Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 497: Line 497:
=== Statement by Pudeo ===
=== Statement by Pudeo ===
The administrative actions of Dreadstar have been peculiar here. In particular, this [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive261#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Tutelary_.28Result:_Stale.29|this 3RR report]] concerning 12 reverts in 24 hours was closed as no action by Dreadstar because it was stale 15 hours later. The adminstrator in question often arrives to do clutch decisions that seem to be completely one-sided to me. Dreadstar also closed the ANI thread mentioned in TDA's statement, again of course the people who are for the "anti"-POV (Ryulong et. al.) got off the hook. The Gamergate talk page and edit notes have had horrendous language, usually from Ruylong and Tarc (scanning for the word "fuck" may give a quick idea), but they have never been admonished as even the ANI was quickly closed by Dreadstar. One view referenced in the article itself is that the Gamergate controversy is a "[[culture war]]" (feminism/anti-feminism). This in my opinion explains why "uninvolved" admins as well can have plenty of external motives to act in a partisan way. It's definitely not a good thing if such cliques form in the admin corps. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The administrative actions of Dreadstar have been peculiar here. In particular, this [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive261#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Tutelary_.28Result:_Stale.29|this 3RR report]] concerning 12 reverts in 24 hours was closed as no action by Dreadstar because it was stale 15 hours later. The adminstrator in question often arrives to do clutch decisions that seem to be completely one-sided to me. Dreadstar also closed the ANI thread mentioned in TDA's statement, again of course the people who are for the "anti"-POV (Ryulong et. al.) got off the hook. The Gamergate talk page and edit notes have had horrendous language, usually from Ruylong and Tarc (scanning for the word "fuck" may give a quick idea), but they have never been admonished as even the ANI was quickly closed by Dreadstar. One view referenced in the article itself is that the Gamergate controversy is a "[[culture war]]" (feminism/anti-feminism). This in my opinion explains why "uninvolved" admins as well can have plenty of external motives to act in a partisan way. It's definitely not a good thing if such cliques form in the admin corps. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by AuerbachKeller ===
Ryulong made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=632030230 a problematic BLP edit] referencing me as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Auerbach chronicled on the Gamergate:Talk page]. When I politely requested that he not cite me in the future due to this incident, he accused me in multiple places on WP of threatening him: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAuerbachkeller&diff=633914181&oldid=633630905 On my own talk page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=633913977 on the Gamergate talk page] He is now [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Stuff telling Drmies to tell me to stay way from him (Ryulong)]. Ryulong's behavior appears to be a WP:CONDUCT violation on the grounds of civility at the very least. I hope this issue will be addressed. [[User:Auerbachkeller|Auerbachkeller]] ([[User talk:Auerbachkeller|talk]]) 19:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other user} ===
=== Statement by {other user} ===

Revision as of 19:37, 15 November 2014

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
GamerGate   10 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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

GamerGate

Initiated by --The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

This dispute has eluded resolution through other means ranging from raising concerns at conduct noticeboards and attempts at mediation regarding content. While editors with fewer contributions, as far as I know only those who are or are seen as favorable to the GamerGate side, have been routinely sanctioned or blocked, the established editors who are unfavorable to the GamerGate side and are the source of a lot of the conflict continue unimpeded. This is at least partly due to the fact that they have a sufficient number of sympathizers to prevent any consensus from being reached regarding their conduct. Another problem in this situation is that there are admins who are either WP:INVOLVED on the subject taking action against their opponents while giving them a pass or admins whose actions are otherwise dubious. Some of these admins have a history of questionable use of their admin tools on other topics. I can elaborate further on those details, though some of it is evidenced in the discussions linked above. Even though general sanctions have been imposed in the topic area and there are BLP discretionary sanctions covering some of these details, it has done nothing to stop this behavior from continuing and escalating as it has over the past week. A thorough review of all administrative conduct on this topic area, ranging from rev-deletions and suppressions to blocks and topic-bans, is requested in addition to reviewing the general conduct of editors.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North, a simple review of the linked discussions above should illustrate what conduct issues are in question here with regards to you and other parties to this request. Laying out all of them personally would be taxing, though I am sure there are editors who will be fine raising specific concerns about your conduct and that of other editors in their own statements.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel North's objection to the Ryulong and Baranof filing at ANI clearly encapsulates the issue. Three different uninvolved editors called for banning North and Ryulong from the article, but Dreadstar closed the discussion after blocking the filer. Similar issues exist with FPaS's actions regarding Titanium Dragon and Ryulong. To be clear, I believe a number of the administrative actions that have been taken have been unwarranted, excessive, or inappropriately one-sided, sometimes even when the admin is otherwise uninvolved. Where there may be legitimate cases, it is difficult to trust that when the admins in question are involved or have taken other dubious actions. Quite simply, Tarc, Ryulong, Baranof, and TheRedPenofDoom, have been persistently uncivil and persistently POV-pushing, but essentially no action has been taken against them aside from a few warnings and advisements, while action is routinely taken against anyone who opposes their editing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the concern raised by FPaS, I am not suggesting he is WP:INVOLVED with regards to GamerGate and I don't think being a party to a case inherently makes him involved regarding the general topic area. Similarly, I do not see any reason to consider PhilKnight or Acroterion involved. My concern is that there have been specific admin actions where I feel each of them have acted excessively and/or in an unduly one-sided fashion. Primarily, I am concerned about the WP:INVOLVED actions of Dreadstar and Gamaliel, though there are milder concerns of WP:INVOLVED actions by Cuchullain, Bilby, and Black Kite. It is more that this seems to be a recurring problem in this topic area and has only worsened with the imposition of general sanctions. As a result, the existing problems with POV-pushing are magnified.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Black Kite, I do not think it is appropriate for someone to claim to be an uninvolved admin when they post a message canvassing for support from the Gender Gap Task Force on closely-related articles. Granted, as far as I can tell his admin actions have mostly been revision deletions, but WP:INVOLVED should still apply to those actions. You can also look at his participation in the first ANI case listed above to see the nature of his participation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna note that Dreadstar's list of "attacks" are just examples of me criticizing certain administrative actions. I won't deny that I have been occasionally abrupt with Dreadstar.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, some people on Twitter/8chan claimed I was banned from the article, but they apparently mistook me for Torga. I do, however, think Torga being topic-banned by Dreadstar for 90 days was inappropriate. Torga had been blocked for 48 hours over a minor technical 3RR violation, i.e. he made four reverts within a 24-hour period, and about 13 hours before the block expired Dreadstar imposed the topic ban. Contrast that with Dreadstar dismissing a complaint against Ryulong as stale despite Ryulong flagrantly violating 3RR by making over a dozen reverts with the following seven reverts being obvious: ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Especially contrast this with the fact Dreadstar did briefly block me citing the general sanctions over what he labeled a 3RR violation, even as I explicitly stated I was reverting a BLP issue. He only reversed himself on the basis that the warning came around the same time as my last revert.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of the administrative conduct issues I am concerned about:

As noted previously, Black Kite canvassed the Gender Gap Task Force to deal with "misogynistic edits" on Quinn's page and her game's page and made several remarks regarding Tutelary and Titanium Dragon, yet has performed various revision deletions and was also the admin who closed the ANI discussion on Titanium Dragon four hours after it opened even as TD and another editor were challenging the reason for the topic ban. Bilby is very clearly involved in the GamerGate-related articles from perusing the talk page and has also performed revision deletions, including deleting the edit on the talk page for Quinn's bio that prompted the first topic ban of Titanium Dragon.

There are more examples, but I have covered some of the key ones. For those saying I am trying to prevent admins from acting here, there are numerous admins who I have not named because I see nothing in their conduct that needs addressing or any possible misconduct is minor. I am not even accusing all admins named as parties of serious misconduct, only that some of their actions have been excessive or unwarranted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

I'm not quite sure what this request is asking. It presents no diffs of identifiable issues, it does not present a case that any policies have been violated, nor does it meaningfully demonstrate that the community sanctions have been unsuccessful. A quick look at WP:BLPLOG finds no blocks and only a handful of topic bans implemented under the sanctions, and absolutely none have been imposed for the last two weeks. This suggests that the sanctions have had the intended effect of directing the discussions in a constructive, if sometimes combative, direction.

Rather, this request appears to be a general statement that TDA isn't happy with the way discussions have gone on pages related to GamerGate and wishes ArbCom to intervene to enforce his preferred POV about the movement and people who have been targeted by it — which is, by the indisputable and nearly-unanimous weight of reliable sources, a demonstrably-fringe POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah TDA, sure, if it's too taxing for you, I'll do it. Let's review the above-linked discussions in which I was significantly involved: A user made unfounded insinuations that I was responsible for doxxing them; a failed request for mediation; the filing user was BOOMERANG blocked for BLP violations; a user presented discredited claims about Zoe Quinn; I presented the case that a user was committing repeated and knowing BLP violations, and that user was topic-banned by an uninvolved administrator; TDA unsuccessfully attempted to have the topic-ban reversed; I supported a community consensus to impose sanctions on the area; and here too; filing user was BOOMERANG topic-banned for BLP violations.
I can see why you don't want to spell out your arguments re: the above discussions — it's because you don't actually have any. You're just hoping that a big pile of ANI links will create the appearance that something's wrong with my behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, here is the issue. There is no way to put this delicately, so I'll just say it. Gamergate is demonstrably a fringe POV. While their supporters are very vocal on a few Internet social media forums (most of them entirely anonymous) their actual numbers are small and their claims have garnered no mainstream credibility — to the contrary, in mainstream sources their claims have either been widely refuted or widely dismissed as nothingburgers. The weight of mainstream reliable sources is simply indisputable at this point, and so many Gamergate supporters have retreated into a conspiracy-theory realm where all sources are biased against them, except for those which agree with them. (A self-fulfilling prophecy.)

I am neither a "gamer" nor a "social justice warrior" — I first took interest in this issue when the community was made aware on a noticeboard that Wikipedia pages were being used to spread unfounded claims about living people and, as became obvious, further a campaign of vile harassment against them. Rather than acknowledge the movement's foundation in specious slut-shaming trolling, Gamergate is now attempting to whitewash the past and portray itself as a noble crusade for "journalism ethics," despite the fact that reliable sources all but universally view it as a purveyor of misogynistic harassment and retrograde culture warring. It is difficult to collaborate to build an article when there is insistence on portraying a group not as the overwhelming weight of reliable sources portray it, but as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes. This we simply cannot do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re TDA's newest accusations, they seem to suggest that he believes merely holding or expressing a personal opinion on an ongoing controversy makes an administrator "involved" in any and every content dispute related to that controversy, even if the administrator has not in any way participated in that dispute.
  • Dreadstar's block of Willhesucceed followed a specific warning given the previous day to avoid commentary on editors. Dreadstar's opinion that a particular cartoon was intended to "attack Zoe Quinn" is an opinion expressed in a community discussion of content suitability on the appropriate board.
  • FPaS' topic ban of Titanium Dragon was the culmination of a long, drawn-out series of BLP violations by that user, who simply refused to stop using Wikipedia talk pages and articlespace as a platform to denigrate people who have been targeted by Gamergate, resulting in literally dozens of their edits being revision-deleted. A prior topic ban by Gamaliel was undone only on a technicality, and the user was warned in the strongest possible manner to avoid BLP violations in the future. Instead, they doubled down, launching into ludicrous conspiracy-theory insinuations that the victims of internationally-reported death threats were either guilty of feloniously fabricating the threats or were suffering from mental illness. If ever there was an occasion for a topic ban, this is it — Titanium Dragon has proven themselves incapable of discussing people who have been targeted by Gamergate without attempting to bring them into disrepute.
  • Canvassing a task force for people willing to deal with the demonstrably-misogynistic garbage being hurled at articles linked to Zoe Quinn is the act of a saint, not a culprit. The fact of the matter is, articlespace and talkspace has been repeatedly used by a number of editors as a platform to launch vile and disgusting attacks on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and other targets of Gamergate's ire. A brief look at the editing history for Zoe Quinn and for Anita Sarkeesian is instructive; there are dozens upon dozens of revisions which have been deleted in each article, some which are likely oversighted entirely, and there are probably a ton more that could be deleted — and this is to say nothing of the talk pages, which were at one point a veritable cesspit of misogynistic abuse. Any of Cuchullain's "involvement" in protecting those pages was nothing more than a routine application of the Biographies of Living Persons policy, preventing harm against living people who have been targeted for harassment by a vile mob, which is verifiable by, like, literally the entirety of mainstream media. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

