Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:09, 4 November 2014

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ahmed Hassan Imran		2 November 2014	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#{{anchor\|Dangerous Panda}} DangerousPanda\|{{anchor\|Dangerous Panda}} DangerousPanda]]		1 November 2014	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Ahmed Hassan Imran

Initiated by BengaliHindu (talk) at 17:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

BengaliHindu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
MehulWB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by BengaliHindu

I was expanding Ahmed Hassan Imran with proper inline citations from reliable sources when MehulWB started blanking out sections of the article (see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], ) citing that I'm making allegations against Ahmed Hassan Imran whereas I had only been adding whatever allegations had been made against him as published in reliable sources. MehulWB identified (see here [9]) themselves as readers of Kalom newspaper, edited by Ahmed Hassan Imran, and indirectly threatened to move against me for expanding the article which they think constitute a cyber crime under Indian law. I tried to explain my position to MehulWB in Talk:Ahmed Hassan Imran, but the situation reached an impasse, so I reported in BLP noticeboard (see here [10]). I stopped editing because of MehulWB's continuous blanking out of the article. Nirmalya1234, Abhijit4law, Malapati made edits in the article after that and I was accused of sockpuppetry. In the SPI case Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) adjudicated me of sockpuppetry based on behaviourial pattern, that too after almost one month and for 72 hours. I have never had any blocks in my entire edit history. I know I didn't do it. I request you to review this case and remove my block log. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MehulWB

I have already added my comments on different Wikipedia sections like BLPN, Noticeboards etc. so I am not sure what exactly I need to add here but I didn't blank out the page. I put proper explanations for my edits thru discussions but I was wrongly reported to the administrators. I hope everything is okay at the end.--MehulWB (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Berean Hunter

Statement by Dennis Brown

Link of my involvement: [11]

At the ANI discussion linked above, someone asked for review of Berean Hunter's actions. At SPI, BH blocked one account as master, and another as puppet after an investigation. Being experienced at SPI procedure and sockpuppet investigation, I reviewed by looking at the histories of all relevant parties, and provided that information at ANI. In my opinion, the conclusions and actions of Berean Hunter were reasonable, based on facts, appeared to have been in good faith, and was executed within community norms. As I stated there, there is no 100% guarantee of accuracy when investigating sockpupppets, but many (if not most) admin would have come to the exact same conclusion, that sockpuppetry had taken place. That is the sum total of my participation in these events. Dennis - 2¢ 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: There is no requirement to notify a user that an SPI case has been opened in their name. In fact, notification is typically discouraged. Unlike ANI, SPI is a formal administrative board, and actions are not based upon voting or consensus, although like all admin actions, they are subject to review. Dennis - 2¢ 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dougweller

Not sure why I've been named as a party. It would have been nice to have been given a reason. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I can only speak from the ANI that was opened that unblock BengaliHindu. BengaliHindu was not notified of the SPI on his talkpage. I have no way of knowing if they was aware of that SPI and it doesn't seem they were. In the ANI opened Berean Hunter focuses in on BH vandalism report saying that it wasn't vandalism but obvious BLP issue the user was trying to forward. This doesn't actually seem all to obvious from any of the discussion taking place between BH and MehulWB before the time of the report. At some point later BH had taken it to BLPN. It strange to think that BH would be taking measures in good faith and bad faith at the same time. BH lacks any prior history of it. This also involved an article of a BLP who made major headlines. Those headlines could have brought the other users over. Nirmalya1234 makes protected edit request[12] that suggests they are a new user. Abhijit4law made different changes to the article. Banning an individual for sock puppetry on such weak evidence a month after the incident in question and without reviewing other relevant details is not good precedent. The is also the matter of the two others that remain blocked. As far as it goes with BengaliHindu his ban is already over but there is that single blemish on his block log. I don't expect in the future an Admin to look thru the details of that block but I do expect that if they look at the block log it will poison the well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: It doesn't seem they are required but it does seem they are encouraged. On the SPI page there is a Post box in the collapsed box titled "How to open an investigation:". When you put a name there and click submit it takes you to a page to file your report with all kinds of instruction and advice. There is a section titled General comments. In that section its says You may wish to notify the accused with subst:uw-socksuspect|casename (in brackets).-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

my involvement pertains to explaining SPI processes and agreeing in principle that the block was primarily behavioral based and not screamingly obvious. I suggested that the short term block was an extension of good faith on the behalf of the blocking administrator, other then that I have no opinion. I think it's fairly obvious this case should be declined with alacrity. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bladesmulti

Statement by AmritasyaPutra

I agree with Abecedare that a note should be added to BangaliHindu's block log along the lines "the suspicion of sock-puppetry may have been mistaken". --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (completely uninvolved) Abecedare

I believe:

User:Berean Hunter's block of User:BengaliHindu was in good-faith and justifiable by policy,
Nonetheless, reading the SPI and ANI discussion, it appears possible (probable even) that BengaliHindu did not in fact use sock-accounts
Arbitration cannot resolve this issue and the case should (and, surely will) be rejected.

