn't pass WP:NPOL by itself, the article could be kept if it were improved enough to get the topic over WP:GNG instead. So the fact that the article was kept does not represent a "failure" or any "malfeasance" on my part — it represents the process working exactly the way it's supposed to: people who believed that the topic should be considered notable, and had access to the necessary resources to properly substantiate that notability, actually put in the work to salvage the article. And that's always a possible, and very welcome, outcome to an AFD discussion. It's not a matter of "winners" or "losers" — the article became more keepable than it was in its initial iteration, and I consider that a "win" for everybody.

And furthermore, I did not approach ANI asking for any specific action to be taken — I was being personally attacked, and asked for a neutral administrator to review the situation and make their own decisions about who was in the wrong and how to handle it, and would have accepted it if the other administrator had determined that I was at fault. And while continuing to respond to continued personal attacks may indeed suggest that I'm a bit more thin-skinned than I should be sometimes, it's not inappropriate "malfeasance", or against any Wikipedia policy, to do so — the worst that can be said about it is that it maybe isn't the most productive use of my own editing time, and I should have just let it roll off my back. But that's something for me to deal with on my own time in my own process of dealing with my own normal human imperfections, not a matter for Wikipedia to address punitively. And at any rate, if another editor is more outraged by a victim of uncivil personal attacks responding to them than they are by the personal attacks themselves, then that says far more about them than it does about me.

All of that said, I'm not the subject of this discussion — Panda's handling of the matter that I was involved in isn't even the substance of the complaint — so it's not appropriate to badmouth me in the process of addressing the matter that's actually under discussion. And that's all I'm going to say here. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq[edit]

I'd suggest one of 2 things:

• Place this request on hold, and by motion temporarily desysop DP until he substantially engages with Mr.X (and any others with serious concerns) on his talk page. Once that happens, you can decide whether or not the result of the discussion is satisfactory, and either resysop or let the desysop stand.
• Accept as an ArbCom case now; RFCU in its current state is perfectly suited for wikilawyering a dispute until it goes away.

If you accept a case, a remedy at the end suggesting the community have an RFC on how to fix RFCU to make it marginally useful would be appropriate, though realistically unlikely to achieve anything. Finally, this is not really the place, but while I'm here: I apologize to everyone I've ever suggested start an RFCU on someone, whether when I was an Arb or a civilian. I should have know better, and been more helpful. RFCU is broken. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker[edit]

My view is not that RfCU is "broken", but it is a very delicate procedure, requiring massive restraint and good faith from all - and therefore can only be (and is) useful rarely. Thus, treating it as a 'check-off' in process has been unsuitable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Unscintillating[edit]

I recall no previous or subsequent contact with this editor other than the contact I will report here; although in the talk page diff below the editor seems to know of me.

In this block log, DP confirms a consensus of incivility but overturns another admin's block.  This diff confirms the viewpoint that incivility has no standing without a violation of WP:NPA.

After the unblock, I asked on DP's talk page three questions focusing on incivility enabling, and later asked if he/she was willing to revert the unblock.  I also pointed him/her to this arb case.  In one of the responses, note the use of caps and the use of vulgarity in the same sentence as the word "incivility".

Is this the kind of behavior that another RFC/U can address?  I can't say.  My problem is the community's problem which is an admin who claims to be a supporter of our civility policy but has used the tools as an incivility enabler.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754[edit]

It is true that DangerousPanda has, at times, acted inappropriately for an administrator. It is also true that concerns were raised about halfway through 2013. Finally, it is true that at times DangerousPanda has professed a willingness to change his behavior.

Probably what should be considered in whether to accept or decline this request is whether others have made enough good-faith attempts have been made to address the issues, and whether DangerousPanda has made enough good-faith attempts to address these issues. --Rschen7754 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Cline[edit]

I do not agree with Floquenbeam's assertion that RFC/U is broken. I agree with Salvio that an RFC/U must allow for certification of requests to examine long term issues of a user's conduct. I disagree with NE Ent's interpretation of comments made regarding the deleted RFC/U. His conclusion that "Rfcu's may only be certified based on a single incident, not a long term pattern of behavior" was never suggested, and the good faith error which heard it that way belongs to him alone.