Sanctions are working as intended. There's no new big problems here other than a third attempt at bringing this to ArbCom in what appears to be a (vain) attempt to remove editors that TDA disagrees with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is still a content dispute masquerading as a user behavior inquest. Several threads closed that did not result in sanctions of any type against the people TDA has brought up should not mean anything in the long run other than a content dispute that will not end at any point in the future due to the nature of the real world dispute it concerns. Not to mention that in Loganmac's own statement here he is making polemic statements and comparisons that have effectively been banned from the article's talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: EvergreenFir's statement, it's not even been a week since the last case request was closed. That is no where near enough time for the community sanctions to have failed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Excuse me?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a clarification request, is Titanium Dragon allowed to say anything here considering his topic ban? Or was that lifted, again, without any of us noticing?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Titanium Dragon: You still won't let go of the fact I used the term "/v/irgin" will you?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium Dragon continues to intentionally mischaracterize my use of the term "/v/irgin" despite multiple attempts at telling him he is incorrect and failing to assume good faith. [11] [12] [13] [14] He repeatedly insists that this is something wrong I've done to discount me from being able to edit the article. I am tired of it. He needs to remove this accusation again. Not to mention he shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the discussion in the first place. He is still topic banned. He did not go to get his topic ban lifted by ArbCom on his own and instead turned his attempt to make a statement here into his unban request when he has done nothing but cause BLP violations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amending your statement to include the forward slashes is still an incredible failure to assume good faith considering you think I use the slang term out of malice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thargor Orlando: To this: Your post only highlights an issue stated by several administrators in this request. As soon as someone is sanctioned, and it almost always is one of the people pushing the GamerGate POV, suddenly people accuse that administrator of taking a side and making them never neutral again.
ArbCom should still not take this case. It's barely been over a week since the last request was declined and there is no evidence of the general sanctions failing to require ArbCom to prolong this any more than it already has (other than uninvolved administrators not wanting to touch this shit with a 10 foot pole). There are 43 statements here and that's out of control. There's no way that ArbCom is going to be able to accomplish anything. Wikipedia's normal processes should be allowed to work on this rather than the umpteenth attempt at forum shopping to play King Solomon over the Gamergate baby. The latest in a series of attempts to remove editors claimed to be biased from the editors who are dyed in the wool biased. I won't have any part of this if it gets accepted, anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: In all fairness, the general sanctions haven't been given a proper chance to do anything. The Devil's Advocate brought this case here not even a week after the last case was rejected and at that time the sanctions were practically brand new. There is no reason for this to be requested at arbitration again other than the baseless claims that are being thrown around by the mass of people who I pissed off weeks ago in the "witch hunt" as it is being constantly referred to or the unconfirmed claims of biased administrator actions because I wasn't blocked after something was left at AN3 for half a day without a response or the counter report that was filed after I reported another editor for edit warring when I had made some minor corrections to the article that were unintentionally brought into the edit war at the time. This case is premature, still. Just because a group of editors representing a fringe POV can show up in droves and exasperate the community to think action is necessary shouldn't mean anything in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Retartist: No. Georgina Young's hit piece does not mean me or Tarc are now involved in a conflict of interest because it's not a reliable source. Nothing that goes out of its way to go "These Wikipedia editors are ruining the Gamergate article" will mean anything towards the article or this case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

The previous request was dismissed as "too soon" to to see if the existing community processes could handle the situation. I am not aware that there has been any attempt to utilize the existing community processes since that time that have shown them to be ineffective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that many of the statement appear to have the same issues as the gamergate talk page of rambling on and on and far exceeding the "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words" limit without actually being able to articulate or identify any specific issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent close of the ANI [15] and the subsequent edit war over its implementation and the locking of the article [16] , there may now be evidence that "existing processes" are not working. Or they may show that existing process do work as intended. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the re-opening of the closed ANI [17], it is probably evidence of "not working" right now, or not yet working. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: In between the closing of the last case and the opening of this, I am not aware of anything different happening. Since this case was filed, there was a discussion about whether to remove the NPOV tag and a request at ANI to review and close. This led to an edit war both at the article and at closing the ANI request which resulted in the article being locked (see some diffs in my statements above). A new page was opened to focus on the general sanctions for GG, which has had 2 events discussed Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. A working draft copy of the article was created Draft:Gamergate controversy, and there appears to be progress on at least two fronts. Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Intel_returns_to_Gamasutra.2C_now_with_a_source and Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Proposed_rewording . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Externally, Jimbo suggested that Gamergaters create what they thought would be an appropriate article, and GGers without a real strong grasp of Arb Com launched another "operation" [18] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tutelary

I acknowledge that this is somewhat premature and probably will be rejected, but I'll post my statement in any case.

One of the main examples that I think should be looked into regarding conduct with administrators is the closing of Ryulong's edit warring report (that of 15RR) as stale simply 15 hours after the fact by administrator Dreadstar. It can be seen in this report; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive261#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Tutelary_.28Result:_Stale.29

As evidenced by that report, it is plainly obvious that Ryulong was at 15 reverts particularly within that article, and had no qualifying 3RR exception. Within 24 hours (15 hours), it was rejected as 'stale'. I don't particularly know of Dreadstar's standard for qualifying a report as 'stale', but when I inquired to User_talk:Dreadstar/Archive_11#Closure_of_3RRN_noticeboard_report their talk page about this, they said verbatim basically '3RR or Edit Warring blocks are preventative, not punitive per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals. There were no reverts in over 12 hours, so it was stale. I was also assured in a discussion on the article talk page that there would be no continuation of the edit warring. If you wish to pursue the edit warring instance further, then I'd suggest and WP:RFC/U and not the AN3 noticeboard.'. This was plainly a case where Ryulong was 'backed' by administrator Dreadstar that he plainly got out of a block that probably would have indeffed another user because after 12 hours it was 'stale'. I doubt that entirely.

The next bit is the premature closing of both the sanction discussion regarding it which only achieved 23.5 hours of discussion (that which was still ongoing) before being closed and the sanctions being enacted. That's simply out of practice and needs to be looked into. Because there was definitely some opposing points which were not addressed before it was so soundly closed and enacted. 23.5 hours is NOT enough discussion which will ultimately give administrators even more power and discretion when already, there was enough since BLP discretionary sanctions applied. There was obviously something going on in the background because I have never, ever in my entire life on Wikipedia seen sanctions' discussions closed so rapidly and quickly and still be considered valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive265#Proposed_Gamergate_solution_by_Hasteur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive265#Nip_Gamergate_in_the_bud In this discussion, Ryulong proposed that all of these 'SPAs' be topic banned, but 70% of them were not SPAs and he even implicated an admin as being one of them. There was a counterproposal to topic ban him, but it was closed by Future citing 'no possibility of consensus'--which is a !supervote, closing a discussion so no sanction or rejection of sanction will come out of it. That is unacceptable administrator conduct and I believe that a desysopping or serious sanction should occur for this happening.

This is just a glimpse of what has occurred in simply sketchy circumstances regarding administrators not fulfilling their role as an administrator, and as simply out of practice in terms of all decency of conduct or policy or guideline. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 8chan thread and false accusations that Maseam or Devil's Advocate is behind the 'Wikipedia editor' posting. You guys do realize that people love to stir up shit on those threads? It could actually be any of us; Tarc, Red Pen, Maseam, Dreadstar, Jimbo, Ryulong, Loganmac, etc or the more likely option, someone trying to rally people up under a certain authority 'Oh I'm a Wikipedia editor' to try to push this ArbCom in the other direction. I don't want that. I want neutrality. But people too willing to assume malice and accusations of other editors on a freakin' anonymous image board behind the scenes kind of disheartens me...a lot. It also reminds me a lot of Salem...hysteria mixed with poignant accusations, anyone? Tutelary (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Loganmac

The problems with the article is the extreme uncivility, problems with WP:OWN (25% of edits are made by the same two people). There's constant reverts of good faith edits, before these editors even read them as has happened to me. There's been witch hunts accusing people of being SPAs, this witch hunt included admins and people that have been here for years in a clear attempt to white wash the article. The article right now seems like a parody to outsiders, not supoporters of the movement, I've asked two people that said the neutrality dispute is well placed. Controversial movements should, even if they're supposed to be the most evil movement in history, supposed to be given a historical and uninvolved tone. Articles on Hitler, Scientology, ISIS, the KKK, Al Qaeda show this, and of course we shouldn't give examples to other articles, but when the article on a racist genocidal dictator has a more neutral tone than an Internet controversy you got a problem. All movements no matter how they've been criticized by media, should first state what RS consider this movement advocates for, and then give all the criticism, with due weight, and taking into account that this movement is targeting media, so it's imperative to take every source with a grein of salt. There's been ethical code changes on several sites including Kotaku, Polygon, The Escapist, etc. So it's illogical to say it's a front for harassment when these very same sites have changed their policy and have been disclosing their conflicts of interest, and retroactively correcting other articles in admissions of problems to correct. Aside from this, there's been outside wiki behaviour like people contacting me on my personal twitter and reddit accounts, this very same people show an EXTREME bias to the subject. And their edits show it. The article as well is currently filled with extensive quotes, sources from involved parties (Zoe Quinn currently has quotes on almost every section). People have been in contact with Zoe Quinn to change her picture in the article, because she was drinking and this supposedly was bad even if she's an adult, disregarding that she was at a game event, the picture is of a really high definition and showed her naturally smiling, instead was replaced by a self-taken picture of her making faces (making it hard to really identify her) is of extreme low quality (probably taken by a cellphone) and doesn't show her at a gaming event like the previous one used, the industry by which she's known for. This is just a small example of an attempt to control the narrative that's been going for months. There's been involved admins like Dreadstar who seem to be protecting editors like Ryulong for even a hint of "commenting about them", when this very same editor has been doing the same, on the sight of admins on ANI, on their personal talk pages and the article talk page, and nothing has happened. You should take the example of neutral editors like The Devil's Advocate and Masem, who don't want to take all mentions of misogyny (which currently has almost 40 mentions, inserted at every possible chance, in a repetitive and laughably amateur writing), they want, as it should be, give a neutral explanation, since several editors have given concerns the article fails to explain what the controversy/movement is, being really unfriendly to people that haven't heard about it, and instead focus only on the criticism.

Statement by Masem

(Trimmed versiom, original content here User:Masem/GGArbCom Statement 2). Per a comment I asked on the ArbCom talk page, this request might be too soon (ArbCom suggested giving a month or two for the sanctions to be tested), however, I agree in principle that while there are sanctions in place, they are not able to address the fact that there is experienced editors that have, even unintentionally, working in a manner that creates ownership of the article, dismissing any SPA attempts to contribute (and in fact, claims that they have to work actively against them), and refused to participate in any attempt to reach consensus - specifically but not limited to Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof, TheRedPenOfDoom, and TaraInDC.

Part of this is the story - it is one that is extremely decisive, and the mainstream press has clearly picked a side, voicing an extremely strong negative opinion that the Gamergate movement is misogynistic. This is unavoidable and necessary to include per NPOV/WEIGHT. However, I believe that the above editors are editing partially blinded by strong feelings they share with the press, wanting to treat the proGG without the necessary fairness/impartial nature that NPOV also demands. We're not going to have a lot of favorable things to say about the proGG due to lack of good RS coverage, but we do have enough to present their case, and then present the press's criticism of them. However, efforts to include this impartialness are reverted by those in this group and then they swamp the discussion, going on clearly showing which side of the debate they want pushed hard. (A specific example from this week [19] which was later changed to be less impartial by North [20] and then later flat out reverted claiming that there are no legitimate GG concerns (which there are, it's just "actions speak louder than words" that they haven't gotten detailed coverage [21]). I also believe that the focus this group has on "SPAs are the problem" is misguided. Per edits like this and Ryulong's infamous "list of people I want banned" from ANI, the people above as well as others are trying to effectively engage in censorship of the article or more importantly in the talk page. The suggestion of outright removing SPAs from the picture - while sometimes necessary to minimize disruption - is not acceptable behavior for anyone on WP.

