Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Restrict use of the block button, warn regarding respectful interaction

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

DangerousPanda activity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Noting here that User:DangerousPanda has not been around for the duration of this case - indeed, he's made just 2 edits in the past month. I've been in contact with DangerousPanda and he's explained his reasons for absence, similar to this comment. He's also made it clear to me that he won't be able to comment before this weekend - given that the holiday season will be upon us at that point, I expect it may be longer. A proposed decision is ready to be posted, but is currently being held due to the fact that DangerousPanda has not responded. Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Dangerous Panda Activity" - Sounds like a road sign in rural China. BMK (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange to use the word "activity" in the sec title when the topic was his inactivity. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• At some point, somebody needs to call bullshit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me. "Bullshit!" Msnicki (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In a case about incivility, it surprises me that an experienced editor and the main complainant would resort to crude language on this page. This looks like a calculated use of incivility, and the celebration of somebody else's downfall (gravedancing). I recommend both comments be struck, removed or collapsed, by the editors or by a clerk. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

From the Urban Dictionary, I call bullshit, "The act of calling bullshit: When one person says something that another person is not in agreement with, that second person may "call bullshit" on whatever the first person said. By doing this, they are expressing their disagreement with what the person said in a humorous and yet serious way." I don't think the expression was incivil nor did either of us express an opinion that differs markedly except in brevity from the one found here in the proposed decision. Msnicki (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What's un-civil is the suggestion, perhaps unintended but the appearance matters, that DP is bullshitting us. Maybe he is, or maybe he's just super busy or feels too sad about these events to want to comment. Whatever the case may be, it would be kinder if the remarks from Flo's down to this one were removed or hatted. This will not in any way harm the outcome of the case. Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion that DP is not bullshitting us but please take it up with ArbCom as it appears to be their proposed decision also and they actually do decide these things, I don't. As for the "gravedancing" (a completely made-up word), both our comments were posted, just like yours, before the proposed decision had been posted and when there was a question whether to give DP another chance. You felt it was important to offer your opinion that we should not wait. Flo and I decided to post our opinions as well and, btw, we agreed with you. I think that should be good enough. The only part that needs collapsing is your objection to our posting our own opinions. Msnicki (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's called a compound noun and English allows making them up on the fly. Thank you for agreeing with me! That's clearly, and always, the right thing to do. I accept your explanation. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

