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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

This is a hard-working, well-meaning volunteer who repeatedly and unrepentantly misjudges blocking, block threats, and block appeals. His tone is often brittle, insulting and patronising. The least harmful and most effective measure here would be to (1) tell him not to use or threaten to use the block button, and (2) warn him to respect the basic human dignity of those with whom he interacts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points but unless DP engages with this case, shows that he understands the concerns and earnestly says he will do better, I think it will end badly. If he's said things of this sort elsewhere, it would be wise to repeat them here, now, and with feeling. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These things are far too stressful and often humiliating for the target, and I don't blame anyone for ignoring them. The committee is quite capable of assessing this fairly straightforward case without the Panda's involvement, and coming to a constructive, well-targetted resolution. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Anthony, but I'm with Jehochman here in thinking that we (well, they) need to hear from the Panda. Drmies (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? (I should add that these events wouldn't be nearly as awful if the committee started using more nuance than simply desysop/free pass when dealing with admins. I haven't seen a more apt case than this one for targeted, limited tool restriction in recent years.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous suggestion, Anthony. DP has been free and liberal with public (WP noticeboards and Talks) threats, patronising insults, and belittlement of reg editors for years, yet you want to exempt him from any public humiliation himself. (Duh. Add to it, he is ADMINISTRATOR and thus clearly at all times has known his behaviors were way out of line, necessarily meaning his actions were intentional and that he just didn't give a fuck.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm convinced by DP's behaviour here that a complete desysop is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criticisms of the recent GGTF case was that it focused entirely on the negative aspects and thus some context was lost which might have been helpful to a casual observer wishing to understand the end result. In that vein, might it be good to recognise DP's many good admin actions over the years? I'm not making an argument against the desysop, merely suggesting that you add in an FoF recognising that he's made (according to WP:ADMINSTATS) 8241 admins actions, most of which were uncontroversial—ie not everything he did as an admin was terrible. I don't think there's any harm in recognising somebody's good work, even if you are about to sanction them, and it potentially adds useful context for those reviewing the final decision in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a very fair suggestion and a helpful one. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate your comment HJ Mitchell; and endorse its sentiments.—John Cline (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very short of time at the moment but if you'd care to draft something appropriate, @HJ Mitchell:, I'll certainly add it to the PD,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good idea:

• It doesn't advance the mission of the project (i.e. it doesn't improve mainspace).
• Any thorough future reviewer of the case will find the initial RFCU explicitly stipulated: There can be no doubt DP cares about Wikipedia and has spent a good amount of time of doing admin scutwork. To be fair, his blunt, direct approach is often efficacious with newer but misguided editors..
• The proposed decision, by listing the expected behavior as principles and using the phrasing has occasionally shown a lack (emphasis mine) in the first finding, implicitly indicates the usual case was that DP's actions were beneficial to the project.
• The current decision is tightly focused and properly leaves the larger community issues, which are, of course, outside the remit of the committee, to the community. This has resulted in a relatively orderly case process, especially as compared to recent cases (e.g. GGTF, GamerGate). Adding unnecessary superfluous statement is likely to open a can of worms which will benefit no one. NE Ent 14:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I find much wrong with NE Ent's comment, I will omit my objections for the sake of brevity and to avoid needless argumentation. I agree that it doesn't make sense to "Thank" DP for his service while sanctioning him. ArbCom did that once before (Tony Sidaway) and was lampooned extensively. One would think they'd be smart enough not to repeat that mistake. If DP's service was so beneficial, one would think that ArbCom would simply suspend his adminship for some length of time, say 3-6 months, to give him a chance to regain perspective and then let him demonstrate through actions whether he would follow the advice given. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting ArbCom thank him, per se, but that they recognise that not all of his judgement calls were terrible. I think it's proportional and appropriate, and it heads of questions like "why wasn't he desysopped earlier"/"how did he become an admin in the first place", as well as attempts to impeach particular actions on the basis that it was DP who made it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: While a strong track record does not excuse poor judgement or misconduct, DangerousPanda has been an administrator for almost five years during which time he has logged over 8,000 administrative actions, most of which did give cause for concern? Probably needs some tightening but I think it makes the point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "most of which did not"? Also, "most of which" means 4,001 or more. Vague & limited value therefore. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After flipping through all the diffs and looking through DP's history, I've noticed that he has never been "strongly admonished" or otherwise sanctioned by the committee, unless I missed something. While I'm not trying to defend DP's actions, I feel like jumping straight to desysopping might be a little too extreme. Since most of his problems seem to be with the block button, why doesn't the committee just say that he cannot use it except in obvious cases (such as blatant vandalism.) The thing is, face the fact that admins desysopped by ArbCom have an almost 0% chance of realistically getting it back, so I'm of the opinion that desysopping by the committee should be reserved for only the most serious cases. --Biblioworm 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point, but it is complicated. First, there are some real problems and they are plentiful, no doubt about that. There is the fact that DP is a very active admin, so it is expected you see more mistakes; it is the ratio that matters, and his ratio is a problem, but not quite as bad as the evidence might suggest. That doesn't water down the findings, it is just a fact. In this case, it is the specific types of errors that are most worrisome, blocks and to a lesser degree, civility. In a way, this punishes highly active admin, but those are the breaks. Desysopping is a very strong remedy, perhaps too strong, just as an admonishment is way too weak. In other words, every option is a bad option. I don't think we can make "half-admin" out of someone, telling them not to block. Either the community trusts you to be an admin, or they don't. It has traditionally been seen as a binary thing.