There is a content issue here (in how WP should cover topics that are near-universially treated with negative opinions by mainstream reliable sources), but it is tied in closely with behavior that refuse to want to work on consensus in that manner. I'll also defer to comments I left in the previous case [22]. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DungeonSiegeAddict510 : Apology accepted. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DD2K: Diffs please for how I "aide and abet" SPAs. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DD2K: I strongly contest to that claim. I've been arguing like the others to keep weak RSs out of the article just to support the proGG side, and have not questioned the reliability of mainstream sources (only whether to consider statements they make as opinion or fact, but not to invalid them). So that's a bogus claim. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Between the prior case declined by ArbCom and this one, there had been more a clear indication of ownership and refusal to work towards consensus by the editors named above. In the more recent days, probably because the article's been locked down, there hasn't been as much, but there is the noted effect of outside groups that, whether based on my statement and/or their own determination, have been trying to push for on-wiki evidence for this arbcom case believing that the banning/removal of said people from the article will allow the article to be more neutral. (Disclaimer: I have purposely avoided any direct interaction with these groups, I read what they have written and aware who they see as "problems" in the GG article and that they recognize a few editors (myself included) as the ones to favor to try to get a balance, but I have not said anything to any of them directly save for one private message (see off-case page) which was only about the nature of RSes.) There is still some small ownership and attitude problems within the named parties but it is not as great as it was when this was filed. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Hmm, I'm really not seeing why this filing is being, er, filed. Discussion at Talk:Gamergate controversy is always going to be slightly sharp, as discussions tend to be in hot-button topic areas, but there has really been nothing untoward of late and the filer has provided no diffs of what he believes has changed since the last time. If one looks through the list of ANI links, one will see several WP:BOOMERANG whacks of SPAs, e.g. the one filed against yours truly that resulted in ArmyLine's removal from the topic area. Also, with WP:GS/GG is in place, admins have done a good job of late in steering editors away from commenting on each other and towards commenting on the subject matter.

I will put forth the notion that why we're really here is not that The Devil's Advocate sees an intractable dispute that must be Arbitrated, but rather that he refuses to accept that the tide is turning against him, that the "pro-Gamergate" point-of-view is slipping into a minority/fringe position akin to Obama's birth certificate birthers. Please take note of this post to admin Dreadstar's talk page, which contains the line "Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head.", along with "You probably know this on some level, but simply do not give a shit because my comments go against your own opinion on the issue of GamerGate." from here. What TDA is doing here is casting aspersions against one of the admins who has attempted to keep the peace in the GG article, but is getting increasingly shrill because action is (rightly, IMO) taken primarily against the disruptive single-purpose accounts. This reminds me of the Stevertigo 2 case, where an editor was so aggressive and so believing in his own rightness...or righteousness...that any failure to achieve consensus for his preferred edits must mean either collusion or malfeasance on the part of admins and other editors.

The edit-warring of the past month has largely subsided in the wake of reliable sources cementing the foundation of GG being primarily about the misogynist harassment of women in the gaming industry. This is like a football (real football, not that footy stuff) being tied up at halftime, but by the end of the 3rd quarter, one team has pulled far ahead due to a strong foundation. All in all, what this is is a case of TDA not accepting the way GG is trending. Tarc (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Admins and whatnot, please take note of User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff. Userspace is being utilized as a clearinghouse of slanted critiques, by both the page owner and a curious new account Eldritcher who has done nothing put create a sandbox and edit Retatist's sub-page. Quite obvious that there is off-wiki collusion going on. Taken to MfD, as the speedy deletion was objected to. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: (wish there was some sort of easy group ping function) and others accepting or considering accepting now...again I will point out that we have discretionary sanctions in place that have barely been tried. I ask this;

  1. All of you Arbs and admins here, place WP:GS/GG/E on your watchlist. Help out, when requests are made.
  2. Everyone else here; STOP sniping back and forth on the article talk page. If you have a problem with someone, then go file a complaint at the above page and let others handle it. Go ahead, file something on me, or Ryulong, or Tuletary, or Masem...rather than everyone endlessly saying why they think other editors are problematic or obstructionist. This is "put up or shut up" time, because, trust me; most people that get dragged to an Arbcom case do not emerge unscathed, no matter how confident you are going in that you're in the right and the other guy's a rube. Give what we have a try before this goes to the Court of Last Resort. Tarc (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilby

I'm a bit confused about what has changed to warrant revisiting this issue so soon. The last ArbCom request closed less than a week ago, and all of the discussions linked to above are from September and October, before the request closed. As far as I am aware there have been no significant events on the GamerGate article - the only protection was by me to return semi after it was removed when the previous full protection expired. The talk page remains open, and there has been no revdel since the last request closed. There has been some minor edit warring and heated discussion continues unabated, but mostly we're looking at content issues. I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up here eventually, but I am surprised to see it here now. - Bilby (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that The Devil's Advocate has included me in the list of admins above, even if mostly in passing, I should make a statement. As The Devil's Advocate points out, I am involved in the GamerGate article, although I am aware of this and believe that I'm acting accordingly. Originally I chose to try and remain uninvolved, but during the process I realised that I would be more useful as an editor rather than as an admin. Since then I have chosen to make no input into potentially contentious admin decision, including blocks and topic bans. I have only made a very small number of admin actions, and per WP:Involved, they were extremely straightforward, or both straightforward and urgent (BLP violations). Until now, as far as I am aware the only concerns raised were about a revdel which contained libel, [23], and now the diff raised by TDA [24] which I stand by. I am not aware of any other action which has been previously raised as a concern, but then due to the decision to act as an editor I have had to leave all heavy lifting to others. - Bilby (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

I've wanted to participate with editing this article, but have mostly held back because of the vitriol and condescending attitudes presented by some of the established editors who are heavily involved in that article. There are some indications, namely when Future Perfect of Sunrise prematurely shut down that AN discussion and other examples, of improper admin conduct related to this dispute. These examples include some particularly egrious examples of WP:BITE. Judging by the discussion on the article talk page, I think we have some of the most clear examples of non-NPOV editing I've ever seen in WP. If the Committee accepts this case, I will help present evidence, because it appears to be extremely voluminous. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by marginally involved EvergreenFir

Just commenting to urge arbcom to take this case now. On the previous request a couple weeks ago I urged the committee to wait. And wait they did. Not much has come of the WP:GS/GG. I think it's time for arbcom to step in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo a comment above:

  • Google "Ryulong" and you will see the extent of the problem here. Edit for clarity: I'm trying to point out the vast off wiki activity going on in gg groups and that users like Ryulong are being targeted. If you Google as I suggested you can quickly see the numerous posts on reddit and the off wiki orchestration occurring. It demonstrates the extent of the problem. To be clear, I am not suggesting users try to dig up info on another user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by still uninvolved Hasteur

ArbCom said no last week, and the only thing that has changed is we've gained a few more warned editors and one more editor is topic banned. This request is still not ripe for ArbCom manipulation. If ProGG brigade can make a bulletproof case that the rules of Wikipedia are being broken and not being dealt with by the sanctions on the AntiGG brigade, but at current I see only the same tempest in a teapot that we saw last time. Reccomend a speedy decline of this request with a censure of The Devil's Advocate as a participant in the previous request. Hasteur (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I explicitly challenge those who claim that the GS are not working to make a significantly compelling case for the GS to be applied to the editors they feel are suppressing the narrative using actions that are post sanctions being authorized and post these editors being notified. If you can make a compelling argument that an uninvolved Administrator sustains by applying sanctions, you've proven your point. If the administrator declines, take it to AN or ANI to have the community decide. This shrieking that WikiInsiders are using wikiprocess to suppress you only shows your ignorance and externally motivated agenda. Want to defeat these wizards of wiki process? Beat them at their own game by getting an uninvolved administrator (or the community at large by reasoned consens (i.e. not a Mob Vote)) to support your view. Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halfhat AGF is not a suicide pact. If new editors show themselves in their first edits of appearing to use the same playbook as previously sanctioned and removed editors it is no stretch of the imagination that they are working as an externally coordinated activity. It takes but one notice to arm the GamerGate general sanctions on any editor. In theory by being notified they will behave themselves, but if they don't uninvolved administrators can levy whatever sanctions are necessary to prevent disruption. There is a difference between disagreeing with the opposition and being disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And so the long con of those endorsing and abetting the fringe viewpoint is being rewarded. By making a hydra like press on any and every avenue of complaint to get the entire community talking about their interpertation of the issue ("It's about ethics") the fringe attracts more attention and disrepute on all parties involved. The living people who are being attacked will permanantly have the stigma of scandal attached to them and the anonymous attackers can jettison the names at will and start fresh. I invite the committee to pass a motion only indicating that the community sanctions are appropriate, that behavior with respect to this subject has been significantly lacking, and that the gloves are coming off with respect to conduct. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore with the establishment of Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement we have a relatively neutral ground for presenting cases for sanctions being applied much like ArbEnforcement. Of course this pre-suposes that those who are claiming biased enforcement will actually put their money where their mouth is and use the venue to get sanctions applied... Hasteur (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like this are exactly the playbook that the enablers/SPAs/etc are using to discredit and claim that there is an Grade-A EMERGENCY for ArbCom to wade in and force a content decision when it is the conduct of the SPAs deliberately trying to invalidate independent editors from expressing a viewpoint. I was uninvolved in the dispute because I made no edits to the subject area prior to proposing the sanctions, I have been uninvolved in the dispute in suggesting that all the requests to force arbcom to deal with it are forum shopping (as I still haven't edited the affected pages), and I still remain uninvolved because I still have to edit the page. See how nicely that is tied up. Now if Thargor Orlando wanted to actually speak from facts instead of their prejudices they would have seen that RGloucester created the page. But hey because it's GamerGate and it's about ETHICS we can sling whatever accusations we want. The only thing that we are gaining from this is more entrenched positions on both sites. I implore the committee and their clerks to start forcably redacting out of order statements. Hasteur (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I endorse TheRedPenOfDoom's assertion (to this point) as to what has happened since the last case was declined. Somewhere between the last case being declined and now the "advocates for the movement" realized that if they stir up enough drama to get those who are upholding wikipedia policy/practices/standards to be sanctioned/banned/banished they could have free reign on the page and the talk page. The problem with "the encyclopedia anybody can edit" is the minimal level of engagement means the anonymous hordes of advocates can burn as many pseudonyms as they want to get the established editors banned from the space. Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

The Devil's Advocate has a long history of bringing frivolous or outright fabricated charges to Wikipedia noticeboards, of fomenting drama on and off Wikipedia, and of excusing, downplaying, or ignoring noxious, disruptive, and policy-violating behavior of those he perceives to be on his side. In relation to GamerGate, his charges have been soundly rejected on the noticeboards, he was so disruptive there that he was blocked by an uninvolved administrator, and he ignored or downplayed the abusive behavior of users like TabascoMan77 and Titanium Dragon while loudly complaining about the "abuse" they received. The Committee should ban this user from all Wikipedia noticeboards for at least one year. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of Titanium Dragon's topic ban: I topic banned him after the second time he used Wikipedia to air unsubstantiated allegations of serious wrongdoing against Zoe Quinn. (The topic ban was overturned only because of a procedural error on my part; efforts to overturn the ban on the merits were dismissed at ANI.) Titanium Dragon was quickly topic banned again by a different administrator. An ArbCom case is about conduct, policy, and procedure, but Titanium Dragon devotes the bulk of his comments (prior to condensing to 500 words) to his personal views of the facts of GamerGate, including his claim that Quinn's harassment was a fabrication on her part, as well as comments that darkly hint at her involvement in something, a matter that when he explicitly leveled those charges against Quinn got him topic banned. Since he is unable to sufficiently restrain himself after being topic banned twice, it is clear that either because of malice or particularly poor judgement, Titanium Dragon is unable to edit Wikipedia with the sensitivity and thoughtfulness required for dealing with BLPs. As a result, the Committee should indefinitely topic ban him from all BLPs. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On TDA's new post: WP:INVOLVED: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." I believe all of my comments related to GamerGate which TDA uses as "evidence" of my alleged involvement fall under these categories. TDA's complaint was soundly rejected at ANI and there's nothing new here, it's simply forum shopping. At ANI, TDA claimed I have a "vested interest" in this matter, a claim he has yet to substantiate or retract. I'd like to know what that "vested interest" is because there is sea life in the Marianas Trench with more of a vested interest in GamerGate. I am stunningly indifferent to GamerGate and gaming culture, and I'm really curious what TDA thinks my stake is here beyond enforcement of Wikipedia policies and norms.