What was actually said, on more than one occasion, was that he and Msnicki were clearly pursuing separate agendas, and that nothing resembling a semblance of "same purpose" was ever hinted to exist. I am confident that had NE Ent and Msnicki, both, focused on long term behavioral patterns, with each one expressing concerns that encompassed the same long term expanse, they could have satisfied the "sameness" requirement, and certified the RFC/U.

I therefore endorsed Jehochman's deletion of the RFC/U, and his subsequent efforts to facilitate the dispute resolution. I believe Dangerous Panda would embrace constructive suggestions and not be averse to endeavors aimed at improving his conduct and the way others perceive it. I have observed incremental improvements in Dangerous Panda's conduct already. And he and I have resolved disagreements betwixt our selves; amicably, and without drama or pain. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject this case request. The community's means of dispute resolution are sufficient enough, in my opinion, to accomplish the goals of improvement being sought.—John Cline (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68[edit]

Some of the suggestions here that user conduct RfCs be reviewed by admins is not a good idea. User conduct RfCs, especially on an admin, need to be kept hands-off by WP administrators to avoid the appearance of them closing ranks to protect one of their own, as appears to be the case here. WP admins are often friends with each other because of chatting on IRC or hanging-out with each other at Wiki-meetups. They need to be kept out of the process when one of their buddies is getting an RfC, perhaps well-deserved, perhaps not, dropped on them. Also, the wiki-lawyering over the RfC process, as happened here, needs to stop. It's hard enough as it is already to ever do anything about abusive users. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hobit[edit]

I'm leery of making this a "pile-on" of unrelated things, but this user is one of the main reasons I'm not around any more. I've found him to be neither friendly nor helpful and he takes nearly any criticism or questioning as a pure attack and won't actually address issues. The one example that erks me the most is [2]. He stepped forward as a closer, I questioned if he was an unbiased closer (before things were closed) as his actions (IMO) indicated he had a pretty strong personal opinion. Perhaps I badgered too much, but if you are going to step forward as a closer and can't deal with people doubting that you are a good choice, you probably shouldn't be a closer of anything, let alone be an admin.

I'm also pretty annoyed by all the name changes. Perhaps everyone else can manage it, but I've gone through at least 3 times when I figured out this person was very difficult to deal with--each time not realizing they were in fact the same person. I'd have avoided them in many cases had I realized. At the very very least, please keep this person to one account. Or at least one account as an admin. The lutz of changing names isn't enough to justify the confusion caused by anyone doing this, let alone an admin. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Robert McClenon[edit]

Maybe the discussion of Requests for Comments on User Conduct should be taken to Village pump (policy). I am not ready to offer an opinion of whether the ArbCom should review the conduct of the administrator in question. I do have an opinion about RFC/U. I think that RFC/U has been broken for a very long time, probably since there was an ArbCom. RFC/U may have been useful before there was an ArbCom, as an input to whether a disruptive editor should be banned by Jimbo Wales. In 2005 and 2006, when the ArbCom handled a hundred cases a year, most of which were to ban users, RFC/U may have been a useful but not necessary intermediate step. RFC/U is no longer, in my opinion, a useful procedure. Either it should be retired from service, or it should be reformed or restructured. The recommended result of an RFC/U has to be stated as an improvement in behavior by the subject editor, but the RFC/U process is inherently adversarial, and isn't likely to result in the subject editor becoming more collaborative. RFC/U may have been a useful way of documenting the need for Jimbo Wales to ban an editor. Now that Jimbo Wales has an ArbCom, RFC/U is no longer useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

Per the esteemed Dennis Brown... let's give DangerousPanda time to respond. He's not using the tools at present anyway so no reason to do even a safety measure desysop at present.--MONGO 18:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft[edit]