maybe he's just super busy or feels too sad about these events to want to comment. Invalid argument. (If it weren't invalid, then those reasons would be usable to justify his non-response ad infinitum. [Read the communique back from Worm. No timeframe is given, in fact the language specifically puts a fog over expectation of any future response. Besides contrary to WP:ADMINACCT req for responsiveness, your logic exempts him forever. {At what point will you claim he has extinguished his basis for "feeling sad"? Or for "being super busy"? When the RfAR is cancelled? The RfAR is by nature a negative claim on his behaviors -- a permanent source for "sadness". Your "super busy" is additionally manipulative since any activity could qualify for that claim, and everyone is "super busy" -- people are "busy" even when sleeping.}] You're being played Jehochman, and you're suggesting that everyone be played right along with you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please post the decision. Maybe it's just bad luck that he was too busy, but he has had more than enough opportunities to respond. If he wants to file an appeal later leave the door open. Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  We're looking at it at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. If anything else, the case has kept him away from the project. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• In my opinion, editors brought before the Arbitration Committee should be given the chance to comment and he was. We held off on opening the case, to allow him to make a statement, which he did, and then let the case run its course, which means the standard additional month, during which he could get his voice heard. The fact that he chose not to participate should not prevent us from closing the case. For that, later today I'll be posting the PD. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  I think I'm going to hold off on voting on the desysop portion until Monday as a last ditch AGF attempt, but I really think that barring something exceptional I'll be supporting the PD as proposed. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  I very much doubt DP bothers to participate to this pseudo-court dramah, now after the PD has been posted. Now where did I put my barnstar of decapitation? Reading the PD, I might end up awarding it to someone. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The proposed finding of fact "He edited very little between August 2013 and January 2014 after a previous declined Arbcom case request and also stopped editing between August 2012 and September 2012" seems to neglect his alternate non-admin account EatsShootsAndLeaves, very active from August 2013 to January 2014 and also active in both August and September 2012.[1] NebY (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've pinged the arbs who already opined there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point, and I'd like to add that WP:EDIT or any other policy does not require users to maintain a certain minimal level of editing activity when some wiki-tribunal is conducting a struggle session for them or when a co-founder of Wikipedia criticises their language. This proposed finding of fact is contradicting WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Besides, If DP is such a problematic editor, then him being absent for long streaks of time should be a good thing, no? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not about WP:notcompulsory, its about WP:adminacct. Regardless of if he was still editing, he essentially closed the discussion on his actions without addressing them by simply not acknowledging them. If edits were his issue, then yes, taking a wikibreak is healthy. But these are admin actions and are held to a different standard. Ignoring the issue until it blows over isn't acceptable. Doing it three times strains any good faith. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any fight with DangerousPanda but if he's got the time to contact WTT off-wiki, he's got the time to post here, even if it's to say "hang on, I'm sorry for the hassle but can you wait until 'x' please". By remaining inactive, the problems perceived by the complainants will go away, but only if Panda stays away - he'll also avoid an unpleasant desysop. Unfortunately, if you're an admin, you have to take responsibility for your actions - it's just the way it is. To paraphrase Blackadder II, he's going to have to make whatever explanation he needs to give to avoid losing his tools phenomenally good^([2]) and he's going to need to do it soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What kind of an explanation DP should provide? Bow and scrape before everyone? DP has already participated to discussions about his blocks, including followup to all the old diffs from the "Lapses of judgement" section: [3], [4], [5], [6] How many times does he have to address the same issues that have been beaten to death at ANI and at the (deleted) RfC/U? The unvoiced answer from trolls and troll-supporters is of course, that he must be banged to head with ADMINACCT or EXPLAINBLOCK forever, no matter how many comments he has already used to explain his past actions, some of which occurred years ago. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the explanation Ritchie is looking for is to answer the question "why have you failed to participate in this case"? You seem to think its about explaining his blocks, which while an issue in the case, is a separate point. If you think he has explained those blocks to your satisfaction, cool, but several editors of good standing, including arbs, disagree. Keep in mind that failure to respond to an arb case is grounds for losing the tools, regardless of the other points. Panda COULD have taken 10 min to say "i can't respond at this time. I will respond before (x) date. I pledge to refrain from editing until I have met this deadline. I understand that if I fail to meet this deadline I may lose the tools." But he did not. So for an explanation of his current silence to be accepted after the fact, it would need to be "phenomenally good". As an example, a medical emergency usually trumps everything. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, jni, every single comment you've made on this case has been flippant and dismissive. "Drama. Witch-hunt. Tribunal." OK, we get it already; you don't agree that DP should be before ArbCom. I guess. 166.171.184.149 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what explanation Panda should give; suffice to say its end result needs to be all the arbs saying "gosh, we were all wrong, case dismissed with no action". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a thought

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Desysopping might a bit extreme

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

"Soft link"

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)

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)

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)

Why not compromise?

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)

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)

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

When is an abstention not an abstention?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok, so where am I supposed to respond

