My complaint is that I think you show poor judgment, make poor choices and produce poor outcomes. I've argued that you were wrong from the start to block Barney rather than warn him. Per WP:BEFOREBLOCK, "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. ... administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking." You never gave him that warning before blocking and you never tried to actually help him. You violated the guidelines.
You were also blind to Bearcat's behavior, defending it when you should have been warning him to stop, else he, too, might face a block. Bearcat behaved like a complete WP:DICK throughout. He promised to withdraw his AfD nomination if sources were provided, they were, by others, and he never did. He had thoroughly lost the argument over his nominating arguments to Barney, then tried claiming he'd meant something else all along. That made Barney angry and he called Bearcat a liar. 29 minutes later and w/o discussion, you blocked Barney. You should have warned, not blocked Barney and should also have reminded Bearcat that admins need to model the behavior they desire and that a thicker skin would really help. Worse, you allowed and then defended Bearcat making posts to Barney's talk page you knew Barney considered provocative while Barney was blocked, a clear violation of WP:IUC, "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves."
On his talk page, Barney tried to explain that he had caught Bearcat in a clearly illogical argument and that he was using hyperbole, "[Bearcat] also apparently omitted to conduct a WP:BEFORE search for sources because when such a search is performed a plethora of sources are to be found. When I politely pointed out this to him and gave him the opportunity to correct himself, he refused to do this, asserting things that are clearly not true to anyone with at least half a brain (that a leader of a party group is equally as important as a non-leader) and started to make personal allegations against me. He has now compounded his lies by writing further lies at WP:AN/I which have led a productive and editor of good character being blocked. WP:BOOMERANG should have applied to the petty vindictive request of a liar and a troll."
The problem is, that's not an unreasonable opinion. He just can't post it in those words. There are a couple there that he can't use. You should have explained that he can hold any opinions he likes, he just can't post them all and that the issue here is mostly his choice of words. This was a productive editor who deserved to be coached, not blocked from his talk page.
But it really went south was when you allowed Bearcat to post this long rant completely disagreeing with everything Barney ever said, going back to the AfD. Bearcat was no less defiant and no less clear about what he thinks. But Bearcat knows to say, "you're the one who's misrepresenting the matter", rather than "you're the one who lied" even though they certainly mean the same thing. Again, you absolutely should have put a stop to that and didn't. Instead, you defended Bearcat's behavior.
Up until then, I think your judgment had been poor and I think you made poor choices but it doesn't look to me like you were particularly invested emotionally. I think that changed when Barney responded to that long initial rant from Bearcat by also calling you Bearcat's "pet admin". Anyone here can see you have a thin skin, and that you're quick to take insult and this was about as direct as it gets. I think that's why you decided to allow Bearcat bait him, so that each time Barney responded as predicted, you had a new reason to move him closer to and eventually out the door. I don't know if this was conscious behavior but it's certainly what happened.
Each and every one of the following blocks, leading up the final indef even from his talk page happened after Barney responded uncivily to something you had just allowed Bearcat to post. You were complicit in this game of pushing Barney into further breaches and it started after he called you Bearcat's pet admin.
- Msnicki, you are indeed entitled to your opinion. You shared this at ANI. The community disagreed with your analysis and opinion. I will not respond further, other than say that I do appreciate that at least one other person has a different perspective - that's normal in any community. the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
All of this happened before I spoke up
That's when I spoke up. By that point, whatever "path" you think I was on was irrelevant. Barney was already completely out the door, left only with a WP:STANDARDOFFER. I had nothing to do with any of the choices or the outcome I've been complaining about because it all happened before I ever spoke up.
I asked you to reconsider your decision and I explained that I was concerned about an appearance that you might have become emotionally involved and that I thought you'd been wrong to allow Bearcat to continue to provoke Barney on his own talk page while Barney was blocked. Per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, I'm entitled to question your decisions and expect thoughtful responses. Instead, I've endured a lot of personal attacks (including the liar word that got Barney in so much trouble) and endless other abuse, continuing, obviously right up to this moment with your demand that I prove my good faith because clearly I've never shown it before, a clear and continuing violation of WP:AGF.
- When I explain and the community concurs, it's been explained - you don't get to keep beating me with a WP:STICK. Admins are not your personal abuse toys. the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I've explained as best I can that I don't care that you're so uncivil to me personally. This is the internet. It happens all the time. I do care that if you're going to be an admin, especially one who blocks others for being uncivil, that you shouldn't do it yourself. I also care, more deeply, that you show poor judgment, make poor decisions and get poor outcomes and then refuse to explain your actions. I also care a lot that you refused to allow Barney to have a new opportunity to resolve this with a new admin. Instead, pretty much all I've gotten is a lot of tedious and completely irrelevant personal attacks and silly demands to know if I care about your feelings. (A: Not really.)
- I've never been uncivil to you. Period. See my explanation waaay above about that the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
What should happen
I've been thinking about what I should do and what should happen.
First, me. I should take my own advice. On his talk page, I advised Barney that when you find yourself dealing with a difficult person here on WP, you have basically just 3 choices. You can walk away, you can find a way to get along, or you can go at it but coloring only inside the lines. I have tried to get along and I have tried to go at it, trying very hard at ANI to negotiate some way for Barney to get a fresh chance with a different admin and here to see if DP would be willing to respond to my complaint. If DP thinks I've ever been uncivil to him, he's welcome to post the diff. I don't think he can.
The third option is you walk away. There's nothing I can achieve here. I have done my best to stand up as a Good Samaritan for Barney and I achieved nothing. I've said I don't think DP should be an admin and explained why but he still is. I'm only a reporter, you've all heard my story and I don't have the power to do anything. There's no reason for me to stick around for a tedious argument questioning my good faith and asking if I've considered DP's feelings. There's nothing I can do here. It is up to you.
I've been thinking about why there's no particular process to get someone's adminship revoked. I was delighted when it sounded like NE Ent had discovered the RFCU. But now I know that's little more than an opinion poll. So I've continued to wonder why there's no process.
I've decided it's because you don't need one. Admins should be subject to the same guidelines and the same possible sanctions as anyone else. If they violate the guidelines, they should get blocked and have to redeem themselves in the usual ways, demonstrating that they understand how they violated our guidelines and that can follow them in the future. If an admin refuses to do that, he or she should eventually end up with the same WP:STANDARDOFFER that befell Barney. The only problem here is that admins rarely block each other, even for flagrant (as here) violations, violations that would certainly bring blocks against non-admins. This is wrong but again, I have no power to affect this except by pointing out the problem.
Per WP:BLOCK, DP has repeatedly met the common rationales for blocks. A block can't be cold block, but it's clear DP has not shown any intent to end the problem behavior or to comply with WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It's an ongoing problem.
I recommend that DangerousPanda be blocked for persistent and ongoing violations. Msnicki (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am fully accountable and responsible to the policies I agree to uphold. Are you? This continued manhunt is uncivil. The community spoke. You don't then get to rehash the exact same things in an RFC/U ... and you've been told that already. You don't get to ask the other parent hoping to hear a new answer. the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)