TDA's complain misrepresents or ignores serious wrongdoing on the part of those he defends. He claims I was "feuding with" Tabascoman77, a serious misrepresentation of the facts. Tabascoman77, in what to my recollection was my only interaction with this editor, posted an unsolicited attack on myself and several others at ANI and threatened to write an "expose" on them, something that might be considered blackmail. He then posted serious allegations of wrongdoing against GamerGate BLP Zoe Quinn, I warned him, he did it again, and I blocked him. Even if Tabascoman's threats somehow made it inappropriate for me to take administrative actions against him, WP:GRAPEVINE still applies.

TDA also has no interest in BLP or BLP enforcement. He complains here that it is "absurd" for me to redact the usage of a slur against Quinn. He ignores the behavior that led Titanium Dragon to get topic banned by two different administrators and have dozens of his edits revision deleted. Apparently that topic ban is "tyrannical behavior". TDA's viewpoint appears to be editors should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences, while administrators are should be restricted from acting in almost every case, and any check on editorial behavior by administrators is a "tyrannical" abuse of power. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Titanium Dragon

I became involved in this because I was worried that the article was going to be defaced by angry gamers; instead, it was being defaced by angry culture warriors. I sought to make the article more neutral, and include sourced information. Subsequently, I was doxxed by Wikipediocracy in September, along with another user, Tutelary, in an obvious intimidation attempt. user:Tarc, a former associate of Wikipediocracy, made approving noises, while user:Gamaliel noted that he wanted to ban users such as ourselves. He subsequently did so at the request of user:NorthBySouthBaranof shortly after North found out that I was working on an ANI against him and other disruptive users, and immediately after I removed a section of material from the Zoe Quinn article he had added from Cracked magazine, a parody website. He had previously been warned by other users it was inappropriate to include in the article.

The ban was later reversed. Some time later, while I was helping a new editor properly file a 3RR dispute against user:NorthBySouthBaranof and user:Ryulong, who had been reverting his comments on the talk page (and trying to shut down discussion), user:NorthBySouthBaranof sought bans against both myself and the other user involved in the dispute, which user:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise granted within a half hour.

Why?

Numerous claims of criminal activity have been made by both sides, and while some (Sarkeesian’s death threats, various website hacks) are well attested, others lack independent verification and appear not to have been reported to law enforcement. One individual making these claims has had reliability issues in the past about similar events, resulting in The Escapist apologizing for repeating their unverified claims, and another works for Breitbart, a right-wing publication. In the past, unverified claims of harassment have lead to harassment of others. Per WP:CRIME, claims of criminal activity need to be well-verified. I advocated for caution. North both lied about what I said (claiming I only advocated for scrutiny of the claims of one side, when I specifically noted both) and claimed that he knew what I meant.

North previously had been warned in an ANI about precisely this behavior, falsely claiming that other people have said things that they had not said and casting aspersions on others. user:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise was uninterested in reviewing this fact.

Ryulong and North have been seeking bans on people who disagree with them and who pursue action against them. Ryulong has a history of seeking blocks against users who disagree with him, something which was noted when he was de-sysopped many years ago; his behavior does not appear to have changed.

Tarc, Ryulong, and North have falsely claimed consensus and improperly excluded material while shutting down discussion and insulting other users, referring to them as misogynists, /v/irgins, and otherwise casting aspersions reminiscent of that used in off-Wiki harassment. They have rejected and insulted mediation. GamerGate is a massive fight with both the “GamerGaters” and the so-called “SJWs” attacking each other and third parties who simply report on the events in a way they don’t like, including Wikipedia editors. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Trimmed to 500 words; original statement here)

Statement by (uninvolved) Desine

Hi guys! You might want a heads-up that someone's trying to kick up a mob on 8chan to smear anyone and everyone involved in this Arbcom. They're actively trying to doxx people, so I'm not going to link it, but I'd be happy to offer links/archives to trusted parties if necessary. - Desine (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you know, people could just openly link it on my talk page. - Desine (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr. Random

Regarding the 8chan mob: the only doxxing I see in the thread is the mentioning of one editor's name (it's unclear to me whose) in the context of evidence of an editing COI. Their primary objectives seem to be to collect evidence of editor misconduct related to the article (which quickly devolved into general smearing among some of them), and to find pro-GG sources for the article itself. Still, given the mob's instability, we should be ready for anything they might do, so to speak.

There seems to be an edit war here over whether Jimbo Wales is involved. He has commented on Twitter about this issue, but he has not directly participated (or even taken action that could be construed as such in any way), and is thus uninvolved. Please stop trying to list him as an involved party. I stand corrected.

Finally, regarding the case itself: in light of what A Quest For Knowledge just brought up (i.e., an uncalled-for and unusually well-coordinated discussion shutdown, tag removal, and page locking), I must strongly encourage ArbCom to take this case. Random the Scrambled (?) 15:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DungeonSiegeAddict510

Archived statements at User:DungeonSiegeAddict510/ArbCom Temp

Statement by lurker Retartist

I haven't been heavily involved in this but i have been watching all the time. I dont post much because mostly I don't have much time and i don't like to write long posts. I started the failed dispute resolution and mediation requests. I think several users have been VERY uncivil and have gotten away with it per other users comments. I think it is 100% wrong that people are labelling this movement as Factually misogynistic and that popular opinion constitutes fact. Personally i used to be 100% pro-gg but recently have become more cynical as some people in the movement have shut their minds 100% or can't decide whether to be angels or just wreck shit (hi 8 chan). I know that the page can't paint GG as saints but what the page at this time is a smear campaign that assumes the press is 100% right. Also by request Here is the 8chan thread Retartist (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to act as a proxy for 8chan, Here is a page where I/they will copy notable posts that summarizes their arguments: User:Retartist/8chanstuff and they want us to look at this page re: claims of doxing from them Fallacy of quoting out of context Retartist (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blanked page and redirecting users to collect evidence off wikiRetartist (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I looked at the thread it said "DIG UP ALL INFO POSSIBLE ON Ryulong, NorthBySouthBarnoff, TarainDC, and TheRedPenofDoom. Wiki related, we don't need twitter/tumblr/etc shit unless its related." that sounds like they are just looking for evidence of user misconduct, not home/personal details (not doxx) Retartist (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear that the actions of myself in relation to the 8chan users is purely for the purpose of collecting diffs that they have that relate to the behaviour of editors for the purpose of this arb-com case. Retartist (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question, since news sites have mentioned several wikipedians in relation to the controversy, does that make them too involved in the page and therefore have a WP:COI? Retartist (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryulong: Can i get a longer answer/reason as to why please? Retartist (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Willhesucceed

This topic has entirely exhausted me. TRPoD, Ryulong, Tarc, and to a lesser extent Tara and Baranof's harassment, belligerence, and unwillingness to cooperate with others on the Gamergate topic make the possibility of a good article materialising exceedingly small. I'm not going to bother tracking down all the swearing, arbitrary shutting down of discussions, mocking, double standards with regards to sources, edit warring, and other such behaviour that's marred the editing there, because the last time I did it didn't make any difference, even after Ryulong went on a witch hunt.

When I was still new here, multiple persons engaged in an edit war with me, and nobody did anything about it. As soon as people with whom The Five (above) disagreed did it, they submitted them for admin action. There are plenty of other such incidences evident to anyone who's been following the topic. Again, I have no faith that the admins are interested in executing their duties here, so I'm not going to bother tracking it all down. If the admins are actually finally interested in performing their responsibilities, they can be the ones to waste their own time.

While The Five, or at least TRPoD, Ryulong, and Tarc are still allowed anywhere near the topic, leave me out of this. I want as little as possible to do with them or with wilfully blind and biased administrators. Wikipedia has turned into a joke. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that there seems to be over-reliance on "strong" but biased/political sources over more neutral/factual but "middling" or "weak" sources, which reliance is leading to an article that is prima facie objective but that is actually inaccurate, in that information is being excluded simply because it doesn't serve The Five's agenda. Digitimes, for example, is a respectable tech news outlet in Taiwan (you know, one of the places that make products for the video games industry), and yet it's not included anywhere on the page. Why? Because people are pushing political agendas instead of working together to create a proper, factual article on the topic. Here, have a look at them: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141027VL200.html and http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html?chid=8 Perfectly reasonable perspective removed from the politics of the issues (unlike NYT, etc.), and yet they're being ignored. BBC Business Matters also covered the topic more neutrally, as have a few other sources. They're not included, either. More neutral and factual articles are being passed over for human interest pieces and politics. Welcome to the New Wikipedia. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Halfhat

The problemss with this article are complex and numerous, there are NPOV issues that need worked on (particularly on the intro), however they seem to be argued over almost exclusively making up the bulk of the talk page. There is a serious lack of attention to the over major issues with the page. These include the unjustifiable volume of opinion which has left the article at around 120kB which finally seems to be going down. Part of the problems I think also come from the highly polarizing nature of the topic, just about everyone here has some strong views, though I'm sure many will deny this, however there is clearly more going on. There's a bad habit of adding from every RS and a serious unwillingness to remove. HalfHat 09:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is the large volume of users attacking each other, this plagues both of the "sides" that have loosely formed, they usually go along the lines of agenda pushing and seldom have anything backing them beyond having opinions, the nature of the topic is highly polarizing, and so we all have our own biases, I think we need to accept this and move on instead of being so quick to accuse. HalfHat 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie What evidence do you have to back up your conspiracy theory? HalfHat 09:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm not sure what should be done, I'm just trying to share my understanding of the situation since I've been pretty involved. HalfHat 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fut.Perf. What are you suggesting, guilty until proven innocent for new users? Totally against assume good faith and don't bite the n00bs, which is part of one of the five pillars. Mass bans without researching goes directly against what Wikipedia stands for.

I'm still not sure what is the best idea, but I can't help find how strongly certain users are against this a bit odd. HalfHat 09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page everyone seems to be more at each other's throats than usual, I really don't know why. HalfHat 22:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silver seren

In the interest of keeping the reading of this short, i'll just upfront state my opinion, since it's quite possible the rest of my comment will be long. Thus, in short, Arbcom should NOT accept this case.

This article topic is basically an issue involving a dedicated group of Fringe people (the supporters that make up the Gamergate group) pushing for an article that reflects their POV, rather than neutrality or reliable sources. Considering the ongoing harassment campaign against dozens of people by this group, it is unsurprising that they are also wishing to control the narrative of the Wikipedia article on the topic of their group. They are similar to any other fringe group, whether speaking of pseudoscience or subjects related to sects of things in religion or political ideology. Several of the individuals that have made statements above are clear and known supporters of this Gamergate subject group. As you'd expect, there are a lot of SPAs involved. And then there are several others, which I will name Masem as one, that are trying to be good Wikipedians, but are pushing the point of neutrality to a fault. In a manner like what a lot of news media does, they are assuming that since there is more than one side involved, that the sides are equal and should be given equal weight. In this vociferous attempt to be neutral, they are essentially advocating for a violation of WP:DUE WEIGHT and against the very point of FRINGE existing.