From the start, I knew this would be a borderline case that could have gone either way. The one person who could have changed the outcome was DP and he chose not to participate. WP:ADMINACCT really doesn't allow that, an admin must participate when his actions are being questioned (particularly at Arb, who speak for the community as a whole). Without laboring it, lets just say that "good faith" has been stretched to the breaking point here. It's sad that he chose this path, as I like DP on a personal level, even while being critical of some of his actions. In the end, I can't really argue against the remedy here. Farmer Brown 2¢ 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC) (dennis)[reply]

More or less agree with the above. If there were any sort of middle ground between desysoping and admonishment, I'd love to see someone point it out to me, and I mean that very sincerely, but I don't think that telling a sysop he cannot use one of the few functions which are really unique to being a sysop makes sense either. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been admonished by the ArbCom before, that's true, but he was admonished by several editors and Jimbo Wales in 2012. As a result, he took a 6 months break from using admin tools and made the the secondary account EatsShootsAndLeaves. Most, if not all, evidence of this case is after that admonishment. The very same long-term incivility has continued after being given the "second chance". --Pudeo' 17:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point that he has received feedback about these issues before. It's the message that's important, not whether it comes from a noticeboard, Jimbo Wales, or ArbCom. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to come out and say what I've felt this whole time, despite my reluctance in doing so — I do not think a desysop is excessive in this case. First of all, the suggestion that there has been no real misuse of the sysop toolset is demonstrably false. Anyone who believes this to be the case ought to closely review the evidence presented by MrX, Pudeo, and myself. There are numerous occasions where blocks were applied with little in the way of prior notice, and on at least one occasion for no real reason at all. But the biggest issue here isn't a few problematic blocks; it is his response to criticism, and in particular his unwillingness to admit when he's wrong, that casts doubt over whether he has the temperament for the job. To say that the evidence presented in this case is almost entirely trivial is to minimize the integrity of several ordinary editors who've been victims of his needless aggression and condescension. At a bare minimum, they deserve to have their dignity respected. I disagree with Dennis's assessment that this was going to be a "borderline case". Much as I had wanted ArbCom to consider alternative options, I sensed right from the onset that this case would likely end with DangerousPanda being desysopped. I do not like saying these things. I strongly supported his successful RfA in 2010. I've always considered him an asset to Wikipedia. Not everyone who is of tremendous value to the encyclopedia is suited to being an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the link is as soft as WTT says in his comment -- after all, "Dangerous Panda" is a direct reference to the joke where the punchline is "eats shoots and leaves". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'softness' of the link refers to the link from DP to ESL being an explicit link on the user page (in the section 'Alternate Account Listing' - though not at the top of the page) and the link from ESL to DP being a piped link stating 'someone with tens of thousands of edits' (i.e. the username DP is not explicitly visible). Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time "dangerous panda" wasn't his username, iirc. The only link was a piped one hidden in a user box on his user page, it wasn't obvious. A number of editors took issue with that at the time. Worm^TT(talk) 08:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a systemic failing of our bureaucracy is the misnomer that solutions only exist at the peripheral extremes of a given scenario. In this case, we are to believe the transgressions of DangerousPanda should either be admonished with suggestions of wise and proper actions, or they are cause to desysop the man because he has never shown competence, or an endearing thing, in all of his time as an admin. The truth is that neither recourse is truly appropriate. And I am dismayed that some form of probation hasn't been devised; I am not surprised however.—John Cline (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less indicated above some of the same thinking. However, there is really no middle ground between removing someone's ability to block and not removing someone's ability to block, and the ability to block is ultimately one of the primary functions that an admin has. In a world with a set number of clearly identified options, asking for options which are not among the set number is kind of pointless, just like saying that making the fifth suit in a standard deck of playing cards the trump suit doesn't actually do much good either. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise known as a false dicotomy. (Yes, I've done a bit of logic study.) --Biblioworm 01:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting is an abstention, is it not? What then is "unanimous support, no majority to pass"? Those who do not vote are abstaining from voting, are they not? Carrite (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The voting isn't done yet, so the implementation notes are a work in progress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of the arbitrators marked active (top of this page) is needed for a proposal to pass (7 for this case), if they wish to abstain from a particular proposal they need to sign in the "abstain" list for that proposal (or be marked as inactive or abstain for the whole case). So in other words, if they don't vote (but are active on the case) they oppose by default. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: some members of coming are not "not voting" such much as waiting to provide DangerousPanda every opportunity to respond before closing the case. NE Ent 01:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't even understand what this sentence (?) is trying to say for all the typos. Can you please correct it so it's intelligible? 107.77.76.119 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's basically saying that it looks like some of the arbs are giving DP a chance to comment before they vote, like Carcharoth. However, if his refusal to comment lasts much longer, there is a very real chance that they will likely vote without any input from him. I think that's what he's saying, anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on explicit statements by some committee members, and the voting patterns of others, it's my inference the committee members who have not yet voted aren't intending not to vote at all, but rather are waiting to provide DangerousPanda every opportunity to respond before closing the case. NE Ent 22:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jehochman[edit]

Question from HJ Mitchell[edit]

• Why not suspend his adminship now, resolve the case at a pace that suits both ArbCom and DP, and then reinstate his adminship or make the desysop permanent at the conclusion? There's precedent for that (though I can't remember where), and it resolves the immediate concerns while allowing DP an opportunity to defend himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just desysop him and let him reapply? Why would it be so awful for him to return to having only just exactly the same power over others as virtually everyone else? Do you not agree that adminship should be a privilege? No one has any right to that. For it to be legitimate authority, it has to be at the pleasure of the community. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desysops are virtually permanent. Also the case is about admin standards in general, not just DP. Doing this wrong can lead to a lot of ruckus. Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that pretty much my point? Given his record, he would never pass another RfA in front of the whole community. The only way he could possibly be an admin is if ArbCom refuses to act, ignoring a pattern of behavior that's both inconsistent with being admin and would likely have led to a long list of blocks for any ordinary user. For me, the whole question comes down to whether admins can be held accountable. I'm still waiting to find out. Msnicki (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desysops are permanent. Record is irrelevant. No desysopped admin has ever passed another RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 6 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (snark removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I'll grant Everyking, but Carnildo is a spectacularly poor counterexample here: he was resysopped despite not passing his RFA, and there's even an arbcom finding specifically stating it. —Cryptic 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. This is a truly interesting case. I had not seen evidence before that ArbCom intended desysopping "as a temporary measure". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is aware of this difficulty, but is caught in a quandary: something needs to be done in the case of administrators who violate basic policies, but it is unwise to permanently lose the services of valuable volunteers if they are willing to reform. The alternative to subjecting the former administrator to an RfA is review of the decision to desysop them.