While I appreciate the committee's willingness to wait on statements before agreeing to accept a case (something they failed at miserably in the not too distant past), the pendulum can swing too much the other way as well. DangerousPanda, in the days leading up to this case was actively editing, having edited 29 out of 31 days in the month before, making an average of 10+ edits a day. He has temporarily disappeared before (see monthly contributions graph), so I most certainly do not mean to imply this is willful refusal to participate in this case. Regardless, this case does inform that ArbCom should also not allow the pendulum to swing to the point where no action is taken because one of the parties to a case does not respond. I vaguely recall a case that was indefinitely suspended because one of the parties to the case was not active. Perhaps something should be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Deciding_of_requests to this effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite[edit]

@Hammersoft:; the case you are referencing is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody. User indeffed after failing to respond (although later decided to sock instead). Hopefully that's not too relevant to this case. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Psychonaut[edit]

I fully endorse User:Hobit's statement. As anyone who's glanced at my user page can tell, I'm hardly one to get riled up by insulting and inflammatory remarks and other rude behaviour. 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. (Mind you, this policy of avoidance hasn't been easy for me, given the plethora of name changes and alternative accounts.) I'm fully in support of the community examining this editor's behaviour, whether it's here or at RfCU, with a view to determining whether the overall pattern is something we should reasonably tolerate from an administrator (or even a regular editor). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that perhaps I should disclose my history with DangerousPanda. As far as I recall, my first and only involvement with them was to investigate a WP:ANI complaint about them (already linked to upthread by User:MrX). I did this as someone with no prior involvement in the dispute and no recollection of any past interaction with either of the parties. DangerousPanda's contributions to that thread show them to be utterly incapable of taking criticism, no matter how well-researched and civilly worded, without throwing it back as "mistaken", "uninformed", "hypocritical", "offensive", or worse. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ihardlythinkso[edit]

Panda reminds me of a barker at a county fair. ("Knock the milk bottles over, win big prize. Three throws for $2." As you walk away in frustration and embarrassment for even trying, he shouts after you with a smirk: "I'll give you six throws for $3. Try again I'm sure you'll win!" He's there to take your money and will do so dishonestly, manipulatively and mercilessly with laced insult to boot.) Does it matter whether this mocking (e.g., "So what if you're narcissistic?") is crafty-intentional or behavioral incompetence? Either way there's an abusive steam-roller IDHT self-serving egoism at play which will persist until something is done to stop it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, congrats on being one of the few with your incisive warning back in Jan. 2010. I think it is interesting to note, that 106 users cast Support !votes at that RfA, but only 3 (of how many ever remain of the 106) have registered comment in this RfAR (Bbb23, Dank, and Beelebrox [who recused]). And reading some of the support !vote comments from the missing 103 users, is really rather amusing (to me at least): "[DangerousPanda] puts a great deal of effort into drama reduction", "has the attitude and policy knowledge required to be an admin", "no issues that concern me", "clearly overcame all issues raised during previous RFA" [a big issue in the first unsuccessful RfA in April 2009, was arrogance & incivility], "one of the project's most [...] uncontroversial non-admins", "interacting with excellence and grace", "No problems", "willing to look at his own behaviour", "concerns raised in the previous request have not been repeated", "shown remarkable civility, patience, and good judgement", "No real concerns", "clearly meets my standards", "Seems fine to me", "show[s] that he's learned from past mistakes and is ready to be an admin", "He's responsible, civil", "I have absolutely no concerns that [DangerousPanda] will be anything but a fair, insightful, and helpful admin. Hand him the mop!" (Again, none of the users who made those comments, and none of the 103 of 106 users who made Panda an admin back in 2010, have shown up at this RfAR to-date. [I didn't check the previous RfAR re Panda's suitability for admin for comments by any of the 103 users, but am curious to do.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, your suggestion to resolve with complainants at Panda's Talk over 60 days is absurd, where there is already more than sufficient evidence what becomes of such attempts. (Massive IDHT and massive "What, who me?") A neutral third-party moderator would be required, and there is no current WP venue/arrangement for such a discussion. And certainly his own user Talk would be the worst possible location that could be proposed. It's clear to me your wiki-friendship obscures your views big-time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even here in this RfAR, how honest?:

I was never averse to an RFC/U - so undeleting/resubmitting one has never been off the plate. the panda ₯’ 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves, Panda called the RfC/U filed by NE Ent "disgusting", and stated that his only participation in it would be a response re the existence of his multiple usernames. Then came:

Well, I [...] will not play "double jeopardy" and accept this being filed a second time whatsoever. the panda ₯’ 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [3]

Again, "double jeopardy" is in play Jehochman - I will not participate in a re-filed RFC because we're not at the point where any RFC is required. the panda ₯’ 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [4]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare:

I was originally not going to participate in a revised RFC/U ... [...] the panda ₯’ 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

to his previous statement in this RfAR:

I was never averse to an RFC/U [...] the panda ₯’ 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple attempt to misrepresent (lie). Right here in the RfAR. (Note also that Panda omits, that he announced he would not participate in the unrevised RfC/U as well [save some explanatory comments re his multiple usernames].) An example of the chronic dishonest slitheriness Panda responds with toward any valid criticism. p.s. Notice when Panda agrees to dialogue, his stipulated conditions always presuppose a favorable outcome for himself. (Presumably incorporating retention of his admin status -- forever. [Panda will be the last man standing when WP falls. Others can be wished good luck integrating with the human race someday, or rot in eternal block, or be site banned -- that's OK.] Else you are not a collegial member of the WP community, and in violation of policy & guideline to boot.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by conceivably involved Dank[edit]

You only get to hear why I'm conceivably involved if you take the case. Not commenting on Panda in particular at this time, but I do have something to say: what I'm seeing here tips me off of my fence. We should stop pretending that the community does a good job of dealing with perceived problems with admins. It doesn't ... sometimes people avoid dealing with admin problems when avoiding it doesn't help, and sometimes people are loud in a way that pushes people away from Wikipedia ... but regardless of what happens, what we're doing now, waiting as long as we do before we bring the discussion up at Arbcom, never ever works. Arbcom should be involved whenever there's a serious discussion, with diffs, that indicate that an admin's behavior is problematic, regardless of what we imagine the result of the discussion will be. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved SarekOfVulcan[edit]

Just wanted to say that I agree with Dank that "serious discussion with diffs" is when Arbcom should step in. Admin accountability is important, and failing a community de-adminship process, Arbcom needs to be willing to jump in earlier before all heck breaks loose. If you get in early enough, this doesn't need to be a huge timesink. No comment on DP either way here, this is a general statement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SB_Johnny[edit]

The wise thing here would be to take the case and suspend it, and temporarily remove button access until Mr. Panda returns to wikitown and participates. There are actually a lot of issues worth looking into here both specifically and generally, and as others have noted Arbcom is (like it or not) the only body with the ability to oversee or discipline admins en.wp. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brian Dell (bdell555)[edit]

1) User:B******* (earlier this year renamed DangerousPanda) started multiaccounting in July 2012 as EatsShootsAndLeaves in reaction to Jimbo's request to give up the bit and and endeavoured to obscure to the absolute maximum that the two accounts were connected. Editors objected, including me, and ES&L decided to delete one of my objecting comments calling it "vandalism", which would have been one thing, but the real offence in my books was the edit warring over another comment signed by me with respect to whether that comment, MY comment, said what HE wanted it to say or whether my comment said what *I* wanted it to say. In an effort to justify this interference with another's person's comment, he then falsely claimed my comment had been replied to. The playing fast and loose with the record is a bigger problem than the notorious incivility in my view.

