This user has opted out of talkbacks

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. the panda ₯’

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have a problem with you continuing to hold tools, I really don't. You, like I, seem to have a hot temper when set off (something not ideal for an administrator with a functioning block button, obviously) but I haven't noticed a spate of problems in the last year and have heard from someone off wiki that you are making a good faith effort to mellow things out. Credit for that, and I mean that most seriously. At this point, however, it looks like ArbCom is going to take the case. I suggest that it would be best to avoid a Six Week Hate, in which every enemy you have ever had dredges up diffs for every mistake you have ever made and with malicious glee stabs you with them. It makes political sense to me to simply resign tools "under a cloud" (as the expression goes) and to live a happy life as a Wikipedian without the tool box. (It is actually quite liberating not to be an administrator and not to have any aspirations of becoming an administrator, frankly). This is much better than the other strategy, fighting it out and maybe keeping tools, maybe not, but being mauled by an ugly lynch mob in the process and poisoned towards the project. Its a hard step, I know, but in the long run I think you will be much happier (and the project will be much stronger for having you as a continued contributor). Then, several years from now, if it's really that important to you to regain buttons (although it should not be, really), just run the RFA gauntlet again. Anyway, that's the way I'd play it if I were in your situation. best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) /// Carrite (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Oddly enough, I've never used tools when "angry" - so maybe that's one thing on my side :-) the panda ₯’ 23:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 3, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Please remember, my in-laws are visiting from halfway around the other side of the planet, and I have limited time on Wikipedia the panda ₯’ 23:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at a few of the accusations, just out of curiosity and to learn how the wiki operates. It seems like in nearly every case I reviewed, you're only in attack-mode after you've been attacked. Have you considered some form of wiki-representation to help you respond? (Is that even wiki-permitted?) Djcheburashka (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are expected not to respond in kind to hostility. I think that Dangerous Panda should make a serious commitment to that principle, or if he does not want to, he may choose to contribute to Wikipedia in some other capacity, rather than serving as an administrator. On Wikipedia each user is expected to represent themselves; we don't have lawyers or agents here. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: I have already expressed my sincere commitment to that principle to you directly, and repeatedly elsewhere. the panda ₯’ 11:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Panda. I've been looking over the evidence and see that the first two points from Kurtis' evidence were discussions in 2012 between you and I. I'd honestly forgotten both of them. I don't believe I have any need to recuse from the case, but I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. I'm happy to leave it to the other arbitrators depending on your opinion. Worm^TT(talk) 09:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Dave, my in-laws leave this week end, I'll be able to review and comment upon what's been said early next week. I'm honestly not even sure what I'm supposed to do in an Arb case! Thanks for your patience. the panda ₯’ 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DP, the evidence submission for the case closed today, the drafting arbitrators are willing to grant a brief extension for you to rebut the evidence which has been submitted if you ask for it in a timely manner. However they intend that the case will progress on schedule. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DP. It might be in your interest to take the opportunity to respond. The evidence is significant though not open-and-shut. (The best organized summary is perhaps in the page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence/RFCU). The most significant thing (to me) is your over-the-top rhetoric in some cases, for instance here. Callanecc said that you can provide rebuttal. I assume this means you can make a response at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. I don't see much chance of progress unless you're willing to make a concession that some things you did weren't a good idea. Why not ask User:Callanecc what section to respond in. It would be hard to be an admin and not make *any* mistakes. You might also make some promise on how you intend to use your multiple accounts in the future. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved in the case, or even really watching it, but I think it would certainly make sense for you to do what Ed suggests above. No one who has ever seriously considered being an admin, let alone anyone who has ever been one, honestly expects them to be perfect in all of their behavior. I have never gotten the impression that ArbCom tries to necessarily hold all admins to the standard of perfection. I have every reason to believe that any input you offer would be very seriously considered by the arbs and could very easily have a significant impact on their decision. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Panda, I agree with Ed. Drmies (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I think it would be s shame if ArbCom felt the need for drastic sanctions against you due to the absence of a response and clarification from you. IMO you're too good an admin for the project to lose you. (I believe that even if the Evidence section is closed, you can make your points in the Workshop.) BMK (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you all leave your thoughts in the Workshop? How many admin actions has DP done? Check the logs and count 'em. What percent of these actions have been criticised in the case? Is that an acceptable error rate? DP, are you so fed up with NE Ent hounding pursuing you that you are too nauseated worn down to respond? Does NE Ent have a history of hounding pursuing other administrators? These are all questions that should be addressed. I want to see both sides of this dispute presented effectively so there can be a fair result. Leaving the accusers to say whatever they like un-refuted is a mistake. Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although NE Ent is, technically, an editor of Wikipedia, it has been a long time since he has been a contributor in any meaningful sense. He is, in fact, a free-rider, using Wikipedia as a debating club and a social experiment for his own political and philosophical concerns. I'm sure he believes that his behavior is useful to the project in some fashion, but we have far, far too many NE Ents around here, and would do well to redirect their energies into actually improving the encyclopedia; if that's not possible, they should be gotten rid of.

    One step towards redirecting them would be to start eliminating some of the large number of places which enable these folks to shirk actual editing in favor of social engineering. Another might be to institute some sort of quid pro quo whereby participation in those forums is dependent on a certain level of encyclopedia improvement.

    Certainly, what we should not be doing is rewarding the free-riders' lack of value to the project by taking them seriously when they unnecessarily cause problems for editors who actually contribute to the encyclopedia. When real contributors disagree with other real contributors, those are conflicts which deserve the energy and attention of the community to resolve; when free-riders like NE Ent are in conflict with real contributors, they should not expect to be given the time of day, which just encourages further shirking. BMK (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]