• HJ, I'd have opposed a case suspension because it is bad for the project if administrators can mess around a body that is supposed to be the final decision-maker. Also, we were repeatedly told by DP that he would respond to our concerns shortly. I have little sympathy for the "perpetual mañana", be it honest or not. AGK [•] 13:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Newyorkbrad[edit]

Speaking for myself and not necessarily for any of the other arbitrators, the primary question on which I would like to hear from DangerousPanda is, if he were to continue as an administrator, what, if anything, would he do differently in the future from what he has done in the past. This could include addressing the threshold for blocking as well as his style in responding to editors' comments and criticisms. I am not at all concerned with where on the arbitration pages DangerousPanda posts his answer (as long as we can find it), but with its contents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I think you would find that throughout 5 years as an admin (and almost 9 years as an editor) that 98%+ of my interactions are civil. You'll find that in the case of my blocks my threshold is usually very high - I typically put a heck of a lot of thought into the correct way forward. I've never been proud of implementing any block whatsoever, but yes, there are 2 recent(ish) blocks that I can think of (perhaps 3) that I'm tremendously "unproud" of. One being the PumpkinSky block - it's one that I got wrapped up in a series of events that led to the completely wrong conclusion and thus wrong action. I have apologized numerous times both on and off-wiki on that one. I earned and deserved my knuckles rapped on that one. Another recent one was Lecen - again, vast apologies, even noted in my unblock. The saddest part about that one was that I was actually acting on exactly what my colleagues had agreed on at the time, not knowing that they had changed their minds due to a change in the situation - they simply had not expressed that change in mind anywhere on -wiki yet. So, I found myself in a bad spot - making a block that a few hours before would have been considered "good and as per consensus" to "what the hell was he thinking". I have already expressed that I will completely back away from making blocks in ArbEnforcement ... after all, Sandstein does a good job taking all the flack for AE blocks :-) ... obviously better than I. If one reads the AE talkpage surrounding that specific incident, it should be noted that my response to criticism was impeccable - I learned, asked questions, got multiple types of answers, and then acted based on the discussion, and as noted, learned some more. My sole "angry" moment was related to the use of my previous username, which the OP on that topic redacted and apologized for. Really, those 2 blocks are ones that I have truly prostrated myself at the feet of those editors. Before this Arb was even filed, I was in extensive discussion on my talkpage and elsewhere. I was provided a great deal of positive advise, which I clearly articulated that I would not just endeavour to to implement, but I promised to actually read AND implement the advice provided. Of course, having been away for over a month, I have not yet had the chance to prove to anyone that I am fulfilling that promise. Will I tighten up my block threshold even more? Darned right ... perhaps even back away from AN/3RR again, as it's often a bit of a cesspool of its own.

The key aspects here are that I have always responded to APPROPRIATE critique well - whereas I have rarely responded to "inappropriate" (i.e. false words, putting words in my mouth) critiques very well. Reality is that we have to take the good (critiques) with the bad (critiques), and I must not only resolve to reply to both calmly, but actually put it into motion. One of the pieces of advice I was given just over a month ago was to take my time replying - don't get sucked into replying right away (possibly with an angry tone) ... good advice, and advice that I have not yet been able to implement.

The real reality is that the RFC/U never should have been deleted. I learned a lot about myself, and what others a) thought about me, and b) perceived about me. I found that many people's perceptions did not meet with my own view of myself. I endeavoured to change that, as perception is more powerful. So really, the RFC/U process did achieve its goal of changing behaviour, but nobody took the time to wait and see if that change had actually occurred before filing this Arb case. Pity. the panda ₯’ 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And here's an example of how you had changed, only three days before NE Ent opened the request for arbitration for no reason at all. Or maybe not. Msnicki (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Writing here for the record) I find this response unsatisfactory. You are spectacularly missing the point that, as an administrator, you are expected to have the maturity to rise above "inappropriate criticism". Have you never met an unreasonable person in real life? You are surely capable of living with a little more humanity than the binary attitude to conflict that you describe here. AGK [•] 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from unregistered user[edit]

In order to facilitate case management I suggest the committee or clerks have DangerousPanda, and parties responding to him, comment in unthreaded sections following the WP:ARCA protocol. NE Ent 12:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could just have the conversation they need to with DP and the peanut gallery could butt out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The peanut gallery consists of more than just the peanuts that give voice to their frustrations. Some of us "peanuts" would rather not get involved but are very interested in the process and the outcome. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case this is relevant: [7]. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a timeline of events would be helpful to ArbCom in determining how to handle this return to editing; with so many explanations given for the absences, it's easy to lose track.

• 18 October RFCU filed by NE Ent
• 21 October Jehochman (J) deletes RFCU
• 21 October DP tells J he’ll review concerns in deleted RFCU, but refuses to participate in a new RFCU if it is modified and resubmitted because it would be double jeopardy
• 22 October Mr X starts a thread on DP talk page to address issues
• 22 October DP agrees to discuss with MrX
• 22 October DP says he has to sign off from WP because he has to deal with the shootings in Ottowa as part of his work
• 22 October Msnicki (MN) comments on DP talk page
• 23 October DP posts to his talk page, says he’s only home for change of clothes
• 24 October – 26 October DP makes approx 40 edits, does not engage with MrX or MN further. In the middle of this (25 October) MrX asks if he is ready to re-engage in discussion. There is no response.
• 27 October DP describes having “rare spare time” in last couple of days, tells MN he’ll reply to her soon *if* she will promise to listen to him, asks MrX for patience.
• 27 October – 28 October DP makes approx 13 edits that have nothing to do with MrX or MN
• 29 October DP says he will no longer discuss with MN because of her attitude, tells MrX he will renew discussion with him
• 29 October – 1 November DP makes approx 5 edits that have nothing to do with MrX or MN
• 1 November NE Ent files ArbCom case
• 2 November – 9 November DP does not edit (no on-wiki notice of absence. Note that this is not required, but DP has claimed that NE Ent knew he would be gone before filing the ArbCom case. That does not appear to be true)
• 10 November DP edits ArbCom request page, says he just got in after a trip with his in-laws
• 11 November DP says he’s still tired from trip
• 12 November DP makes a statement on ArbCom request page
• 14 November DP says he was never adverse to a refiled RFCU
• 14 November DP tells MrX he’s back from his trip and mother-in-law is out of hospital, ready to re-engage
• 14 November-16 November MrX doesn’t edit for 3 days
• 17 November MrX replies to DP that, since this is now an ArbCom case request, no sense in discussing it further on DP’s talk page
• 17 November DP says MrX had a right to be away, but by not being around to discuss for 3 days, now he’s the “guy who could have prevented” the ArbCom case
• 19 November ArbCom case accepted
• 19 November DP acknowledges ArbCom case opening, says ArbCom should remember that in-laws are visiting, limited time available. No duration mentioned.
• 20 November – 28 November DP does not edit WP
• 29 November DP logs on from somewhere, leaves message for J. At this point, case open 10 days.
• 30 November – 2 December DP does not edit for 3 days
• 3 December DP replies to an Arb who expressed concern he has not participated yet, says in-laws will leave “this weekend” (6-7 December), and he’ll reply “early next week” (8-9 December). At this point, evidence phase is about to close.
• 4 December – 21 December DP does not edit for 19 days, no on-wiki notice of impending absence. DP says that WTT has known since early in this absence that he would be away this long.
• 22 December DP announces he is back, says he has had zero access to computers, says he’s been taking his in-laws on trip around Canada, expresses shock that ArbCom case has progressed this far, claims to have been very clear about his absences ahead of time, claims people knew he would be unavailable for a month before the ArbCom case was filed, says the RFCU should never have been deleted, and that he has changed his approach to WP based on feedback at RFCU.