2) For an example of this admin's sense of judgement, User:Sceptic1954 gets reported for edit warring. ES&L suddenly decides to ignore whether @Sceptic1954 violated 3RR and instead weighs in on the content, calling the complainant's content "crap." The background here is that Sceptic1954 was the new incarnation of Hardicanute who had been indefinitely blocked, something that should have been considered before berating an editor for submitting a documented complaint that Sceptic1954 was edit warring. Sceptic1954 later goes on to make 9 reverts in 6 hours, provoking another complaint, and when called on that Sceptic1954 asks readers "to look at the outcome" of the previous complaint, pointing out that "I wasn't warned let alone blocked, in fact I felt vindicated." "Vindicated" and therefore feeling emboldened to take disruption to new heights, because instead of cautioning Sceptic1954, E&SL had pointed the finger exclusively at Sceptic1954's complainant. Even Bbb23 had to admit that, finally, the "edit-warring [by Sceptic1954] was egregious and against so many editors I lost count", a substantial reversal from the previous time when Bbb23 declared that "ES&L is absolutely right" to leave aside the question of whether Sceptic1954 violated 3RR and instead make an issue about the content introduced by the party complaining about Sceptic1954. The point being that a good admin is not caught out calling a dispute in one side's favour (only criticizing one party to the dispute) with that favoured side later committing egregious violations that can no longer be ignored because a good admin has done the homework necessary to figure out who is the real problem editor. An editor was kicked off the project, comes back under a new name, gets reported to an admin noticeboard, and there gets "vindicated" by E&SL/DP so that s/he can continue cause grief for other editors until, finally, the offender is back on the noticeboard guilty of violations that can no longer be waved away. If anyone was truly "vindicated" at the end of this, it was the admin who banned Sceptic1954 indefinitely back when known as Hardicanute, NOT the admin who gave the returning offender a new lease on life by declining to weigh in on the edit warring or behaviour infractions (as opposed to content infractions) that's supposed to be an admin noticeboard patroller's primary job. DP often makes some observation, typically contemptuous, that is of questionable relevance such that the discussion or decision process is steered into an unproductive direction.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda:: I should think that if you truly felt "...a fellow admin [was] putting my family at risk..." then you would have been sensitive to the safety concerns expressed by other editors as opposed to telling an editor concerned about a possible stalker "you have a fan. Feel blessed.". Never mind that policy (re "a username that implies a relationship with an existing editor") was also clear that this dismissive remark was not appropriate. In a similar vein (username issues) were your (I believe subsequently oversighted) comments about the "Jailbait" user, no?
As for your multiaccounting being authorized, I find your two accounts remarkably interchangeable, for example, DP declares "I'm about 30 seconds away from making an IBAN moot by blocking [you]", ES&L then soon appears in the same thread with a "Do let us know when you decide to start being helpful, rather than disruptive, mmmkay" remark to another editor. In this thread, DP refers to the "consensus above", with E&SL's "...might have started off with good intentions, but they left that cake out in the rain long ago" comment given as part of that "consensus". E&SL then jumps back into the thread with a specific proposal for action against the user in question and gives an immediate "Support as exhausted voice of sanity" vote to his own proposal. DP subsequently makes a further comment and then E&SL, until finally DP appears one last time to raise E&SL's proposal to "Perhaps a topic ban and an interaction ban are too little." Meanwhile, WP:MULTIPLE says "multiple accounts may not be used to comment on proposals or requests..."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jni:: If you’d like to contend that you’re cleverer than I am, allow me to concede that right off so as to render it pointless to continue to "wink" at the adequacy of my education. If, however, you’re truly interested in logic allow me to point out that I objected to your contingent statement as the contingent statement it was; I did not first convert it to a necessary statement and then complain that you had rendered it a logical impossibility for a non-admin to enjoy the same privilege. My "conclusion" did not have the "cannot" in it you say it did. Your line of contention here is similar to someone announcing that “Members of the ruling class are to be given the following privilege” and then when that is objected to, replying “Did I say that a non-member can never, in a million years, enjoy the same privilege?” The retort of the complainant would then be, indeed, you did not say never, but that is not the problem, the problem is discriminating frequently enough to believe one's warranted in being exclusive instead of inclusive when talking about who should be granted the privilege. To be clear: I am not opposed to admins have privileges. I am rather opposed to admins claiming privileges that the community has not agreed to grant. You would not find me complaining if what was claimed were clearly indicated in community written policy.