Also, a side note of what exactly Wikipedia as a whole is dealing with in regards to this group and which several others have noted above, there are a number of threads within the Gamergate areas that currently are watching this very Arbcom request and say things such as, and I quote,

"DIG UP ALL INFO POSSIBLE ON Ryulong, NorthBySouthBarnoff, TarainDC, and TheRedPenofDoom."

So, in addition to dealing with rampant meatpuppetry, there are also concerns regarding harassment and WP:GAMING. Please take all of this into account.

It is for all the above reasons that I suggest that Arbcom does not take this case. The article is already being administered properly, following the policy and guideline rules of reliable sources, neutrality, due weight, and consensus among editors. The involvement of Arbcom at this junction would only serve to make the overall situation more chaotic and would only produce heat and no light at all. Thank you for your time. SilverserenC 09:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

Here we go again. My statement last time (that people outside Wikipedia are attempting to use the "Death by a Thousand Cuts" technique to force editors out of the area, to give their SPA/POV warriors a chance to slant the article to their preferred version... think that's pretty much came true, huh? Dunno how it's solveable, it's against "Wikipedia's code" to restrict SPA's based on what they MIGHT do, but it's just a wave upon wave of attacks, hoping to "break the dam" through erosion. SirFozzie (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HalfHat: Would the threads on 8Chan and KiA where they discuss how to break users in this thread help? SirFozzie (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what got you worried. I mentioned Restricting SPA's, which would possibly affect you, correct? SirFozzie (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cs_california

I have been on Wikipedia for a while and made one to two NPOV edits on this page. On 28 September 2014 I added a sentence with reference on one of issues regarding corruption involving EA games. On October 22, 2014 a message was sent to me about an administrator board message from User:Ryulong. I, along with some fifteen users were wrongfully accused of being "Pro-gamergate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Nip Gamergate in the bud and was requested to be banned from the page for POV pushing and editing pages such as " (Anita Sarkeesian, Video game journalism, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, etc.) ", which I have never edited. I only added 2 sentences and was automatically assigned an alignment to a certain side.

After reviewing some talk pages it seems like User:Ryulong is pushing a POV agenda including:

  • Witch hunting of users per request Nip Gamergate in the bud with NO research (ie "zero edits outside of this topic area in the past 2 months")
  • Incorrectly removing POV tags Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 8#POV tag
  • Bullying and acting in an Uncivil manner
    • including reverting users talk pages for no reason
    • Using pejorative terms to refer to anyone presenting counter evidence
    • Incivility

Per comments about 8chan: I do not know what that website is nor do I use it. As for the dig up everything comment. If there was no proof of anything negative there would be nothing for them to find. Only administrative bureaucrats can delete personal information or items from history.

-Cs california (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avono

I will be agreeing with Cla68 and Masem, imho the biggest problem with the gamergate talkpage is that is it overly hostile for uninvolved /new users to get involved in (by a set of problematic users who have clearly shown that there are not impartial). At the current time it is not worth the effort to solve the article’s npov issues because of that group of people who seem to think that they “own” the article.

@Silver seren:: the exact quote is "ITS IN ARBCOM GUYS. ARB. FUCKING. COM. (or at least a request). DIG UP ALL INFO POSSIBLE ON Ryulong, NorthBySouthBarnoff, TarainDC, and TheRedPenofDoom. Wiki related, we don't need twitter/tumblr/etc shit unless its related.",so please don't take quotes out of context. Users are accountable for their own actions therefore your second last argument about possible harassment is invalid. Avono (talk) 11:31 am, Today (UTC+1)

Statement by Ramba Ral

May I state, first off, that ArbCom should absolutely take this case.

I am not an active contributor to this article for obvious reasons, but I have been involved in this article from the beginning.

This article is subject to numerous problems, many of which have already been listed in statements by previous contributors to which I will add the following:

Firstly, there are next to no reliable NPOV secondary sources with which to support this article. The article concerns corruption in the media. Anyone with a modicum of common sense or ability to think critically will come to the realisation that the media is therefore not a reliable source on its own corruption. Nevertheless the article cites blogs and websites such as Cracked, Buzzfeed and indeed, Kotaku as reliable sources. In the case of Kotaku, user Ryulong said, in this talk page that it is not a reliable source. Kotaku is listed as a source for this article at least five times. What makes Kotaku an unreliable source for a tribute game and reliable on its own corruption?

Secondly, the article has been described by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales as a 'badly written battleground'. As Loganmac mentioned more contentious topics such as Adolf Hitler have received far more neutral articles. Why should a controversy over reporting in Games' media be treated any differently? The article has a problem with neutral language and perspective. I edited the article exactly once, to make the language more neutral. My edit was immediately reverted by an editor who claimed my edit was a WP:BLP transgression. This is WP:GAME and there are many instances of this happening. The article which is mainly being edited by the same four editors, user Ryulong in particular, in what is a textbook case of WP:OWN.

This brings me to my third and final point.

I am absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of Ryulong in particular. Ryulong has often proven himself to be uncivil, uninterested in civil discussion and solely concerned with narrative pushing in violation of Wikipedia policy. Keep in mind that this editor was de-sysopped for narrative pushing, harassment and ‘doxxing’ people who disagreed with him.

Numerous evidence exists of Ryulong engaging in WP: TAGTEAM ([25]), WP:DE and violation of WP:NPOV (admitted to bias [26] and [27] as well as a violation of WP:CIVIL). In addition he tried to lead a witch-hunt against editors who do not share his views [28], some of which were prominent administrators.

This is not the first time that Ryulong has engaged in such behaviour. Nor will it be the last, unless Arbitrators do something about him. Ryulong has already been de-sysopped for similar behaviour and is frequently the target of requests for arbitration and other such requests. I believe that he represents the worst that Wikipedia has to offer, a text book case of WP:BITE amongst other things, and letting him go on unpunished would be an affront to the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole.

Thank you for reading. Ramba Ral (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my statement, I would like to address two important concerns that have arisen from other users' statements.
Firstly the issue of SPAs brigading the article. This is a strawman. As I and other have mentioned, the vast majority of edits to the GamerGate page have been done by Ryulong, with 25% of the edits to the page being done by two, well established editors. If there are indeed SPAs brigading the article to push a narrative, their influence is minimal at best. As mentioned, Ryulong tried to instigate a witch-hunt against those he considered to be SPAs and Sockpuppets, and all the contributors mentioned were found not to be SPAs at all. In fact, some of them were prominent adminstators. The net result was that Ryulong humiliated himself.
In addition, some of the editors' prejudice against what they perceive to be SPAs demonstrates a clear case of WP:BITE. I'm sure that there are many, actual SPAs who are pushing the article in the direction the four most prominent editors wish it to go in. These people have not been named. Instead, most of the users being accused of being SPAs are pushing for a more neutral stance, demonstrating that the editors in question are attempting to attack users simply for disagreeing with what they are saying, not for any truly disruptive behaviour.
Secondly, the issue of off-site interference. I don't usually use Reddit or 8Chan but based on the threads linked I believe this is a non-issue, for two reasons:
1) Unestablished and unconfirmed users cannot brigade the page.
2) The sites in question are calling for evidence, which absolutely no users can fabricate.
In addition, user EvergreenFir suggested that Arbitrators google Ryulong for evidence of bias against him. I implore you to do so. A google search for Ryulong will turn up mountains of evidence against him, including evidence that he has been pushing non-neutral narratives. In addition a search will turn up various user accounts belonging to Ryulong on other Wikis, where has often been banned for the very behaviour he seems to get away with so frequently on Wikipedia. A search will also turn up Ryulong's pages on Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review, where users have named him the worst Wikipedia admin.
If other users wish to bring off-site content into this request, I submit that all this off-site content is relevant to this case.

Ramba Ral (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Thargor Orlando

I have not edited in the area since it blew up, and rarely have edited in the area otherwise. Along the same lines as SirFozzie's claim in the first filing is the issue of how the discretionary sanctions were reached: less than 24 hours of discussion with significant and growing opposition (including an alternative proposal that never got posted due to the speed in which discussion was closed) not really being addressed or even acknowledged. I may have something to contribute to the article space for these issues, but I see no reason to bother given the way this situation has snowballed and the speed in which administrators and involved users are acting on the matter. I'm completely in Cla68's boat in which the behavior of what, for the purposes of this filing, would be called "anti-GG" editors have fostered a climate where editing in the area for uninvolved editors is not worth the energy or fear of being blocked.

ArbCom should accept this to look neutrally at the conduct of all involved parties as well as providing some guidance in regards to the community sanctions and perhaps that overall process to ensure that the community is not steamrolled by activism in any direction. Disruptive editing has always been able to be handled well; rushed sanctions designed to protect one side while killing dissent is not it, and the editors involved in that activity, as listed above, should not be beyond accountability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur:'s point about the new enforcement page (which replaces/duplicates the existing page) just further highlights the problem. We're expecting the same community and the administrators that appear to be unable to take a neutral look at this situation (as demonstrated just today with the issue of the NPOV tag at the article) to then somehow be responsible enough to handle sanctions that do not appear to have wide approval, having been instituted after less than a day of discussion and without addressing the significant problems with the sanctions and the way they address the problem at hand. Also, Hasteur, you're not uninvolved at all, as you're the one who sought community sanctions on this issue. Please stop pretending you're somehow neutral on this issue. TO CLARIFY: User:Hasteur is the one who proposed the sanctions. We can see that from the title of the header, "Proposed Gamergate solution by Hasteur." The accusations levied on me for wanting accountability and the bad faith demonstrated by Hasteur in his response are just some of many examples of how poisonous this has become and why a neutral party needs to be involved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, I don't see how this can be resolved without ArbCom intervention anymore. The community trust on this issue is basically ruined on both sides, and neutral parties willing to look at all angles of this are desperately needed. Hopefully ArbCom can be that group. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: User:Gamaliel's latest update about "forum shopping" is, ironically, what I think of when I think of what happened the last few days with the NPOV tag. Clearly anti-GG editors couldn't get consensus at the article page to remove the necessary NPOV tag, so they forum shopped it to AN/I, allegedly got consensus there (the same "consensus" that established the discretionary sanctions based on a small pool of users in a short amount of time), and then got the tag removed. The constant steamrolling of one side of the discussion in favor of the other is the problem here. I have no dog in this fight, I don't care enough about this issue to have a side, but I do have a vested interest in an encyclopedia that isn't having articles handled the way this one is by small pools of editors with various points of views and vendettas due to understandable anger at off-wiki activities. As someone who has been attacked off-site for alleged points of view and advocacy, I can sympathize, but that's simply not an excuse and the discretionary sanctions do not appear to be able to handle those editors because of the emotions and controversy surrounding this. Please take this case, it's really the only way we can get this sorted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Liz

I'm glad to see that this page is semi-protected. It's alarming to see threads like this (https://8chan.co/gg/res/471658.html and http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ltg1a/this_is_really_important_top_wikipedia_admins_are/) on 8chan and reddit basically trying to rally the troops to influence these proceedings and "dig up information" on some of the participants (specifically Ryulong, NorthBySouthBarnoff, TarainDC and TheRedPenofDoom) . I know off-wiki activity is generally not considered but this seems especially targeted to influence any decision-making.