So how should we handle a case where correct procedure was followed but may have resulted in an undeserved block (and permanent marking of the long term editor's block record)? There are no universal answer, but my suggestion for this particular case would be that, if Berean and BangaliHindu concur, a note be added the latter's block log along the lines "the suspicion of sock-puppetry may have been mistaken" (Technically I believe this would involve blocking BengaliHindu again for say 1 second).

I wouldn't recommend this as a standard operating procedure, since that would result in endless re-litigation of past blocks. But we should be willing to make exceptions in individual instances, out of common courtesy. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ahmed Hassan Imran: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Decline As stated by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the actions by Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) do not appear even close to violating the relevant policies, and as such do not merit arbitration. LFaraone 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Per the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, I do not see a matter that requires arbitration here. Abuse of administrative tools is certainly within the ArbCom's purview, but I don't see credible cause to believe the actions undertaken were abusive or inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda

Initiated by NE Ent at 15:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Msnicki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Founder of Wikipedia told him his behavior was inappropriate and "ground for immediate desysopping." [20]

Previous rfar, declined [21]

See also ACE2013 election comments (collated in deleted Rfcu).

Recent complaint regarding AE action on WT:AC [22]

RFCU Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves, deleted on procedural grounds (see discussion below)

Jehochman et. al. discussion following Rfcu deletion

MrX attempts one on one discussion

Msnicki discussion following Rfcu deletion

Statement by NE Ent

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others
WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis mine)

I assert DangerousPanda has chronically failed to maintain his conduct in accordance with the expected Wikipedia standards. Being human, it's understandable that admins will occasionally misstep and, per not perfect, beyond a brief user talk page note suggesting their behavior was suboptimal, ANI threads and arbcom cases are not appropriate. However, when the behavior is repeated over and over, and prior interventions have failed to be efficacious, action needs to be taken. The committee has repeatedly made it clear that arbcom cases about long term behavior should not be filed without community processes, especially Rfcu's, being followed. As documented above, I initiated such an Rfcu, and found an editor, Msnicki, who was willing to be the second certifier; unfortunately it was deleted in good faith by Jehochman based on wording that suggests Rfcu's may only be certified based on a single incident, not a long term pattern of behavior. After discussion with Jehochman [23], I requested review on AN; Nyttend closed the discussion on the grounds Jehochman's reading is correct [24]. Per not perfect such an Rfcu is unlikely to gain a consensus since it's about a single incident.

This leads to an absurd, Catch 22 like situation that:

The committee is unlikely take a case about long term behavior without an Rfcu.
An rfcu about long term behavior will be deleted because it's about long term behavior.

This is formulated as a "case request" because that's the way a user gets the whole committee's attention. What it really is a request for help: Tell me, tell us, what to do. Take a case on DP, or motion the Rfcu undeleted, or decline, but if you decline please tell us what to do about long term substandard behavior that never quite rises to the slam-bang desysop case, but is clearly unacceptable per the words set forth at Wikipedia:Administrators.

@Salvio, does one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification refer to myself or Msnicki? NE Ent 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Msnicki

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jehochman (Dangerous Panda)

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

"About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed." - There is no process for an administrator to edit a live RFCU. That would be extremely contentious, and after a dozen or more people had commented, editing the presentation would create chaos and a lot of work to notify everybody and ask them to reconsider their opinions in light of the revised presentation. The inclusion of prejudicial material poisoned the well. Once that happened, the most efficient way to correct things was to restart with a proper statement and proper certification.

I was the unlucky one who decided to look at this RFCU with the intention of moving it from the "candidate" list to the "certified" list. There were two signers. Superficially it looked good, but upon closer inspection I was taken aback by the inclusion of irrelevant and dubious material (ArbCom guide statements, hearsay taken out of context), and that the certifiers were referring to incidents in 2014 (good enough) and 2012 (stale, and not the same). I read the instructions at WP:RFCU and decided that the only ethical option was to delete the page. When we are talking about people, the rules need to be applied as written. I communicated [25][26][27] with the filers, offering to (1) userify their content, and (2) explain what was wrong and how to fix it on a second try.