I suggest that, rather than resume some kind of ANI-style discussion or negotiation, the Arbs who have not yet voted should accept that DP’s response today is what they have been waiting for, and finish voting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to work this hard anyway, you should have stayed on the damn Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really nobody's business but his. For whatever reason, DP wasn't participating at a time when it would have been desirable for him to have done so, but better late than not at all. (Maybe DP was practicing, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.") DP should be given a chance to respond, and I very much dislike Floquenbeam's assumption of bad faith. This polite mud-slinging should be rejected. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable principle to adopt would be that if an editor repeatedly claims inability to participating in discussions about their Wikipedia privileges, they should be required to prove that that those claims are true. The community should not be expected to believe such an increasingly implausible series of excuses. DP made it the community's business when he claimed that inlaws, travel, hospital visits, internet access issues, lack of computer, inlaws, kevlar, and work prevented him from responding to this case and the discussions that preceded it.- MrX 15:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't in a position to evaluate such claims. A better formulation would be that editors are welcome to participate as best they can, but that we have no ability to verify excuses, and as such, excuses should not be proffered. If real life interferes, that may just be unavoidable bad luck. Although time may be extended as a courtesy, at some point things need to move along and get wrapped up. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you for gleaning the true meaning in my comment: We shouldn't care about excuses, nor should we act on them (ATTN→Arbcom). All users have a right to remain anonymous and be evaluated on the merits of their participation in the project, or lack thereof. What happens in Ottawa, ought to stay in Ottawa.- MrX 15:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is our business and DP made it so when he claimed that NE Ent deliberately filed the request for arbitration knowing DP would be unavailable. That's a pretty serious charge, so Flo wanted to know if it was true. He investigated. It's not true. Further, I'm troubled by a recurrent feature of your posts, that rather than focusing on the evidence, arguments or other comments you dislike, you tend to respond in an ad hominem fashion, questioning the motives, behavior and good faith of whoever's presented them. You've repeatedly done that to me, Flo and NE Ent in recent days. Do you need the diffs or can you take this at face value as constructive criticism? Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think it's worth reminding the Arbs (and everyone else) that all participants in an arbcom case can receive sanctions. Even those who are not the prime parties in the case. Given Jehochman's constant aspersions on other editors, there is still time to stick an admonishment in ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And who exactly are you? As we've never met before, you ought to disclose what prior interactions you've had with me, and which account you were using at that time. Or are you just a rude person who starts out by attacking people you've never spoken with before? Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume he's 86.131.230.115, the IP editor that Beyond My Ken was complaining should have an account. Msnicki (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Mr. Death registered in 2012, but his first edit indicated that he had a lot of prior Wikipedia experience. Apparently he's been doing some good work, so I am taken aback that he'd start attacking me out of the blue. We're having a spirited discussion on this page, so maybe he just forgot to introduce himself. Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. I don't know how I misread that. Thanks for the correction. Msnicki (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is interesting that when suggesting someone should take a hint and not cast aspersions on others, their first response is to look up their editing history, quiz who they are and insinuate they have something to hide. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Jehochman's questioning of bona fides on your talk page, especially the part about "If you are a brave and honorable person", was completely inappropriate. The strength of an argument doesn't depend on who offered it or why – especially here on WP where most of us are anonymous anyway. It depends on the evidence and the logic that supports it. Attack that if you disagree. Attacks on the person because you can't attack the argument are just lame. Msnicki (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your implicit requests, I have restated my comment. Let's not continue this tangent here. Jehochman ^Talk 03:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Msnicki -- the allegation that the filing was timed intentionally during DPs absence isn't a serious charge, it's a farce. To believe that, one would have to believe the following timing of events, which I surely could not have pulled off by myself, so at a minimum it must be a secret conspiracy between Msnicki (second RFCU certifier) and myself: The Barney incident was has become the exemplar for DPs lack of skill was closed on ANI on 10 September. As this would have been too soon, we had to wait about a month for DP to conveniently made a bad block and concurrently tell one editor to shut the fuck and the other to fuck off [9] on 11 October. After pretending to take a week to gather diffs and format off wiki, I posted the RFCU on 18 October [10], having cleverly written it badly enough so it would be deleted about 60 hours later on 20 October [11] ... but not so badly that ~ fifteen people didn't find it worth commenting on. (Or perhaps Jehochman is part of the conspiracy? Good cop, bad cop? Or maybe one of us is a sock?) Then a few days chatting on his talk page, about a day on AN takes to 24 October. Pretend to do something for a week before filing the arbcom cased on 1 November [12] and waiting for the net four vote on 15 [13]. At this time DP made multiple comments on the case request page [14] without ever mentioning their "well-known" unavailability. I pretended to be impatient on 17 November to prolong the illusion, which lead to case opening on 18 November, when I allegedly knew DP would be unavailable for nearly an entire month. NE Ent 01:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am on record as being extremely dismissive of NE Ent's chosen role on Wikipedia, making very few edits in article space, and spending most of his time in Wikipedia space acting as a busybody, self-appointed ombudsman and civility cop, but I have never seen anything from him that would indicate to me that he was less than an honest and honorable person. I'm sure from DP's POV the timing may well look suspicious, but I doubt very much that anything like that happened. BMK (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just look around this talk page. I don't think this additional "process" is helpful at all, quite the opposite even... Thus I agree with Floquenbeam that this should be finished. --Pudeo' 02:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I must confess I'm rather intrigued that we could sit one vote shy of desysopping for 5 days. If indeed it's because those yet to vote are furiously reading and discussing the evidence, that's fine and as it should be. But I'm skeptical. I can't help wondering if some of the ArbCom members are merely hoping someone else will cast the 7th vote so they don't have to be the one to decide. If the non-voters hoped this was job that didn't require making decisions and signing your name to them, it seems to me they might rethink whether they're really up to it. Only the ArbCom has the power to hold admins accountable. If they don't do their job, it doesn't get done. Msnicki (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the dynamic. They are trying to get this right, they want to give DP time enough to state his case, and it won't be nice to close this case on Christmas Eve. Everybody should take a break for five days and come back after the holiday. Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. I was obviously unduly skeptical and for that, I apologize. Thank you, GorillaWarfare. After 3 months, it's finally over and we can do other things again. Merry Christmas to all and to all, a good night. Msnicki (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the others, but most of the time I don't notice if I hold the hallowed casting vote. I just read the evidence and proposed decision, decide what needs done, and vote accordingly. Arbitrators are far too time-stretched to be that politically astute, Msnicki. AGK [•] 13:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that DP has done 8,000 admin actions and that the number of problematic actions is quite small. "Occasionally" is really "in a few isolated instances". The incivility is also a tiny fraction of total communication, which in my long experience interacting with and observing DP, is surprising. I've always found him to be civil, so these handful of cases are also "in a few isolated instances".