I hope that ARBCOM considers the arguments of people actually involved with editing articles concerning this subject and not uninvolved editors (myself included). Liz Read! Talk! 13:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across Operation 5 Horseman (GamerGate is fond of military language) on pastebin, [29], focused on combing through contributions of a variety of editors and admins involved in this process to dig up dirt. Regardless of the specific content disputes, I fear that the evidence phase of a proceeding of an ArbCom case will spiral out-of-control and get overly personal on the real, personal failings of all-to-human editors. Given the off-Wikipedia conversations I've read, I wouldn't be surprised to see arbitrators next being subject to this same level of scrutiny if their opinions don't please this group of readers.
I realize that the consequences of taking a case shouldn't be the primary factor in deciding to accept a case. I just can easily see this becoming a circus with an ever-expanding number of participants. I'm thinking more about the ArbCom clerks more than anyone else as they are tasked with managing cases. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Akesgeroth

I have rewritten my statement to follow the 500 words rule. Anyone wishing to review the original statement when the involved parties begin pretending that I do not address some issues (or simply wishing for more information) can do so here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akesgeroth#Statement_by_Akesgeroth

The continued contributions of four Wikipedia users (Ryulong, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom and NorthBySouthBaranof), referred to as The Four from here on out, combined with the tacit support of certain administrators acting as proxies for them threatens Wikipedia's integrity to an unacceptable point which will not be fixed without arbitration because of the involved party's continued abusive behavior and clear lack of remorse. They are not acting in good faith and are acting with the protection of certain administrators to edit politically sensitive topics and push their own narratives, making arbitration necessary to preserve Wikipedia's image. Here is a long, yet by no means complete, list of abuses committed by The Four:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akesgeroth#Evidence

In summary, The Four have repeatedly rejected any evidence supporting the “ethics in gaming journalism” perspective, present their own evidence as neutral when it clearly isn't and hide behind the longevity of their accounts, the number (rather than the value) of their contributions to Wikipedia and flawed regulations rather than cooperate with other users in writing a neutral article. Furthermore, they viciously attack users trying to participate reasonably in the discussion, from veiled threats of administrative action on their talk page to outright editing what their opponents said.

So, considering the massive body of evidence of abuse from The Four, their obvious unwillingness to cooperate in the writing of a neutral article, their protection by users with administrative powers, the massive amount of reliable sources provided showing the misogyny perspective being denied, it is obvious that this issue will not be solved by anything short of arbitration and so strongly suggest that the request be accepted. The Gamergate controversy article needs to be either rewritten or deleted (and kept deleted) until the events are over, The Four need to be blocked from editing it or any politically charged topic in the future and administrators who acted as proxies need to be demoted. As spoken by Akesgeroth (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cuchullain

I haven't been involved as an admin at the Gamergate article for several weeks, so it's possible I'm missing something, but I don't believe an ARBCOM case would accomplish anything new. The true problem with the article (and the other affected articles) has always been primarily from one direction: the slew of SPAs and narrow-focus accounts coming here with an agenda, and the established editors who support or enable them. The community sanctions are having a positive effect on the articles, though not as widely as they could be to crack down on pervasive disruption. This option should be explored more fully before asking ARBCOM to weigh in.--Cúchullain t/c 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise makes an important point that if we regard all the admins listed as parties here to be "involved" in the future, there will be no uninvolved admins left to handle the ongoing disruption. The current admins have too much on their plate as it is. I suggest the case be declined and the filer be sanctioned for a disruptive filing.--Cúchullain t/c 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TaraInDC

We have been far too indulgent of a squadron of obvious SPAs and POV pushers who have been filling the talk page with rambling, evidence-free arguments (very similar to the ones filling up this page) and stalling every damned discussion with unsupported claims of "bias!!!!" All we're doing is encouraging them by making them think that they might actually be able to shout down WP policy if they're tenacious enough, and the result is the off-wiki campaign we're seeing here. Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was for a time acting as an uninvolved peacekeeper on the article, primarily warning editors against commenting on other contributors rather than focusing on content, but seems to have been inactive for a couple of days, and at any rate that should not be any one person's problem. We need more oversight and stricter enforcement of policy on that page. This might also alleviate the apparent perception that Dreadstar is 'biased' because the editors warned, blocked or topic banned under the page sanctions all tend to come from one 'camp;' as with the article topic itself, these editors appear to have confused parity with neutrality. I can't help but wonder if naming Dreadstar as a party here will have the effect of removing the admin most active in enforcing the page sanctions by rendering said admin 'involved.' As before, I don't know if arbcom is the correct solution to this problem, but I do hope that if something productive comes out of this it will be a concrete suggestion of how to see that the page sanctions are enforced quickly and uniformly.

The unsupported accusations against other editors on this page are completely inappropriate, and it seems that editors are using this request as a means to vent the types of personal attacks that would in theory lead to a topic ban if voiced on the article talk page. No more narrative epics, please and thanks: give us some proof that the problem is with the 'anti-GG' editors ("The Five," as the very prolific SPA Willhesucceed melodramatically names us) or stop whining already. Don't just tell us we're being naughty: show us. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't mean to suggest that there are no other uninvolved admins acting to enforce page sanctions, only that Dreadstar has been particularly active in warning editors off of behavior that's likely to result in a topic ban. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Just a procedural note: there's the old question of whether the mere fact that an admin has been listed by some other editor as a "party" to a case request will ipso facto consitute a form of "involvement" that will bar that administrator from taking further administrative actions in the field while the case is pending. Since the filer has chosen to list pretty much every admin as a party who has ever dared to take action in the field, if we're now all suddenly "involved" because he says so, that means there'd be basically no more uninvolved admin eyes on the article, making the discretionary sanctions inoperable for days or even weeks to come.

Since this obviously can't be allowed to happen, I'll state it here outright: I personally do not consider myself a "party" in this, and therefore I will continue to be available for taking action if necessary – except and until at least one arbitrator tells me explicitly that my own previous administrative actions are a matter of concern for him/her and he/she thinks they should be scrutinized as part of a case.

@Seraphimblade: what, there are "too many people involved and too much talking past one another", and that's a reason for taking the case? Are you serious? Arbcom is the worst possible venue for situations like this. This case has all the makings for another procedural disaster like the infamous "Macedonia 2", where hordes of people motivated by external political agendas were given free rein to drown the procedure in their drivel for weeks, until clerks and arbs started randomly and erraticly hitting out with blocks against established participants who had cracked under the constant provocation and lost their temper. Arbcom is notoriously incapable of keeping situations like this under control, and I pity all the poor souls who will have to go through this. Heck, you guys are already now failing to keep order here (what with Titanium Dragon's breach of his topic ban here under your very noses, the administrative treatment of which has promptly stalled in Arbcom-procedural limbo?) – And then, what kinds of remedies would you be passing down, given the structural asymmetry of the case? There are a handful of established editors on the one side, and an army of quickly replaceable single- or narrow-purpose accounts and newbies on the other. Sure, you could sanction those on the one side if you find them at fault, and I have no doubt people will heap up massive amounts of "evidence" (valid or not) against them, but do you really expect that others should submit actionable evidence regarding each and every one of the pro-GG POV army? And even if they did and you acted upon it and banned the worst ones, what good would it do, if they are replaced with new SPAs the next day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

"Another problem in this situation is that there are admins who are either WP:INVOLVED on the subject taking action against their opponents while giving them a pass or admins whose actions are otherwise dubious. Some of these admins have a history of questionable use of their admin tools on other topics." Well, I am an admin, and I am named here. So do you want to actually show diffs here, or are you simply making stuff up? Oh I forgot, there aren't any diffs are there? Meanwhile, this appears to be an attempt for ArbCom to enable an off-wiki campaign to disrupt this article through the use of SPAs and previously dormant account. Frivolous filing, and the filer should be sanctioned. Although perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if it was taken, because if it was, I foresee a rotating weapon often used by Aboriginal peoples coming back and hitting a number of people above. Oh, and as per FPAS above, I do not consider myself involved here, and reserve my right to take admin action on this subject (although I haven't for a long time). Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Devil's Advocate: so the fact I posted a note about an articles Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest (which were badly afflicted by misogynist editing at the time) to the Gender Gap page, is unusual? However, I did not mention the page involved in this ArbCom request (which, incidentally, looked like this at the time). You're struggling badly here - no, hang on, I'll rephrase it - you're making shit up. Stop it. Stretching someone's involvement to a couple of related pages when the page being discussed here wasn't even controversial is ridiculous. As I said above, feel free to remove me as a party. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

This request never should have been filed. It's only been a week since the Committee declined a request for a GamerGate case,[30] a request in which the filer directly participated in.[31] I suggest a warning/admonishment/sanction/whatever-you-want-to-call-it against The Devil's Advocate for filing a frivolous request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps ArbCom should take a limited case after what just happened at AN/I. Tarc violated his topic ban by opening this thread. Despite the facts that a) numerous uninvolved editors (such as myself) said that the tag should remain until the NPOV issues are resolved and b) the article talk page is filled with ongoing discussions of the article's NPOV problems, Mdann52 closed the thread bizarrely claiming (and I quote) "No ongoing discussion, so tag removed per consensus below."[32] TheRedPenOfDoom then removes the NPOV tag[33] and 18 minutes later, instead of reverting an obvious bad close, Future Perfect locks the article.

Now, perhaps the timing is purely coincidental, but given the accusation that admins have been favoring one side, perhaps ArbCom should open a limited case to examine whether admins have been enforcing community sanctions in a fair, even-handed fashion. If the accusation that admins have indeed been biased in their application of community sanctions, then the community sanctions will clearly fail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Salvio, please stay on the fence; Newyorkbrad needs somebody to keep him company.  :-D I think you could hear the case as long as you prune the list of parties to remove the neutral admins who are enforcing the community sanction. I think there should be a motion to confirm that those sanctions are in effect, and that this filing does not stop them from operating, nor does it interfere with their enforcement. To do otherwise would encourage gaming the rules. Also, if you find the accusations are baseless, you should consider sanctioning the requesting party(ies) to discourage the use of Arbitration as a form of SLAPP. Jehochman Talk 21:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

As Fut.Perf. stated, listing uninvolved administrators who have acted to enforce discretionary sanctions as "involved parties" has the potential effect of neutralizing the discretionary sanctions process. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not involved until I hear otherwise from ArbCom. My initial reaction to all of this was that DS are working, more or less, that there is no indication that any POV is being suppressed on the talkpage by their application, and that the rate of BLP violations in GamerGate and related articles (my chief concern) has declined dramatically. Given that, I was inclined to recommend that ArbCom reject this request, but given the off-wiki activity campaign and the number of SPAs who keep appearing, there may be merit in accepting, particularly given the parallels with the Scientology arbitration. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight

In terms of what can be achieved by taking this case, I'd suggest the following.

  1. Topic bans as necessary for editors who are unable or unwilling to assume good faith, write with a neutral point of view, remain civil, and use reliable sources. Also topic bans for those who use the talk page to espouse their viewpoint, as opposed to discuss how to improve the article.
  2. A determination of whether the uninvolved admins (including myself) are interpreting the Biographies of Living Persons policy correctly. From the above, I gather that The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 consider that the uninvolved admins are being one sided and bitey, while as far as I'm concerned the admins are just enforcing the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
  3. Also, similar to the above, guidance as to whether the editors are interpreting the Biographies of Living Persons policy correctly. I gather that Willhesucceed considers there is an over reliance on 'strong but biased' sources, and Masem has similar concerns.

However, that said, in my humble opinion, the case as currently framed has too many parties, and is too wide in scope. I would suggest that if ArbCom is going to accept a Gamergate controversy case, then it should be more focused, otherwise the case would be unnecessarily time consuming. PhilKnight (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

In the previous Request for Arbitration concerning Gamergate controversy, I asked what the filing party and supporters were asking the ArbCom to do, and in particular why the community general sanctions would not be the appropriate remedy. Failing a statement by the filing party and supporters, I said that the ArbCom should decline to take the case. Now I strongly suggest that the ArbCom accept the case. I will explain why. The primary reason is that there are certain editors whom the community cannot deal with effectively, and they are editors who polarize the community because they have both strong supporters and strong opponents. They include habitually uncivil editors who have a reputation as “excellent content creators”. It now appears that the editors who are called The Five are another class of editors who polarize the community. I make that statement without saying that they are right or that they are wrong, only that the community cannot deal with editors who polarize the community. The ArbCom can deal with editors who polarize the community. If the ArbCom finds that the principal “anti-Gamergate” editors have been engaging in ownership and battleground editing of the Gamergate article, it can impose sanctions on them. If the ArbCom finds that the principal “anti-Gamergate” editors have not engaged in sanctionable behavior, then any persistence in that claim will become a sanctionable personal attack by the critics. Either the principal “anti-Gamergate” editors deserve to be sanctioned, or they deserve to be vindicated, rather than constantly attacked by other editors.