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My appreciation of the patience of the community. Contrary to some discussion, I have NO history of disappearing when the heat is on. Real life is and always will be more important than Wikipedia, and when in-laws travel for almost a day to spend time with the family, or when work calls, they do come first. That does not in any way mean I am above respond to complaints, and is in no way a "refusal to comment" - that's a unfortunate phrase, and plain old mean if not a personal smear. History shows that a) I'm very active, and b) open to listening to concerns. I am about to take the time to review all of the points raised - I'm truly not sure where to begin, and I'm truly not sure where to respond to things. Some guidance of what I need to do here would be beneficial, as I've never really been involved in this the panda ₯’ 10:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Since both the evidence and workshop phases are closed, you can comment on the proposed decision here. Please, do it quickly, since this case has already been delayed long enough owing to your absence. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the rush? If I was editing and abusing my tools, then I could foresee "urgent" situations - but that was not the case. This was most definitely not a "time limited" situation (as happens in some articles/topics). There is nobody here whose job is Wikipedia, and "end times" are required to be flexible accordingly. Adding a required end date/time is artificial based on the reality of Wikipedia. These realities are already key findings of ArbCom. I had been extremely clear about my absence, the reasons behind, the fact that I would respond as soon as I possibly could, and yes - I can respond to emails in Vancouver, New York, or wherever I am using my cell phone - that doesn't mean that I can actively login using my cell phone and edit Wikipedia! In absentia ArbCom trials are verboten except in situations of a) urgency and b) outright refusal to participate - neither of which are the situation here, as can be confirmed by more than one currently-sitting Arb the panda ₯’ 13:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You appear misinformed on two counts. First, ArbPol says: Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation. Second, the admin policy states: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed (my emphases).  Roger Davies ^talk 14:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Roger, are you suggesting that ArbCom policy overrides the basic core principal that Wikipedia is written by volunteers with the full knowledge that said volunteers have real lives? (I could also argue rather correctly that almost every single piece of "evidence" has already been properly responded to at one time or another, and thus WP:ADMINACCT has been met more than once...but I don't want to play that game) the panda ₯’ 14:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

When people volunteer for extra privileges they voluntarily accept the obligations that go with them. That's not ArbPol, it's WP:ADMIN and, in particular, WP:AdminAcct.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

When one gets married, gains in-laws, and has children, they voluntarily accept the obligations that go with them, which are obligations that Wikipedia's core policy states comes first. WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ADMIN and WP:ARBPOL cannot run contradictory to that at any time. So, when someone KNOWS that the "defendant" is away for an extended period, a) they should not have filed an ArbCom case in the first place, and b) ArbCom should not have moved forward - especially considering that one sitting Arb knew full-well that I was a) planning on responding and not avoiding, and b) could not access Wikipedia in any manner the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No one doubts your excuse is real. It's just not a very good one. It's not one that would have prevented any of us from responding. Msnicki (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, I had ZERO access to any computers, except for my work Blackberry phone. Our family doesn't do tablets or laptops; I have one old PC at home, one at work, and a Blackberry with only enough data to upload/download emails. I'm taking people who are used to 35 degree Celsius weather on a tour around Canada and the northern US where it's FREEZING, and had little time for frivolities like editing Wikipedia. As you know, this entire ArbCom filing was filed after I announced I would be away for awhile which was rather obviously intentional. How was I to "respond" when even the filer knew I wouldn't be here? Suggesting otherwise is horrific bad faith. Being tried in absentia really is neither fair nor fun ... the well has been well-poisoned by now, and it's a shame that the Arbs were fooled into not only holding court knowing I was absent, but actually voting on decisions. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary: Msnicki is guilty for bad faith suggesting you could have responded before now. NE Ent is guilty for intentionally filing at a time he knew you'd be unable to respond. Arbcom is guilty for being hoodwinked into allowing the RfAR to proceed, and for casting !votes. And MrX will forever be guilty for this RfAR itself (since he could have prevented all the drama by simply choosing to discuss with you at your Talk). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