DP did explain his actions at the time each was discussed, so it is unfair to say that he didn't satisfy WP:ADMIN. However, a few editors seem to not be satisfied with his explanations. At some point a human is entitled to just walk away and stop arguing. DP seems to have disengaged from the project when it got too stressful. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact, it is a healthy response. Nobody should be made sick over working on this website as a volunteer.

On balance, I am not seeing good enough justification for the decision. Yes, DP has some flaws and made some errors, and I wish things were better, but in total I think the response is disproportionate to the errors. It is enough to identify the mistakes, and ask for an assurance that he understands the problems and will endeavor to improve. DP needs to understand that this is a close call, and that things need to be different, or else next time there might not be a case at all; it may just be a quick motion to desysop.

Maybe I'm a fool for assuming too much good faith. I'm ok with that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If being an administrator endangers himself & his family (according to him), then why doesn't he resign? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The decision comes down to a binary choice, since an admonishment would accomplish nothing. Either endorse DP's behavior by letting him go on his way or remove his tools. That's it. The only flaw I see is permitting this talk page ode to DP to go on for so long. Ignocrates (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a fool, but I don't think your analysis is borne out by the evidence and some of the history that didn't make it's way into evidence. The only question that should be considered, in my opinion, is: would the project be better served if DP did not have admin privileges? As we have seen clear evidence of collateral damage (editors quitting) and disruption directly resulting from some of his decisions and interactions, I believe the answer is yes. I also think that you and a few other folks are assuming too much good faith.- MrX 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all should know that I don't condone DP's behavior. It's really just a question of a proportionate response. I feel that a strong rebuke combined with forgiveness would produce the best result. Editors are welcome to disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know that you don't condone DP's behavior. Banning would be a disproportionate response. Censuring would be a disproportionate response. Removing the admin bit is a pretty mild remedy, and one that permits DP to continue participating in the project with his dignity mostly intact.- MrX 15:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic dishonesty, chronic lying, chronic attempts to manipulate, chronic belittling, chronic condescension, chronic attempts to threaten and intimidate (bullying), chronic WP:IDHT, chronic "Who, me?!" How much would I trust even a single sentence written by the Panda? (Can you spell z-e-r-o?) Panda never should have been promoted to admin. Time to reverse that mistake. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only flaw is in your argument. DP may not be uncivil a lot of the time, but then again, he's not questioned a lot of the time. When he is questioned, he is incivil. You orchestrated a month of discussion on his talk page and yours after you deleted the RFCU. During that whole time, he insisted that this was a perfectly reasonable response. Did you ever hear him retract that claim? Or is it your opinion also that this is yet one more shining example where "DP did explain his actions at the time each was discussed, so it is unfair to say that he didn't satisfy WP:ADMIN"? You apparently thought the problem was just us and that with your superior skills, naturally you could foster constructive dialog with DP. You failed. It did not happen. Not even you were able to get that out of him. Can you admit that, please? If not even you can get him to explain his actions, how do you expect anyone else? Further, I'd still like to know if you ever actually read the evidence. I asked you two weeks ago and never got an answer, which I'm pretty sure means no. So maybe you need to admit you don't even know what the case is about. Msnicki (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki, you have introduced the flaw in your own argument - one that you have repeated again and again, one that ANI said was wrong, yet you still continue to hinge everything on WP:BEFOREBLOCK and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK regarding BarneytheBarneyBarney (BtBB). Here are the facts, they are readable by anyone, and you have been pointed to them many times before:

1. BtBB was performing egregious personal attacks on an AFD
2. Rather than act, Bearcat brought it to ANI, even though WP:INVOLVED probably would not be invoked
3. BtBB had been properly warned to stop his personal attacks
4. BtBB had been previously blocked for similar behaviour, and the purpose of a block is to prevent repeat behaviour
5. Based on the ANI report, I did place the block on BtBB for the duration of the AFD to prevent further attacks
6. That block was confirmed by ANI to be appropriate
7. BtBB continued his attacks against Bearcat on his own talkpage during the block
8. I tried to get BtBB to stop making those attacks, and warned that his talkpage access could be removed if he continued.
9. I also advised BtBB exactly what needed to be done to become unblocked
10. BtBB continued his attacks - and since he kept linking to Bearcat's name, Bearcat was advised through WP:ECHO
11. Bearcat came and explained himself, politely, and properly - there was no baiting.
12. BtBB continued his attacks.
13. I indeffed (which does NOT mean "infinite") and locked talkpage, and advised the ongoing ANI that I had done so
14. After additional discussion on ANI, I removed talkpage lock. The indef was confirmed by ANI