The goal of dispute resolution is to convince the party in the wrong to correct themselves. This can take patience. Dispute resolution is not merely a checklist of prerequisites to fulfill while playing a game of ban-the-other-editors or desysop-the-evil-administrator. For that reason ArbCom should not require a futile RFCU when a user has already received lots of feedback and doesn't seem to be listening, per MrX. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC) and 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: - Here's how to get an RFCU about a long term pattern of administrator incivility. (1) Pick a recent incident of incivility. (2) Have at least two users discuss that same incident with the admin. (3) If the response isn't good, file an RFCU about that incident. (4) In the RFCU, include a section with evidence showing that the crystalizing incident isn't unique; it's part of a long term pattern. List all the prior incidents with diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth:, one way to make RFCU more user friendly would be to require an admin to review and approve the certification before anybody starts making comments. That way any deficiencies could be corrected before it goes live. It's just silly to let it run for 48 hours and for editors to spend their time commenting, many of the comments saying things like "this RFCU is poorly formed". That's just a waste of time caused by a backwards process. Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nyttend

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

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

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

Statement by Lecen

Statement by Jimbo Wales

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

Statement by MrX

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

Statement by peripherally involved Dennis Brown

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

To me, it's a matter of procedure. It isn't about being bureaucratic, it is about maintaining reasonable order and fairness to all parties. I'm not judging the merits of any complaint, but we do have processes designed to deal with these grievances and these processes should be followed unless there is good cause, ie: an emergency. He had 48 hours to get certified, and infinite time to prepare. It was delete 60 hours later from lack of certification. It was already handled by the community. The same for all the improper material he was injecting, making it look as if a dozen people opined about DP's fitness as admin when they in fact were not saying any such thing. It was being handled by the community, including by myself and Bbb23, who commented on this (and gathered majority support of the participants). So far, the community has handled it, and Ent or anyone else can refile a proper RFC/U at any time. Failure to get certification at RFC/U or find enough editors to agree with you that there is abuse is not the same thing as the community being unable to handle the situation. On the contrary, the tone of the discussion on the various pages and the willingness of many admin to assist in userfying the old RFC/U, while unbiasedly encouraging dialog clearly shows the community can handle the situation, and continues to. We are not yet at an impasse, even if some are obviously impatient and single minded. Dennis - 2¢ 23:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

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

Statement by Protonk

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

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

Statement by Bearcat

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

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

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

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

Statement by Floq

I'd suggest one of 2 things:

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

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

Statement by Alanscottwalker

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

Statement by uninvolved Unscintillating

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

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

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

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

Statement by Rschen7754

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

Probably what should be considered in whether to accept or decline this request is whether others have made enough good-faith attempts have been made to address the issues, and whether DangerousPanda has made enough good-faith attempts to address these issues. --Rs chen 7754 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Cline

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

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

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

Statement by Cla68

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

Statement by Hobit

I'm leery of making this a "pile-on" of unrelated things, but this user is one of the main reasons I'm not around any more. I've found him to be neither friendly nor helpful and he takes nearly any criticism or questioning as a pure attack and won't actually address issues. The one example that erks me the most is [28]. He stepped forward as a closer, I questioned if he was an unbiased closer (before things were closed) as his actions (IMO) indicated he had a pretty strong personal opinion. Perhaps I badgered too much, but if you are going to step forward as a closer and can't deal with people doubting that you are a good choice, you probably shouldn't be a closer of anything, let alone be an admin.

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

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

DangerousPanda: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/1/6>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

The record is clear enough that NE Ent created a defective RFC/U which had to be deleted because it did not satisfy the minimum requirements, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. As NE Ent points out, when a request for comment deals with a pattern of behaviour occurring over a long lapse of time, then, in my opinion, it stands to reason to interpret the concept of "same dispute" as referring to the conduct in question in general and, so, to consider the RFC validly certified even if the two certifiers have tried to engage the subject of the request about different incidents, provided both evince the same problem (for instance, incivility). That said, before deciding whether to accept or decline the case, I'd rather see more statements. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Under your reading an editor can say, "They problem is you have bad judgment as an administrator" and then find another editor who ever held that view, no matter how many years ago, and then start an RFCU. "I think you have bad judgement as an administrator" is too vague and would not qualify; "you do not understand how speedy deletion works", on the other hand, in my opinion would. And, in that context, two editors who had discussed with an administrator two different articles he speedied would be acceptable certifiers for a RFC on his knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria.
  Now the fact that, in this case, one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification; still, in my opinion, it would have been better to discuss before acting, letting him know that you would delete the RFC unless he could provide a more recent discussion. After all, there was absolutely no need to delete the page in a hurry, as the only element that DP considers dangerous for his safety had already been removed.
  About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. AGK [•] 12:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting a statement from Dangerous Panda. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also awaiting a statement from Dangerous Panda. And Alanscottwalker is correct, RfC/U is not broken, just rarely used correctly. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also await a statement from DangerousPanda before deciding how to proceed, but my decision will not be significantly influenced by issues regarding the RFCU. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from DangerousPanda also. I generally have a lower threshold for accepting "administrator abuse" cases, because the only place which is adequately set up to deal with them is arbitration. If there is a pattern of problematic actions, an RfC/U is good, but if it cannot be accomplished I do not see the lack of one as being a blocker for an Arbitration case. Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for Panda, but should we not hear from him in a timely manner I only see myself accepting. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]