... and you're guilty of being a little biased, and I'm guilty of getting pissed off when a) cornered, b) my family is potentially threatened, c) someone puts words in my mouth, and d) my faith is attacked. Yup. Have I promised to work on that ... YES, emphatically yes - before this Arb case was even filed. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you agree with the summary, and already did your job by emphatically agreeing to work on not getting pissed (even though getting pissed was well-justified as you explained), clearly you're cool and have done your part even before the RfAR. But do you think, before we wrap this up and get back to the real work of building the encyclopedia, that Msnicki, NE Ent, Arbcom members, and MrX should at least receive admonishments for their poor judgments and misguided behaviors? (I don't think we want to sanction them because it is too close to Xmas. But YMMV.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh, if everyone can put their hand on their heart and say "this is true, I did NOT take things out of context, I'm not cherry-picking to make things look worse than they are, I'm HONESTLY sure I've tried to fix this in good faith before, and I'm doing both what's best for the project AND for the Panda" then no need to sanction anyone :-) Ta-daaaa...Merry Christmas! the panda ₯’ 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. So all are guilty as charged and deserve to be sanctioned. But, you are willing to skip sanctions if they all just self-reflect and admit to their wrongdoing. (Gosh. So benevolent. You must be one [admin] in a million.) But are we sure it's appropriate to let Msnicki off so easily? I mean, she has really been a poor Wikipedian, according to you [all these accuses are documentable/diffable]: she is uncivil; she doesn't apply WP:AGF; it's proven she refuses to work with others in a collaborative editing environment; she has abused an administrator [you]; she has disappointed your emotions, which you so sincerely invested in attempting to work with her; she has forum shopped; she has not responded to simple questions; she has been disingenuous (or dishonest); she has made WP:Personal attacks; she doesn't drop the WP:STICK; she doesn't abide by WP:Community consensus; and she (implicitly) hasn't been accountable and responsible to the policies she agreed to uphold. Meanwhile in the same timeframe [again all diffable]: you [Panda] haven't broken any rules; you haven't broken any policies; you haven't violated any guidelines; and you have never been uncivil, nor even snarky to her. Wow. With such a huge imbalance and multitudinal wrongdoings, don't you think Panda, an Indef block is probably the mostly loving thing you could offer Msnicki at this juncture!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Understandably, I would object to that, if that's his claim. I not only don't doubt his excuse is real, I'm completely satisfied it is offered in good faith and that DP believes it's a good one that everyone should accept. In my opinion, it is not a good excuse that would have prevented the rest of us from making any response for a whole month. Further, these spurious charges that the whole thing was deliberately timed when he'd be unavailable is both ridiculous and more of the same behavior of refusing to discuss the complaints and change the subject. It's deja vu all over again. Through my entire experience with DP, he constantly questioned my good faith, claimed I was lying, etc., all as way to change the subject from his behavior to somebody else's. If DP actually has a response to the complaints and proposed decision, let him make it. I think he's had time to collect his thoughts and even if he didn't have a computer, there's pencil and paper where he might have drafted his remarks. He either has something to say about his own behavior or he doesn't. Msnicki (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