A couple of days later, you arrived on BtBB's talkpage, immediately assuming bad faith. It was clear from your statement that you were unaware that the above steps had occurred. However, these actions and steps have been shown to you multiple times. WP:BEFOREBLOCK and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK have been met a half-dozen times. There is nobody anywhere who does not believe that WP:BEFOREBLOCK and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK have not been met except for you. You persist - even so far as to create "reminders" in your proposed decision. ANI confirmed it twice. It was re-stated on my talkpage. It was re-stated during the RFC/U. What more can anyone do?? the panda ₯’ 16:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to read the evidence and decide for themselves who to believe. If you're going to decide, I hope you actually will read the evidence. As for whether DP will ever change, I rest my case. Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue is a red herring. See my comments below. Jehochman ^Talk 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Upon reflection I think the crux of the matter is that, as noted in FOF 2, in 2012 Jimmy Wales told DP very clearly that using the F-bomb against editors was grounds for immediate removal of admin access and asked him to take a 6 month break from administrating. In 2014 DP reverted to using the F-bomb again against another editor.([15][16] too) The prior warning was crystal clear, and this is the sort of egregious incident that justifies a desysop, even for an isolated incident. Could the decision be adjusted to make clear that the sanction is not for a few occasional lapses in judgment, but for one (or more) egregious incidents of a nature that DP was previously warned about? Jehochman ^Talk 03:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there User:Jehochman - there is and never was such a restriction. Let's not let that false statement gain any traction the panda ₯’ 17:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R 1.1) For egregious violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators,[17][18][19] in violation of a prior warning that such behavior would be grounds for immediate desysopping, DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

I think there are a lot of other issues in the case that don't matter at all. If you just focus on this one thing, the result is justified. Jehochman ^Talk 03:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't include the middle diff -- it uses "fuck", but it's arguably not directed at another editor. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich, Jehochman! (Suggesting to water down to a few "fuck you"s.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings from Jimmy Wales are, in my view, irrelevant. It would matter no more or less if any administrator advised DP about his conduct. More important is simply that DP has a history of conduct unbecoming. AGK [•] 13:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's relevant is that a very specific warning was given, implicitly accepted, and then violated multiple times. Jehochman ^Talk