As for “building the encyclopedia”, when I noted that one does not need the bit to advance that priority objective you’re calling on us to get back to, I did not exclude the possibility that there are other reasons, lower priority reasons according to what your comment implied, for holding the bit.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jusdafax[edit]

It was not difficult to see this coming, as I said in my oppose in Dangerous Panda's successful Rfa back in 2010. Now the subsequent years of controversy are ArbCom material, and I strongly urge that you take the time to sort through this matter by taking the case. It appears to me, particularly after reviewing the material presented here, that this editor has indeed proven themselves notably unsuited to be an admin, overall, despite making some brilliant use of the tools on occasion that I fully endorse. However, it is the long-term and well documented abusive behavior that I am concerned about here. The health of the editing community is at risk, in my view. Jusdafax 09:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by probably uninvolved John Carter[edit]

Simple and straightforward. Follow Floq's advice above. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

I am neither here nor there on whether ArbCom should take this case. I do want to speak up about following disingenuous lines by BW/DP/ESAL, however: "It's well-known that I was forced to change my username - once. Where I used to go by my real name, a member of Wikipediocracy called my home after social-engineering my phone number from the subject of an article I once wrote. I take the safety and security of my family as paramount (hence me spending part of the day yesterday at the emergency unit with my mother-in-law)." The clear intimation is that the first pseudonym was a "real name," which according to several people in the know about such things at WPO is asserted not to be the case, thus this testimony is quite possibly untruthful.The assertion that a home phone was discovered by "social-engineering my phone number from the subject of an article I once wrote" is nonsensical, not to say ludicrous. The claim that a Wikipediocracy poster made telephone contact is an unproven bogey: does DP have a diff for having filed a complaint about that? This strikes me as a transparent attempt to garner sympathy through misdirection, casting aspersions upon others. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil[edit]

I don't have much to add to everything above, but I urge the committee to immediately take on this case, suspending any action beyond that until DP's return to regular editing. I think there's enough issues raised here that some form of review is required, if only to clear the air around DP's conduct so that he can move on. I think that RFC/U is unlikely to be anything more than a waste of time in this particular instance, what's needed is a more formal process where legitimate concerns about misuse of the tools can be sifted out from general whining and complaining from the peanut gallery. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)}11:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather[edit]

I came out of retirement simply to add my support for considering whether or not DangerousPanda is fit for admin duties. These were the actions which made me question his suitability.

• This comment: "ArbCom has already said that saying 'cunt' is not blockable. Calling someone a 'cunt' would be. Already discussed, already determined. You might disagree, but you have neither policy nor ArbCom on your side, and this little non-policy-based tantrum isn't going to change it."[5] (emphasis mine)
• And this discussion on his talk page, which I started after he made the preceding the comment. Link, please

Now, I am resuming my retirement. Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky Caldron[edit]

I am semi-retired but maintain a passing interest. If Arbcom declines this case I believe that the community might as well give up any hope that the type of behaviour justifiably complained about here is capable of being addressed by the structures intended to address it. Ever. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (DP)[edit]

@Worm That Turned: You say the only place where administrators can be actually held to account is at Arbcom, actually the community can block or ban them, can impose Ibans, Tbans and any other sanctions they wish. Moreover there is no reason to suppose that a widely discussed community consensus to de-sysop would not be acted upon by the appropriate functionaries.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Kurtis[edit]

It's no secret that I've had concerns with DangerousPanda's conduct going as far back as 2012, as can be seen here. At this point, the question isn't whether or not DangerousPanda acts in good faith — he does, and that's not in dispute. What we must ask ourselves is if he's suited for being an administrator. To be honest, I'm really not convinced that he has the temperament for the job. A thorough review is needed here.