History shows that I'm open to listening to concerns. Right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your rhetoric portends knowing what "history shows", (right or not), without knowing, (and apparently not caring), what "his-story shows". That's "my story"; as this moment fleets. Good day.--John Cline (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question from Jehochman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For starters would you please explain the block of Rm vu mention in my evidence section. How was that block fair? Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, as context is quite important here. Rm vu was reported to AN/3RR for edit-warring, which they clearly were doing. As a response, they opened their own AN/3RR report against the editors that were also involved in editing the article - neither of which were edit-warring whatsoever, nor were they apparently tag-teaming, based on the sequences of edits. The key elements in AN/3RR reports are a) is it ongoing, or likely to continue, b) are the editors fully-aware of the meaning of EW or 3RR (depending on the specific situation, as one does not need to break 3RR to edit war). In this case, based on the comments and actions by RM vu, and their tit-for-tat 3RR filing, I felt that a short block was protective of the article and the editors involved - he did understand 3RR well-enough. It should be noted that I then spent considerable time following-up directly with the editor in order to help them to fully understand what was "wrong", and purposely offered to unblock once such awareness was evident, as per WP:GAB. Oddly, although they came up with new accusations of WP:MEAT/WP:SOCK against the other editors, I remained steadfastly willing to unblock should they satisfy the requirements under WP:GAB - which unfortunately was not forthcoming. the panda ₯’ 13:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A lingering concern, after your reasonable explanation, is that Rm vu had received a warning right before you blocked them, and it doesn't look good in that case to go straight to a block if they haven't breached the warning, or at least the block message should explain why you felt the warning was insufficient and you were moving to block. My other lingering concern is that Rm vu had been editing for a long time and had never been blocked before - meaning that they were very probably a good faith contributor, and if they were getting out of hand, it was likely the case that they were worked up because they (mistakenly?) perceived serious wrong-doing. That's an indication that you might have been able to "talk them down" and thereby avoid a block. Finally, this all happened right in the midst of the RFCU/RFAR sequence. Knowing that editors were after you, why throw more fuel on the fire? Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To answer the first part, my closure (as I recall) of the 2 related AN/3RR reports was extremely detailed, and explained the reasons why the block occurred, as did my my block notice and subsequent discussion with the editor when requested - my continued involvement with attempting to reach unblock speaks volumes. To answer your second, RFCU process or not, nothing prevents continues use of the tools, especially with what was very a non-controvertial block that was fully substantiated by the evidence, and that had been fully explained. I was quite cautious to only act in such situations, and ones that required either fairly immediate response, or may have been at risk of going "stale". I had never considered any editors being "after me" - that would show a rather poor degree of confrontationalism that has no place on this project the panda ₯’ 14:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I see it as a plus that his behavior didn't change just because people were "after him".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom, if you close the case now, I predict that you will hear endless criticism about not giving him a fair hearing. Suggest you reset the deadlines to let DP present any evidence he wants, and join in a full discussion of the proposed decision. There is in fact no rush to publish a decision; I believe it will be more expedient to slow down than to push forward and then have long discussions after the fact. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Second that (more or less), as it doesn't appear the decision is time-critical. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I would say that ArbCom's approach to the complaint shows that to be the case. In the past, when there's been a possibility of immediate danger, the committee has done an emergency desysop, and then adjusted that as the case required. There was no decision to do that in this case, because there was no time-critical aspect to the case. That remains true now, and ArbCom should allow DP the time he needs to respond. However, there is the danger that threaded discussion can turn into an ANI-ish dramafest if the Committee and the clerks do not keep it under control. Ideally, it should be limited to Arbs and parties asking specific questions of DP, DP responding and then limited and focused additional queries prompted by that response. Partisan commentary should be kept to an absolute minimum, as there's been quite enough of it already. BMK (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism from whom about what? My criticism from day one has been that it is nearly impossible to hold an admin accountable. Ordinary users can be shown the door in days. Admins seem all but invulnerable behind a thin blue line and months of "due process". The main complaints here are that DP does not respond to questions and criticism, shows poor judgment and is often uncivil. There's nothing new here that DP is credibly just now learning, nor is it credible that even if DP couldn't get online to post anything, that he shouldn't by now have been able to collect his thoughts and come prepared. There is no reason to delay simply because, exactly as charged, DP refuses to discuss his actions and has continued the pattern even here, in front of ArbCom. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would hope that the possibility of criticism would carry negligible weight on any decisions Arbcom might make.- MrX 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're suggesting that ArbCom should act badly because the resulting criticism would be immaterial. If the community views an action as illegitimate, that's where ArbCom loses its authority. They can't actually do anything much themselves if the community won't support them. It's important at all times to make sure their actions are viewed as proper. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question from HJ Mitchell

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement from Newyorkbrad

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)

@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)

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)

Question from unregistered user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I have been following this case closely. I have a question for DangerousPanda to answer below and a general suggestion about desysopping. I shall just write a paragraph first explaining why I am here.

I was an anonymous editor starting out a year or so ago who came across DangerousPanda and was treated terribly by him. I was supported by other, long-term editors, but, due to being but an anonymous editor, I had no real opportunity to defend myself. DangerousPanda used a style he has used with others as shown on the evidence page: he made false and offensive accusations about me and, when I and others contested this, he become defensive about the criticism, claiming that his sole aim was to get me unblocked. In reality, he wanted me to grovel and apologise for actions I never did. The whole situation put me off Wikipedia and I have not returned since or made my own account, which is a huge shame.

I find the situation of not replying for so long deeply troubling. As an administrator, DangerousPanda must have accountability. DangerousPanda, are you genuinely claiming you were entirely unable to place a message on the page along the lines of, 'I shall be unavailable until a couple of days before Christmas. I am happy to discuss these matters. Please may we delay the beginning of the case for five weeks?' If you could send e-mails to arbitrators saying you would be busy, you must have been able to say this. Instead, you waited until the final possible day with your comment on 10 November and have done the same here. You must realise how bad this looks, especially combined with the history concerning the second account.