Could the decision be adjusted to make clear that the sanction is not for a few occasional lapses in judgment, but for one (or more) egregious incidents of a nature that DP was previously warned about? No, because the desysopping is due to DangerousPanda's lapses in judgement. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nopes is not a good edit summary to use, because it is disrespectful and dismissive. In the future, please model the good behavior that you demand of others, please. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arbs, I was just provided with instructions on how to proceed in responding to the proposed remedies YESTERDAY. All votes should be removed and none added while I'm doing this, or else you're clearly a) not following due process, b) not following the instructions I was given by an Arb clerk. This is ridiculous the panda ₯’ 10:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP, it was just an idea on how you can respond in case you were still unsure and since I closed a number of discussions above, after other suggestions from various others (including Salvio on the 22nd). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once Jimbo weighed in you were done. There was no way was this ever going to go towards you retaining the bit. Don't step on the wrong toes! That goes for the rest of you! Fate is fickle. Doc talk 11:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty moralizing. (Jimbo has weighed in on other editors, things didn't go his way.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddup. I'm not talking to you. Go gloat somewhere else. Doc talk 11:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were told that F-bombing other editors would be grounds for an immediate desysop. You decided to touch that electric fence. Don't blame anybody else for the bad result. Just accept it and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show where Panda was under said sanction. Else stop making stuff up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there was no such sanction, period the panda ₯’ 18:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many of you want to see "content creators" who are "foul-mouthed"? And then make them admins? Be honest! Doc talk 12:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DP, it was due process. I hate to see it get to this, but you tied their hands. Even with phone access, you could have come in during the evidence phase, or workshop phase, emailed someone to submit info, volunteered to be temporarily desysopped for a two month delay, etc., but you didn't. I'm still convinced the case could have gone either way had you participated in earnest. To expect any other result when you don't work to be part of the solution is simply unreasonable. We aren't talking about days, we are talking several weeks. I genuinely like you DP, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything you've done, nor what you've said (and refused to say) here. I don't like the result, and even tried to stop the case from going forward in the request phase, but I understand and accept the result. The only person that could have changed the outcome was you, but you didn't show up until it was one vote shy of being done. Quite literally, at the 11th hour. (Dennis) Farmer Brown 2¢ 12:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Due process"? I would have to actually be able to see the case, its evidence and its discussions in order to actually reply to those things. Think logically for a moment Dennis - I cannot reply to that which I cannot see. the panda ₯’ 17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "due process" means "we'll have this case when it is most convenient for you". Due process means, among other things, that you should be given the chance to see the evidence provided by others, rebut it and provide your own. This is chance you were given (this case has been kept open for more than a month!) and chose not to take. The reason why you chose not to participate is completely immaterial, especially in light of the fact that on the 3rd you said that your in-laws were about to leave and that starting the following week you'd be participating. Cases may be delayed owing to a party's absence, but that's only a matter of courtesy, most definitely not an entitlement. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Salvio giuliano, "due process" means, for one thing, that the system bends over backwards to make sure that the proceedings are fair to the subject, and does not railroad them by proceeding without their participation. You have left yourself open to charges of being a kangaroo court, of holding a quasi-judicial proceeeding in absentia, of railroading DP -- and all because you folks couldn't cool your jets for a few more days, and insisted -- in the face of absolutely no evidence to support the contention -- that the case must be closed right now, and not a minute later. The committee's collective behavior has been petulant and unforgiving, and looks that of an authority figure reacting to perceived disrespect. I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed in the behavior of the Committee, and would point out that by not allowing DP the time needed to respond, you haven't put this issue to rest, you've merely set up the conditions for it to continue to fester. If, as AKG says, you're not politicians, all I can say is that you should be -- any good politicians would have been able to predict what their actions would bring about. BMK (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What an embarrassingly absurd characterization of this process. This is not a court where disputants have legal rights. This is a website. DP has had ample opportunity to respond. Any other website would have removed his sysop flag years ago.- MrX 21:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter in the least that you think it's absurd, that is how it's going to be perceived. You cannot set up a system with a bunch of the trappings of Angle-American jurisprudence and not expect most people to think of it in those terms. If one of the roles that ArbCom plays is to "keep the peace" by providing a semblance of fair play in its proceedings, so that the members of the community can go about their real function (editing) without worrying overly about how things are run -- and I think that's reasonable observation -- then they have, in this instance, failed miserably in their roles, and that is because the adjudication of the case is going to be seen as having been unfair. You can certainly disagree, but that's what people are going to think when this is published. BMK (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we'll see how it's perceived in the longer term, but I think you will find that your view is a minority one.- MrX 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: You seem to be under the misapprehension that I chose not to participate in this case. As I had stated to WTT, I was 100% willing and desirous to participate. Just because I can use my Blackberry to send an email, it doesn't mean I can use it to browse Wikipedia the panda ₯’ 18:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda, unless I missed it, your last excuse ran out around December 8 or 9. Where were you for the last two weeks that you did not have internet access via a CPU, and why didn't you email someone, or post a short message via smartphone, to tell us this? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rationalobserver: I emailed an ArbCom member directly. WormThatTurned has known exactly where I was, when I was intending to return, and my desire to be part of the process throughout the entire past month. He advised me that all of ArbCom was aware as well. I have, of course, kept the sequence of emails. As I have said already, I had NOT control over the fact that my in-laws decided to use more of their visitor's Visa ... in fact, I was the last to know, and the even MORE last to know that I had to drive 2 brothers-in-law to NYC in the freezing rain the panda ₯’ 18:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has User:Worm That Turned answered to your insistence that he somehow dropped the ball here? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why didn't you cc all the Arbs for these communications? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, WTT did not drop the ball here; he informed us of DP's excuses, but, after a while, DP's "perpetual mañana" (cribbed from AGK) was considered just a form of foot-dragging. And, again, the reason you chose/were forced not to participate is entirely immaterial. The important thing is that you had the chance to participate. That real life got in the way is just a matter of bad luck. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since DP is asserting that he hasn't had enough time to reply to the evidence, why not ask him how much time he needs? Maybe all he wants is another 72 hours, and it certainly couldn't do much more damage to our resources to give that to him. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: allowing totally false, out-of-context, and downright wrong "evidence" to sit for a couple of weeks poisoned the well before the case was even formally opened. In order to have had a proper "trial", we'd have to start from scratch. But that would require ArbCom to admit out loud what has already been admitted to me in writing: they were pissed at previous admins who had thumbed their noses at ArbCom and chose to push forward no matter what, and make an example out of me. If would force ArbCom to call this one nul and void and start from scratch. It would require ethics and admission of guilt on their part. It would force them to admit that they screwed this one up badly. They didn't even permit me to admit to guilt where appropriate, and propose beneficial ways forward for everyone. You'd think the outgoing ArbCom would be willing to do that since their term ends in mere days ... but then, they'd also have to admit that. the panda ₯’ 20:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to add to the timeline produced by Floq, to point out what I knew and when, and forward my emails to a neutral party if DP wishes. I kept the committee informed, as Salvio said - but unfortunately the dates haven't added up and we are now months into a dispute which should never have taken this long. I should also point out that I am making this comment despite it being Christmas Eve and trying to spend time with my family and in laws. Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know that your in-laws are more important than my in-laws </sarcasm> Mine traveled halfway around the globe and decided to spend extra time with my wife and kids, yet I get accused to giving "excuses" to avoid commenting. Hypocrisy the panda ₯’ 22:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I think this comment pretty much sums up why you are accused of failing to respond appropriately to criticism. Not only was this an unnecessarily hostile and snarky response, but you seemingly didn't even grasp the point that Worm That Turned was making. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you completely missed my point User:Psychonaut - my comment was certainly not a slag on WTT, nor was it hostile. In fact, I was confirming that he made my point pretty well for me the panda ₯’ 11:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how the Arbitrators square their perceived need that this case be closed very quickly (in my observation faster than most ArbCom cases) with or without DP's participation with the fact that two other Arb cases, which were opened before this one, sit in apparent abeyance, with little or no action on them evident? BMK (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because when someone tells you they won't be around, it's easier to push forward and close it, obviously  :-) the panda ₯’ 20:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DangerousPanda: I must seriously ask, are you attempting to satirise this case? AGK [•] 12:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No AGK, my family left a country because they held trials in absentia then summarily executed the "defendant". I told a sitting arb exactly where I was throughout the process ... I do not control how long my in-laws stay in Canada, nor do I control when my 2 brothers-in-law decide they want a ride to NYC. Because I that, I took the due-diligence step of informing ArbCom throughout the process, assuring them that it was, indeed, my goal to respond to all evidence and accusations the panda ₯’ 17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to laugh at the irony that Jehochman deleted the RfC/U on procedural grounds, presumably in hopes of helping DP avoid scrutiny, but now it appears as though the RfC/U was DP's last opportunity to retain his tools. Indeed, had it been allowed to continue to proper resolution it might have saved DP from this Arbcom case! Civility warriors got an early Christmas present here, so thanks to all who participated, particularly those who helped to derail the RfC/U (you know who you are)! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't laugh and don't presume. I deleted the RFCU because it was a mess. The Community then deleted the RFCU process because RFCUs are Almost always a mess and cause more problems than they solve. This arbitration was useful; it solved the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've watched this case from beginning to end (partly because I wanted to see an admin conduct review case in action). While I certainly do not agree with what DP has spoken or done before, I can't help but think that this may have been just a bit rushed. In my opinion, a final warning that says something like, "If you make another egregious mistake and speak abusively to a user again, the committee will immediately vote on a motion to desysop, no separate case needed." Or, they could have just restricted DP's use of the block button. I believe that policy states that doing so is an acceptable sanction in some cases. I also must say that I'm not completely convinced by the Barney case. (I watched, and even commented on, that ANI case.) While I do think Floquenbeam's unblock was good, I'm strongly opposed to the seemingly widespred idea that "prolific contributors" should be able to get away with being stubborn and uncivil just because, well, they make good contributions. Although indefinite was on the extreme side, I'm of the opinion that Barney did need some sort of block. I guess that all I just said about civility could be applied to DP, though. --Biblioworm 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rushed? Seriously? I've followed this case as well, and it appears to be 2 1/2 years in the making, with multiple warnings at various venues that DP's ongoing behavior was unbecoming an admin. I think his belated response here set everybody's mind at ease regarding what needed to be done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What's really stupid is that the decision was pushed through right in time to publish the result on Christmas Day. I might be the only marketing/PR person here, but do you all understand how incredibly bad that timing is? Here you go, Mr. Dangerous Panda, longtime contributor and volunteer, we're going to give you a stocking full of coal and a spanking on Christmas Day. It would have been much better to freeze the proceedings for the holiday or when DP explained that he was away, and resumed them when he was able to participate of after 1/1/2015. In fact, it would still be possible to do this. Although the timing is awful, I think that the result is proper, and I don't see that DP is going to suddenly change his tune sufficiently to avoid this same result, but who knows, maybe there will be some sort of epiphany. It's far better to convince somebody to change than to sanction them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's indeed unfortunate that DP had to delay his participation at multiple times for various reasons, as this case could have otherwise concluded considerably sooner.- MrX 21:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to end cases by 12/15, approximately the date when ArbCom results are announced, or if that's not possible, to keep them open until after the holidays. Many editors get very busy prior to Christmas. It's not fair to press them in arbitration while they are trying to wrap things up (figuratively and literally), or packing for vacation, or visiting relatives. For instance, in this case the Committee could have temporarily desysoped pending a case, and told DP to come on in whenever he became free (within reason, say 3 - 6 months maximum). That would have been a smarter way to go. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dennis Brown: "@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)" Rationalobserver (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very reasonable to just tell an admin "don't use the tools" until these concerns are addressed. If you don't have time to engage in the case, you don't have time to use the tools. Am I right? It would be bizarre for an admin to say they couldn't attend arbitration, yet then run around doing admin actions which often require a time-consuming analysis of the matter. If a voluntary suspension doesn't work or there's a real risk, then a temporary desysop could be used. This is not a problem at all; it's not prejudicial; it's procedure. Again, this would only be done when an admin claims unavailability to response to concerns at arbitration. Look, the current case hasn't been handled optimally and that's not anybody's fault, but we are fools if we don't see this and try to make it better in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 22:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Arbs are just being classy; they don't buy his excuses. Seriously, his in-laws and spouse are so demanding that they would not grant him even one hour per day for internet for a stretch of time exceeding 8 weeks? Even when he was supposedly traveling, modern hotels have computers in the lobby, and modern cities have libraries with computer labs. AGF should only extend so far as it's still reasonable, and I think DP has stretched that pretty far. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He need not provide an excuse and nobody else here should opine about the validity. You don't know the true circumstances. In a case with one subject it makes sense to give them more than a month leeway if real life intrudes. The speculation on this page is wrong. Don't try somebody in absentia if it can be avoided. Jehochman ^Talk 23:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, but I wonder what likelihood there would be for a different outcome were the current ArbCom to pass this off to the next one. Also, DP has already stated that the only way to do this right would be to start from scratch, which might not be a bad idea in light of the criticisms, but how exactly could that be accomplished given this case's high-degree of visibility? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the result is correct, and that the result would be the same, but if things were slowed down, there might be less complaining and a greater sense of fairness. There's also a chance, that if the case had been stayed for a month to give DP time to ponder the matter, he might have provided more satisfactory responses to the Committee. What's done is done, I guess. Maybe next time we'll do better. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that just since learning he's about to be desysopped, DP has been busy doing more admin stuff, including declining requests for unblocks, e.g., this one, which he declined stating, As you intend to continue to violate WP:COI - even though you claim to understand it - there is no plausible reason to unblock. But the reason given for the block was, Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing. If I was denied an unblock by an admin who's only hours away from not being an admin and for reasons that don't even seem clearly connected to the stated reason for the block, I think I might be unhappy. I find this behavior from DP very unexpected and very odd. Msnicki (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's consistent with the years long pattern -- I was wrong, Msnicki was wrong, MrX was wrong, IHTSO was wrong, Barney was wrong, Jehocman is wrong, Dennis Brown is wrong, the committee is wrong -- so why should he stop? I'm struck by the "procedural declines" of unblock requests because the blocked editors haven't responded in three days [20]. NE Ent 10:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's been SOP with unblocks for awhile. Nobody else seems to patrol RFUB very often - it's been the one area that builds up whenever I'm away. the panda ₯’ 11:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind not blocking or threatening to block editors or responding to unblock requests while the question of your fitness to act in those roles is being decided? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was struck by that as well. It's Christmas. What if they have in-laws visiting or if they only have a Blackberry and no web access? Msnicki (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP, stop acting out. Whatever defects there might have been in this process, your actions are very much hurting your cause. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman - Please don't treat other adult volunteer editors as if they were children. If Msnicki's notification to the committee was appropriate -- and I'm not saying that it necessarily was -- the committee can approach DP about it; additional commentary, especially that seen here from highly biased editors, is not helpful. BMK (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one really likes having someone try to take a faux higher ground on civility. C.f., 1, 2, 3. Msnicki (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual lack of perception, Msnicki, one would have thought your embarrassing bloodlust (it's not worth going through your contributions for examples, there are so many) would be somewhat satisfied by this time. What Jehocoman said wasn't uncivil, it was presumptive. BMK (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you, too. And one more diff. Msnicki (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a frank assessment of an editor's behavior, which, if I recall, was agreed with by a number of others in an ANI thread -- so you're bringing it up here because you plan to relitigate it as an arbitration case against me? You jonesing for bloodlust? BMK (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The archived ANI discussion BMK is referring to can be found here. Msnicki (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, just 'cause your wikibuddy got (rightfully) taken behind the woodshed and spanked by Arbcom doesn't give you the right to bray about "bloodlust". Maybe you've had enough egg nog for tonight. 173.144.2.153 (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, editor with an account hiding behind an IP to make a critical remark about another editor, no egg nog for me today, I forgot to buy some last night and the store is closed today. Anyway, I have a bad cold, so alcohol wouldn't be a good idea. No, my comments about Msnicki's virulence wasn't triggered by anything except her own behavior. She's been all over this arbitration case, shiping and snapping, and nipping at the heels of both DP and the Committee, making it quite obvious that she wouldn't be satisfied unless the strongest possible sanction was levied again DP. She's been embarrassingly blatant about it, in fact, and "bloodlust" is as accurate a word to describe it as any.

As for DP being a"Wikifriend" of mine - I'd hardly say so. I think of him in a friendly way, sure, because I think he's a good admin, but we've also disagreed, and I think he's been pretty strong in his warnings to me in the past.

No, my objections to the arbitration have to do with the person who brought it, who should not have had standing to do so, the fact that in my experience DP is a good and valuable 'human admin, and the way the case was handled at the end. So.... you're pretty much wrong on all counts, editor with an account hiding behind an IP to criticize another editor. BMK (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could the reason you don't see a problem in DP's behavior be the same reason you don't see a problem in yours, either? Msnicki (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to make a special thanks to NE Ent. Someone in a section above alleged that Mr. Ent was a bit of a busybody. However, I feel quite strongly the opposite. Someone needs to stand up to abusive authorities and protect the "poor and downtrodden" of Wikipedia. I really appreciate Mr. Ent's helpful interventions! 2601:7:1980:5AD:39CE:7482:759F:5705 (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another IP whose very frst edit is a comment here. Hmmmmm. BMK (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]