For those arguing against accepting a case to examine the issues raised due to the lack of a comprehensive user conduct RfC, consider that your position no longer carries any real relevance to dispute resolution as we will soon know it: RfC/U is about to be retired as a community process. Declining a full case will just kick it further down the road. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved jni[edit]

This is tempest in a teapot. There is no pattern of repeated admin tool misuse or WP:INVOLVED behavior. Instead this is the usual WP:CIVIL hypocrisy complaint, where every tattletale busybody, that always tries to get people blocked or de-sysopped, has started whining the old "this admin was naughty to someone" mantra. DP is called "barker at a county fair" on this very page, his RfA back in 2010 is commented on, and there are users who are making statements here taunting/baiting him in his talk page ([6]) during this case. Only real issue seems to be a single dubious block and the Eric Corbett unblock that was poorly received by community, rest is the usual petty drama-board whining about admin not being civil enough to every troublesome user. I did not inspect the block of Btbb or the EC affair in great detail (why they are not even participants to this arbitration?), but overall this is quite similar to the Hex case: [7]. I suggest reviewing that one and resolving this similarly.

Some of the WP:CIVIL criticism is very old and was already handled by ArbCom in [8]. If this case is accepted, I recommend committee to squash all evidence that refers to events that happened before closing the previous, declined attempt of arbitration. Admins are allowed for statute of limitations, and are not required to explain or offer mea culpas for something that happened two years ago, when someone questions their current actions. Maybe then we can simply close this case with two simple statements: "1) DP is admonished for using the administrator tools improperly in haste and should research the situation more carefully before any blocks/unblocks of established users, save for cases of obvious vandalism and spam" and "2) DP is reminded about WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMINACCT" ...or something along those lines. Maybe DP could voluntarily agree to avoid any non-obvious use of the admin's block tool for a duration of six months or so? I see little need for a full Arb Case, a motion could do. Then we can all go back to doing what we should be in first place, building the encyclopedia itself. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdell555: You are just denying the antecedent multiple times, and therefore your conclusions:

If I am an admin, then I can have statute of limitations for my actions.

I am not an admin

Therefore, I cannot have statute of limitations for my actions.

and:

Admin DP is interested in building the encyclopedia itself.

One doesn't need the admin bit to do that.

Therefore, DP does not need the admin bit.

are fallacious. (Don't they teach this stuff to guys who have university degree in philosophy anymore? :wink:) Furthermore, Btbb or EC was not blocked/unblocked for reason that occurred in distant past, and therefore DP's admin action was not incorrect on that ground (but might have been invalid for some other reason). jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved Wee Curry Monster[edit]

I realise my comments are likely to fall on deaf ears but I would urge arbcom not to step in prematurely and take on another case they never should have. This would not be the first time arbcom has taken on a case against an admin who has attracted criticism. The very nature of taking on the role of admin means you will be villified by editors who disagree with your decisions. The rarefied atmosphere of arbcom means that such disputes become sharply polarised.

Were this an admin who had not responded to criticism and modified their behaviour I would not complain, however, this isn't the case. This editor has modified their behaviour and adapted the way they respond.

We also have an admin prepared to make the difficult calls and nip disruptive behaviour in the bud and speak in a straight forward manner. This is something I've had personal experience of and I for one appreciate that a direct word in the right place can put an editor back on the right track. [9] WCM_email 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole[edit]

There is no doubt in my mind that Panda has the best interests of the project at heart, but his imperious and often insulting treatment of those he blocks (or declines to unblock or threatens to block) combined with his too-frequent lapses in judgment when blocking and a blunted ability to admit mistakes leaves me thinking his enthusiasm for this project would be more profitably employed in areas not involving the block button. If you decide to act in this instance I hope you will consider asking Panda to put aside the block button. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww[edit]

People seem to have this notion that being kind to disruptive editors is a part of an admins job description. Perhaps that's part of why it's so hard to be rid of them. If someone will show me examples of DP being short with editors, I'll pay attention. The examples I have seen so far have been expressions of frustration towards people intent on disrupting the project.—Kww(talk) 11:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]