I have my own personal beliefs about desysopping, but those are not relevant here. I think there is a more important issue. The current approach is focused on whether arbitrators would like to penalise DangerousPanda for his actions. In reality, the decision should be based on how administrators are expected to have the trust and confidence of the community (from WP:ADMIN). This should be a community decision based on whether DangerousPanda has the necessary trust and confidence. If the community feels as if DangerousPanda can improve the problems that have been outlined and would want him to remain an administrator, then he should be embraced in his former role. On the other hand, there is no perceptible benefit of having an administrator who absolutely does not have the support of the community.

Instead of desysopping, which is considered to be permanent and a decision outside the community, is there no way for DangerousPanda to be entered in a WP:RFA-like survey asking whether he should continue as administrator? This way, it really is a community decision and DangerousPanda will end up in a position that is best for him, based solely on whether he has the trust and confidence of the community he would be serving. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no other way. Ordinary users have no power to hold an admin accountable except before the ArbCom. There is no other process for initiating admin recall. Msnicki (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that the IP was not necessarily asking for admin recall, despite Msnicki apparently jumping to that conclusion, but perhaps a "confirmation RfA" or similar which I believe has been used before in ArbCom. I have no idea if they are still done, but I think that confirmation RfArbs have been used as a remedy in the past. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of desysopping, could ArbCom make a finding that DangerousPanda's future as an administrator is to be decided in such a way? 86.131.230.115 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How would this be different or better than desysopping him and letting him reapply through a new RfA? The only concern here seems to be that without a thumb on the scale, it's obvious the community would never again support his adminship. Msnicki (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be because of the concerns others have raised above about desysopping him: that it is essentially a permanent action and ArbCom have a huge responsibility to make the right decision (which means, if anything, they could be more reluctant to desysop him). Admonishing him and passing on the decision to an RFA-like survey clears ArbCom of such a responsibility. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I believe you and I would want the same actions to take place. What concerns me, though, is that ArbCom could become too reluctant to desysop. There would be huge problems if DangerousPanda could carry on using his tools if he does not have the support of the community. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible we're talking past each other? If the question is left to the community to decide, whether you call it an RfA or something TBD that's "RfA-like", I don't see DP getting an adminship out it. I don't think that would be because the community would simply rubber stamp the ArbCom or because the desysopping would have unfairly tainted his request. I think people are completely capable of looking at the evidence and making up their own minds. The problem is the evidence. The reason a new RfA (or something "RfA-like") would not succeed is that we no longer have to guess what he'd be like as admin. We know for sure. We let him try and we have the evidence of what happened. People will look at the complaints, the diffs, the findings and all the discussion, and decide his performance simply wasn't good enough. Msnicki (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We might well be talking past each other. I am pretty sure we are coming to this from the same feelings and experiences. I very much doubt that some RfA-like survey would succeed: the level of dissatisfaction of users with DangerousPanda should ensure this. What is worrying, though, is a situation where DangerousPanda somehow manages to escape desysopping caused by a reluctant by ArbCom of giving a desysop and DangerousPanda claiming to change his approach. Going on his previous response to complaints about his behaviour, we might well have a situation where nothing changes and DangerousPanda does not have the support of the community. At the very least, there should be some kind of RfA if ArbCom does not desysop. Personally, I would want something even stronger. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask @DangerousPanda: directly. WP:ADMIN explains that administrators are expected to have the trust and confidence of the community. I would hope, if you remain an administrator, that you would want to have this trust and confidence. Would you therefore consent to a confirmation RfA to verify this? Now you are back and able to contribute, please provide an answer: yes or no, without any kind of obfuscation. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Too amusing. From December 4: "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 - DP." Dan Murphy (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion

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)

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)

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)

Arbitration as a form of negotiation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dangerous Panda, and other interested parties, here are a few questions:

1. Would you like to continue being an administrator?
2. You've made 8000+ admin actions, most of which have not been disputed, and thus are assumed to have been helpful. There are a few disputed actions which several editors feel are grounds to desysop (see evidence page). DP, please say whether your administration of those incidents was "best practice" or something less. If something less, how would you handle a similar incident in the future?
3. There are some interactions within the evidence page that appear fall below standards of civility. What steps would you take in the future to avoid making such posts?
4. Does anybody feel that any single incident in evidence was so egregious that it merits a desysop, regardless of what answers DP provides to the above questions?