A secondary reason is that, due to the excessive level of threats of doxing and claims of doxing, it may be necessary to consider evidence involving actual identity information that is only permitted for highly trusted functionaries such as the arbitrators.

Because one of the limits of the community process is that the community cannot deal with editors who polarize the community, I ask that the ArbCom now accept this case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Whatever you do (pass a motion, lock it down, empower some discretionary sanctions) DON'T accept this case. That will make sure that this issue remains unresolved for at least six ten months or longer. Volunteer Marek  00:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave Dial(DD2K)

It's unbelievable to me that a few contentious editors(TDA, Tutelary, Cla68) aided by an admin(Masem) who claims to be neutral(which it is painfully obvious he is not) can cause such a shit storm. ArbCom has allowed this to go on for far too long, and if you don't have the guts to make the tough decisions, then resign. Masem, TDA and the rest have allowed articles and their Talk pages related to 'gamergate' to be disrupted by SPAs over and over and over. With the dozens of links known to the committee from outside sites driving this fiasco, what the Hell are you waiting for? Many of you seem all too eager to take the DP case below, and in fact desysop him at the drop of a hat wit no cause. Yet sit on your collective hands as this stupid shit spirals into the mess it is now. You all should be ashamed that editors at the article and their Talk pages have been bombarded by SPAs and shit stirrers, Masem aids and abets, and the cycle goes on and on, and ArbCom kicks the can down the road. Dave Dial (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Masem - You can bet that links will be provided if this case is accepted. For now, all anyone has to do is look at your contributions on the article and the Talk page. And your tactics are pretty well summed up on the most recent ANI episode. You have consistently and unrelentingly made long time editors jump through hoops to keep out reliably sourced material from mainstream outlets, and have accepted and tried to insert fringe material from SPAs. Over and over and over. Your claim of neutrality is laughable. Dave Dial (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

I consider myself uninvolved in this matter as I have only acted in an administrative capacity on GamerGate related articles. This appears to be yet another attempt by Devil's Advocate to disenfranchise admins who remain neutral and enforce policy as well as editors who do not side with DA. DA has persistently attacked admins enforcing the GamerGate Discretionary sanctions or other policy violations on editors who seem to share DA's POV; here are but a few examples: [34], [35] [36], [37]. There are more, and if this case is accepted, I'll provide more examples. In this case, I suggest WP:BOOMERANG on the filer, DA should be indefinitely banned from GamerGate related articles. Dreadstar ☥ 16:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved John Carter

I suggest the case be taken as per Salvio's comments below. If this is, as he says, the third time that a request for action on this topic has been made in the past couple of weeks, there is some clear evidence that at least some individuals are trying to avoid talking to each other and instead talking to ArbCom to start a case. Collective beating on a dead horse can I suppose sometimes in itself be grounds for arbitration action, if there seems to be a rather longish line of people holding sticks waiting to relieve each other as the earlier corpse abusers get blocked, finally get some sleep, etc. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

I'll reiterate my previous comment. There's no need to accept this case, nor is there a good indication that doing so will result in a productive outcome. This (and the various AN/I and AN discussions) is basically forum shopping by now. The content of our article does not conform to a fringe view of how GG should be portrayed and 'gaters have taken it upon themselves to work the ref here just as they did to gawker, gamasutra and the escapist. We should not reward this concerted effort with anything other than stoic disinterest. Accepting an arbcom case opens up the avenues for high drama and unless the committee is willing to treat GG as they have Scientology (and even then a technical solution akin to the Scientology one is not forthcoming) it will be a waste of time to invest the committee and many community members to a slog of a case. Protonk (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we may accept this case. If we do, I recommend two things:

  • "Off-wiki" coordination (a bit of a misnomer here as the coordination predates and is not largely concerned with wikipedia) and message discipline are ongoing and have been since the disputes over this article arose. Both the content goal ("gamergate is a movement about ethics in journalism, harassment is limited to bad eggs whom the community has disavowed, further the actions against gaters are just as bad but are being papered over because of unfair media coverage") and the methods (high volume of complaints about bias and equal time, doxxing of involved participants, all the while stating that it would be bad to harass these enemies of truth and justice, etc.) are coordinated in various places--4chan, before a bunch of people got kicked; 8chan's /gg board; TumblrInAction and KotakuInAction as well as other IRC channels and imageboards. This is not a paranoid wikipedia's fever dream, it is something established by reliable sources for this subject specifically. This coordination doesn't indict individual editors per se, but it exists. Do not ignore it.
  • Long term editor behavior has not been optimal, but resist the urge to focus on editor behavior as this is exactly the playbook for the above coordination (and one well worn from every FRINGE dispute which makes it to ArbCom). Don't overlook wrongs, but consider the volume and relative calm of the GG talk page as a testament to the repetitive and stressful nature of the debate. This is a content outcome, but we should not carry water for a movement (where it is acting as a movement) which represents a reactionary and sexist bid to rewrite history just for the PR. The core of GG is about making everything "about ethics in games journalism" while the whole of the controversy carries on with women, critics and indie developers harassed and anti-feminist allies found on the right. It's ugly tribalism and there are a small number of editors (now targeted on 8chan) working to make sure our article doesn't present this fringe view as reality. Do not forget that.

Be prepared to deal with bullshit and don't waste your time or ours. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TDA's new standard of involvement appears to be "has an opinion about content." Save for very strong or repeatedly asserted opinions that's never been the case, because it's nonsensical. We expect admins to not be involved in disputes, but to extend this to include stated opinions is madness. I've probably stated an opinion on the madness of the gold standard (here or on some account known to be mine on twitter or reddit). That opinion doesn't necessarily stop me from acting on a dispute covering an article I've never edited or a user I've never interacted with. I don't have a stake (materially or otherwise) in the controversy at hand. Inferring such a stake from statements about a broad subject (or even a relatively narrow one) makes me unwilling to leave a comment as I normally would--constraining my actions as an editor, lest that be viewed as "involvement". None of the editors above are engaged in the Gamergate article as editors and none of them have a stake in the immediate dispute. They are not involved. Protonk (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This is always going to be a difficult area, until the text-books are written about it. The polarising nature of the debate ensures that the majority of people, which includes many of us, believe that they are NPOV on the subject, while actually taking either one side or the other. The normal recourse to RS is difficult, because one side of the dispute is (at least to some extent) the people who normally write the RS. Thus it is not surprising that there is conflict. Nonetheless there is common ground even among those most affected by the dispute, for example the guy that runs 8Chan was interviewed recently and condemned the treatment of Quinn, Quinn was also interviewed recently and said some nice things about gamers in general. While of course the trolling on both sides continues, the people who actually matter are acting like real human beings. I see great efforts being made on talk pages to reach consensus, but I also see edit warring and intransigence. It is up to the community to develop a modus vivendi to deal with these issues.

In the event that ArbCOm can be part of that solution by lowering the temperature and perhaps pace, then am Arbcom case could be a good thing. Blocking can be left I think to AN/I, if editors adopt a battleground mentality, or edit war.

Statement by Pudeo

The administrative actions of Dreadstar have been peculiar here. In particular, this this 3RR report concerning 12 reverts in 24 hours was closed as no action by Dreadstar because it was stale 15 hours later. The adminstrator in question often arrives to do clutch decisions that seem to be completely one-sided to me. Dreadstar also closed the ANI thread mentioned in TDA's statement, again of course the people who are for the "anti"-POV (Ryulong et. al.) got off the hook. The Gamergate talk page and edit notes have had horrendous language, usually from Ruylong and Tarc (scanning for the word "fuck" may give a quick idea), but they have never been admonished as even the ANI was quickly closed by Dreadstar. One view referenced in the article itself is that the Gamergate controversy is a "culture war" (feminism/anti-feminism). This in my opinion explains why "uninvolved" admins as well can have plenty of external motives to act in a partisan way. It's definitely not a good thing if such cliques form in the admin corps. --Pudeo' 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuerbachKeller

Ryulong made a problematic BLP edit referencing me as chronicled on the Gamergate:Talk page. When I politely requested that he not cite me in the future due to this incident, he accused me in multiple places on WP of threatening him: On my own talk page and on the Gamergate talk page He is now telling Drmies to tell me to stay way from him (Ryulong). Ryulong's behavior appears to be a WP:CONDUCT violation on the grounds of civility at the very least. I hope this issue will be addressed. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes -Gamergate

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I'm not a clerk and have no desire to be, but I'll borrow this area because I have no comment to make on the case request. I'm just noting that Titanium Dragon is topic-banned from the GamerGate area and a complaint was filed at AE to the effect that TD's comment here violated the topic ban. Since the alleged violation took place on a case request, I'll leave it to ArbCom or clerks to determine whether the ban was violated and whether any action is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/1/1/2>

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

  • Recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, a procedural request: a lot of people have already commented on this case request and even more will probably do as well; so, to avoid making this page an unreadable wall of text, I'm asking everyone to please stick to the rules and be careful not to use more than 500 words in their statements. If you have used more, please shorten your statement in a reasonable amount of time, or it will have to be removed in its entirety.

    Another thing, please do not make accusations unless you can provide diffs supporting them. Accusations without evidence are disruptive and repeatedly casting aspersions on other users may lead to sanctions.

    On the merits, I haven't made up my mind yet whether to accept this case or not. I admit that I'm starting to think the circumstance we have received, in less than a month, three different case requests on the same issue, each submitted by a different person, might seem to point to the fact that the community cannot successfully deal with this dispute and that it would probably be a good idea for ArbCom to step in. At the same time, I don't want to give the impression that by failing to drop a stick, someone can force us to take a case which, technically, would not be ripe for arbitration yet. So, as I said, I'm still on the fence. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tarc: again I will point out that we have discretionary sanctions in place that have barely been tried, I know and that's why I was on the fence. The problem is that I see this dispute expanding and expanding and, quite frankly, it does not appear that the discretionary sanctions are helping much.

        I do encourage more admins to get involved, hoping that a case can be avoided, but as things are right now, I'm afraid our intervention seems inevitable. Also, re. your suggestion that arbs place the GamerGate noticeboard on our watchlist, personally I'd rather not do that, because then I would be prevented from hearing a hypothetical case.

        Finally, for the admins who have asked: in my opinion, if you were uninvolved before, you continue to be even though you have been added as parties to this request, which means that you can continue enforcing the community sanctions. If we accept the case, we'll probably have to prune the list of parties anyway... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to agree with Salvio. At this point, though, I think there may be too many people involved and too much talking past one another for anything short of arbitration to have a good chance of resolution. I do echo Salvio's insistence that allegations of misconduct be backed with evidence in the form of diffs, or be redacted. Slinging accusations without backing them with evidence is itself a form of misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept, and in addition to WTT's suggestions, I would note that we will be taking a very firm hand with bickering and sniping during the case, as well as off-topic discussions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The entire situation surrounding this article and the off-wiki controversies underlying it is certainly unhealthy, but I perceive little basis for criticizing any administrator actions relating to it, and still see no reason to believe that an arbitration case would yield more useful results than applying the existing community-originated general sanctions. I'll add that if, contrary to my vote, we were to take a case, it should be handled in a highly expedited manner to avoid its becoming a complete circus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grudgingly Accept. I've kept quiet on this topic and done a lot of reading. We've got so many factors at play here that I think we need a case. I'm especially concerned about the off-wiki co-ordination. I'm not sure what Arbcom can do to improve the situation, but I agree with an expedited case, and firmly holding to deadlines and word limits. WormTT(talk) 10:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept I do not like the "keep asking till you get you want" feeling I get from these repeated requests, but at the end of the day it does appear these problems are spiraling out of control. I think this may be a situation where a temporary injunction at the start of the case may be in order, and I fully agree that a firm hand and an accelerated timeline would also be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - am not decided yet and wary of accepting a case so soon after we declined the previous request to give time for community sanctions to work or not. I might have accepted if a month had gone by and the same problems were occurring, but this is too soon. I will vote whether to accept or not after the weekend. Can someone provide a brief summary of how things have gone in the 5 days or so since this new request was filed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Founder of Wikipedia told him his behavior was inappropriate and "ground for immediate desysopping." [45]

Previous rfar, declined [46]

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

Recent complaint regarding AE action on WT:AC [47]

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

  1. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others
  2. 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 [48], I requested review on AN; Nyttend closed the discussion on the grounds Jehochman's reading is correct [49]. 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 about Dangerous Panda request

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 [50][51][52] 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]

@Cla68: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Always a problem; never an easy answer. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 6 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

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.- MrX 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI discussion in response to this comment is a good example of how the community is unable to deal with admin conduct issues. In more than four years as an admin, DangerousPanda (AKA EatsShootsAndLeaves, ES&L, DP, The Panda, B*******) has made many similarly aggressive outbursts, often directed at blocked editors. Such behavior violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ADMIN#Administrator conduct. This long-term pattern of condescension, brutishness, hostility, sarcasm, arrogance and general incivility runs contrary to fostering a collaborative editing environment, and is wholly unacceptable for an English Wikipedia administrator.