Jehochman ^Talk 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss 1: Would you like to continue being an administrator?

Discuss 2: Disputed admin actions

Discuss 3: Civility standards

Discuss 4: Egregious incident?

• Are you asking for one single diff that should justify desysopping? I have had only one interaction with DP that began here and ended here. That was the one I needed. Does that answer your question? Msnicki (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'd like DP to address that sequence of events. Jehochman ^Talk 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: I'm sure you mean well, but this seems completely out of process and inappropriate at this stage of the community trying to resolve long-term admin conduct issues. Are you expecting an epiphany from DangerousPanda?- MrX 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You never know unless you try. Jehochman ^Talk 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Einstein might take exception. Msnicki (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Loaded question: the standard is "consistently or egregiously poor judgment." (emphasis mine) The evidence already presented and DangerousPanda's responses above clearly demonstrate the consistently poor judgement. NE Ent 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a loaded question. 2 and 3 address "consistently" to the extent it can be addressed. How many of 8,000 would you think is enough to show "consistently"? Question four is probing for "egregiously", which at the moment I don't see. Jehochman ^Talk 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence phase and the workshop phase are over. This page is supposed to be for discussing the principles, findings of fact, and proposed decision; not for re-framing the issue and demanding evidence that meets your arbitrary criteria. That's what I mean by inappropriate and out of process. On top of that, there's the false premise that the vast majority of DP's admin actions have been helpful simply because they were not brought up in evidence.- MrX 00:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This page, like every other one in this area, is for whatever purpose the Committee decides it should be used for, I know that it's inconvenient for those hoping for a nice quick execution, but I think you'll just have to allow the Arbitrators to decide when they've heard what they need to hear. BMK (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume Arbcom will let us know if the evidence phase is being extended. You should realize that it's unfair to characterize participants in the case as people "hoping for a nice quick execution" when the harshest sanction would merely be the removal of sysop buttons, and nothing about this case has been quick at all.- MrX 02:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's actually been much faster than most ArbCom cases, and it's quite clear that at least some of DP's antagonists are champing at the bit for his desysopping. (Names available upon private request, or you could just read the threads). BMK (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft recall process

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given their obvious familiarity with Wikipedia, can I ask the brand-new, never previously edited IP 86.131.230.115 if they've had a Wikipedia account in the past, and if they have a current account now? If so, why is the editor – who is certain that he or she "wants the same action to take place" as the virulently anti-DP editor Msnicki – not using their registered account for the comments posted here? BMK (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologise: I thought I mentioned this sufficiently well in a paragraph above. I do not have a current account and I have never had an account in the past. I used to edit anonymously and was getting increasingly interested in editing Wikipedia (starting from just making little changes to more extensive copyediting) to the extent that I would have probably got an account and taken it even more seriously. As it turned out, I encountered DangerousPanda, whose actions made me feel completely disillusioned with those in charge and I consequently lost faith altogether. Since then, I have visited forums, such as Wikipediocracy, to read more about what goes on behind the scenes here, which is why I know more than a beginner. My IP address automatically changes every few weeks. In short, if you are asking whether I am an existing user who is acting inappropriately, the answer is no. I would very likely, though, have been a user with quite a few edits by now had I not come across DangerousPanda. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A heartrending story, indeed, the IP who would have been an editor were it not for the dastardly deeds of the villainous admin. Can;t wait for the movie. BMK (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. Msnicki (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that anyone who agrees with you is a saint, and everyone who disagrees with you will spend eternity burning in Hell, but if you are able to step back a little and look at the IP's claims with a little bit of dispassion, you might see how very convenient his or her anonymous appearance at this very moment is. The use of IPs on ArbCom cases to mask regular editors (or blocked editors) with an axe to grind is hardly a rare occurrence, and for that reason should always be suspect. The story being told by this one isn't just the normal everyday one, this story positively sings, it's so convenient and topical and damning to DP. BMK (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is this kind of attitude that pushed me away. I had every opportunity to disclose evidence earlier, and I chose not to do so because I really dislike the idea of visiting and discussing something that was quite unpleasant for me. If a neutral and trusted arbitrator would wish for me to disclose the IP address where the problems occured, to prove I am genuine and not just a trouble causer, I would be happy to do so, yet I fail to see what benefit this would have. Please note that my points were focused not on the previous situation but on possible resolutions. In particular, why was DangerousPanda unable to provide adequate information to the ArbCom and would DangerousPanda consent to a RfA-style survey to ensure he has the support of the community that is necessary for his role. These are points that could be made by anyone and are completely independent of my past history. And, yes, I was certainly on track to be an editor before I met DangerousPanda, but it is this kind of petty arguing that put me off: I was focused on content-building, not this. Please do not reply if you cannot be constructive. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, working to disclose the possibility of involved editors hiding behind the facade of innocent IPs is quite "constructuve". BMK (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but sarcastic comments about making films will clearly not help the situation at all. Ultimately, you were making a joke about something that really was not funny at all for me. I have explained I do not have an account: if you feel as if it would be important and necessary to verify this, get an arbitrator to check. As I said above, it did not really matter where my points even came from: they were suggestions that might be helpful which could have made by anyone. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Get an arbitrator to check" - I know that you, in your splendid virgin innocence, had no idea that check users won't do "innocence" checks.

Your IP changes every couple of weeks? What other IP numbers have you used? (It's easy enough to find them, go to an article you know you've edited and look at its history for the time period you edited there.) BMK (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't, for instance, have edited in the past as IP 88.104.27.2, who had a beef against DP in March 2013 because they claimed to have been mistakenly blocked? That editor complained on their talk page "Guess why I'm not a registered, active user any more." (emphasis added) Would that have been you, a former registered active user who had a run-in with DP while editing as an IP from 19-25 March 2013? BMK (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean about 'innocence' checks. I do not understand precisely how the check user service works, if that is what you are asking.

I have never edited as 88.104.27.2 and have never been registered with an account (the latter I have already told you repeatedly). I am not prepared to discuss previous IP addresses any further in public because of privacy concerns. If you have a problem, which you seem to have because you have completely ignored the questions I have made and focused on something unrelated, arrange for an administrator to take my IP address in private: I have already said I would provide this. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, committee, apparently this tangent is relevant [8]. The simple answer is they don't have to register because the owners of this website have said they don't: Wikimedia::Privacy Policy, and folks participating on these sites have agreed to those conditions per Wikimedia:Terms_of_Use. NE Ent 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My question to the IP wasn't why didn't they register now, my question concerned whether they had registered already in the past, and were now concealing their identity behind an IP in order to get back at DP. You, I am aware, would stretch WP:AGF so thin that no one could ever voice any suspicion about anyone at anytime, but, luckily for this project, actual Wikipedia practice takes into account the possibility that people have been known to take advantage of our institutional good nature and abuse the penumbra of AGF to mount attacks on other editors. The story being told here is much too convenient and fits much too well into the case for it to be taken at face value without being questioned. (As George Smiley says in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy when he is first shown the "intelligence" provided by the Russian mole, information which the Admiralty had been clamoring for, "Topicality is always suspect".) BMK (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have answered your question repeatedly, BMK: I have never had an account in the past. I have also offered to verify this. The kinds of comments you have made above are not helpful: either discuss the questions I had or arrange for me to verify my IP address with an administrator. Stop with the sarcastic comments, please. 'Getting back at DP' has nothing to do with it: I only wrote my original message to ask two reasonable questions that were clearly focused on the matter, not anything improper. Note that I even wrote 'I have my own personal beliefs about desysopping, but those are not relevant here.'. 86.131.230.115 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Flaw in proposed decision

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Update

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)

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)

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)

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

Is this due process or a farce?

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)