There have also been several cases of questionable judgement and hastiness in his use of admin tools, specifically the block and unblock tools, contrary to communal norms.

DangerousPanda is not receptive to criticism. When editors and admins have raised concerns on his talk page, and at other venues, his response has typically been defensiveness and avoidance. It seems very unlikely that further attempts to discuss his conduct with him will result in different outcomes. Editors concerned about these long-term admin conduct issues have nowhere else to turn.- MrX 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: In the past, DangerousPanda has temporarily stopped participating on Wikipedia when he has been called to account for his conduct.
Is seven days enough time for someone to respond to a RFAR about his admin conduct? I think so, and it shouldn't be a concern since he has apparently notified Dennis Brown, via the internet, that it will be a "few days" until he has reasonable internet access. Note that when Toddst1 disappeared under a cloud, Arbcom instructed that he shouldn't use admin tools. This would seem to be advisable here, given recent questionable conduct by DangerousPanda.- MrX 16:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda's 1200+ word statement falls far short of addressing the totality of the concerns raised, or the seriousness of the concerns. We have consensus that RFC/U doesn't work, didn't work, and won't work. The admin noticeboards are hysterically poor venues for resolving admin conduct issues. I defy anyone to point out examples where the community has successfully resolved long-term admin conduct issues at ANI or AN.

How much more time should the community waste on a single contributor who may simply not have the competence required by WP:ADMIN? Admin Dennis Brown seems to think that another 60 days of talk page discussions would be useful. Really? My effort is better spent on trying to improve the project as a whole. I'm not going to spend the next 60 days trying to engage DangerousPanda on his talk page, only to wait days or weeks for each response, only to be disappointed.

Can we please have more focus on the needs of the project, and less on ensuring that someone retains their power?- MrX 15:46, 12 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. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{removed redundant paragraph}}

@Newyorkbrad et. al., I agree that 14 days is a generous but reasonable threshold. I would also note that without clarifying why he is a clear threat to the community, threatening to temporarily desysopping is an improper tactic, as it implies that the Arbs have already decided to desysop DP and that this case is just for public consumption. This is distinctly different from holding the case in absentia and desysopping afterwards. This is forcing him to pay the fine before the evidence has been presented. On the other hand, if it being used solely as a threat to force DP here, it seems to be assuming bad faith, and is improper. Without Arbs specifically stating the exact risks involved by failing to desysop, desysopping shouldn't be suggested as a remedy at this stage, and unfairly prejudices the case. Dennis - 2¢ 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned, you are missing the point that DP said he might be gone, on his talk page, before this Arb filing, so having you question his honesty based on hearsay is problematic. And NE Ent just announced that he won't have internet access for a week either [53], so it doesn't matter. Everyone agrees there are some problems. But there is no emergency. We need some perspective here, and less poisoning of the well. If you had just asked him to not use the tools while the case is pending, he would have. We've seen him do it with Jimbo. Not sure that is needed, but it would have been a less prejudicial act. I don't have a dog in this hunt as I genuinely like NE Ent and DP both equally well, but I know that neither is hell bent on destroying the Wiki. Dennis - 2¢ 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs. RFC/U is at risk of being shutdown (thanks in part to my vote). You are likely to see more of these cases, which are sometimes (in my opinion) borderline to accept. Would "accept but suspend for 60 days" or just "suspend request for 60 days" while allowing the process to work on his talk page be appropriate? So there is the opportunity for a solution off-Arb, but where it can be taken back up at any time within that period, for any reason Arb chooses. There are some obvious differences here, the question is whether a full case or more effort on the talk page is in the best interest of enwp. To me, it isn't blindly obvious which is better. This would likely be a good test case, all things considered. Dennis - 2¢ 14:24, 12 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]

@Bdell555: I have no intention of responding to your comments about me, but it would be good form to notify me of them using the notification system.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 10 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. --Rschen7754 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 [54]. 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 User:Robert McClenon

Maybe the discussion of Requests for Comments on User Conduct should be taken to Village pump (policy). I am not ready to offer an opinion of whether the ArbCom should review the conduct of the administrator in question. I do have an opinion about RFC/U. I think that RFC/U has been broken for a very long time, probably since there was an ArbCom. RFC/U may have been useful before there was an ArbCom, as an input to whether a disruptive editor should be banned by Jimbo Wales. In 2005 and 2006, when the ArbCom handled a hundred cases a year, most of which were to ban users, RFC/U may have been a useful but not necessary intermediate step. RFC/U is no longer, in my opinion, a useful procedure. Either it should be retired from service, or it should be reformed or restructured. The recommended result of an RFC/U has to be stated as an improvement in behavior by the subject editor, but the RFC/U process is inherently adversarial, and isn't likely to result in the subject editor becoming more collaborative. RFC/U may have been a useful way of documenting the need for Jimbo Wales to ban an editor. Now that Jimbo Wales has an ArbCom, RFC/U is no longer useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Per the esteemed Dennis Brown... let's give DangerousPanda time to respond. He's not using the tools at present anyway so no reason to do even a safety measure desysop at present.--MONGO 18:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

While I appreciate the committee's willingness to wait on statements before agreeing to accept a case (something they failed at miserably in the not too distant past), the pendulum can swing too much the other way as well. DangerousPanda, in the days leading up to this case was actively editing, having edited 29 out of 31 days in the month before, making an average of 10+ edits a day. He has temporarily disappeared before (see monthly contributions graph), so I most certainly do not mean to imply this is willful refusal to participate in this case. Regardless, this case does inform that ArbCom should also not allow the pendulum to swing to the point where no action is taken because one of the parties to a case does not respond. I vaguely recall a case that was indefinitely suspended because one of the parties to the case was not active. Perhaps something should be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Deciding_of_requests to this effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

@Hammersoft:; the case you are referencing is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody. User indeffed after failing to respond (although later decided to sock instead). Hopefully that's not too relevant to this case. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Psychonaut

I fully endorse User:Hobit's statement. As anyone who's glanced at my user page can tell, I'm hardly one to get riled up by insulting and inflammatory remarks and other rude behaviour. But even I actively avoid any and all administrative discussions where DangerousPanda is present. Not only is this user particularly unpleasant to deal with, but the fact that they wield the tools puts me in constant fear that they'll be misused in response to some perceived slight. (Mind you, this policy of avoidance hasn't been easy for me, given the plethora of name changes and alternative accounts.) I'm fully in support of the community examining this editor's behaviour, whether it's here or at RfCU, with a view to determining whether the overall pattern is something we should reasonably tolerate from an administrator (or even a regular editor). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that perhaps I should disclose my history with DangerousPanda. As far as I recall, my first and only involvement with them was to investigate a WP:ANI complaint about them (already linked to upthread by User:MrX). I did this as someone with no prior involvement in the dispute and no recollection of any past interaction with either of the parties. DangerousPanda's contributions to that thread show them to be utterly incapable of taking criticism, no matter how well-researched and civilly worded, without throwing it back as "mistaken", "uninformed", "hypocritical", "offensive", or worse. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ihardlythinkso

Panda reminds me of a barker at a county fair. ("Knock the milk bottles over, win big prize. Three throws for $2." As you walk away in frustration and embarrassment for even trying, he shouts after you with a smirk: "I'll give you six throws for $3. Try again I'm sure you'll win!" He's there to take your money and will do so dishonestly, manipulatively and mercilessly with laced insult to boot.) Does it matter whether this mocking (e.g., "So what if you're narcissistic?") is crafty-intentional or behavioral incompetence? Either way there's an abusive steam-roller IDHT self-serving egoism at play which will persist until something is done to stop it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, congrats on being one of the few with your incisive warning back in Jan. 2010. I think it is interesting to note, that 106 users cast Support !votes at that RfA, but only 3 (of how many ever remain of the 106) have registered comment in this RfAR (Bbb23, Dank, and Beelebrox [who recused]). And reading some of the support !vote comments from the missing 103 users, is really rather amusing (to me at least): "[DangerousPanda] puts a great deal of effort into drama reduction", "has the attitude and policy knowledge required to be an admin", "no issues that concern me", "clearly overcame all issues raised during previous RFA" [a big issue in the first unsuccessful RfA in April 2009, was arrogance & incivility], "one of the project's most [...] uncontroversial non-admins", "interacting with excellence and grace", "No problems", "willing to look at his own behaviour", "concerns raised in the previous request have not been repeated", "shown remarkable civility, patience, and good judgement", "No real concerns", "clearly meets my standards", "Seems fine to me", "show[s] that he's learned from past mistakes and is ready to be an admin", "He's responsible, civil", "I have absolutely no concerns that [DangerousPanda] will be anything but a fair, insightful, and helpful admin. Hand him the mop!" (Again, none of the users who made those comments, and none of the 103 of 106 users who made Panda an admin back in 2010, have shown up at this RfAR to-date. [I didn't check the previous RfAR re Panda's suitability for admin for comments by any of the 103 users, but am curious to do.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, your suggestion to resolve with complainants at Panda's Talk over 60 days is absurd, where there is already more than sufficient evidence what becomes of such attempts. (Massive IDHT and massive "What, who me?") A neutral third-party moderator would be required, and there is no current WP venue/arrangement for such a discussion. And certainly his own user Talk would be the worst possible location that could be proposed. It's clear to me your wiki-friendship obscures your views big-time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even here in this RfAR, how honest?:

I was never averse to an RFC/U - so undeleting/resubmitting one has never been off the plate. the panda ₯’ 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves, Panda called the RfC/U filed by NE Ent "disgusting", and stated that his only participation in it would be a response re the existence of his multiple usernames. Then came:

Well, I [...] will not play "double jeopardy" and accept this being filed a second time whatsoever. the panda ₯’ 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [55]

Again, "double jeopardy" is in play Jehochman - I will not participate in a re-filed RFC because we're not at the point where any RFC is required. the panda ₯’ 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [56]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compare:

I was originally not going to participate in a revised RFC/U ... [...] the panda ₯’ 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

to his previous statement in this RfAR:

I was never averse to an RFC/U [...] the panda ₯’ 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple attempt to misrepresent (lie). Right here in the RfAR. (Note also that Panda omits, that he announced he would not participate in the unrevised RfC/U as well [save some explanatory comments re his multiple usernames].) An example of the chronic dishonest slitheriness Panda responds with toward any valid criticism. p.s. Notice when Panda agrees to dialogue, his stipulated conditions always presuppose a favorable outcome for himself. (Presumably incorporating retention of his admin status -- forever. [Panda will be the last man standing when WP falls. Others can be wished luck integrating with the human race someday, or rot in eternal block, that's OK.] Else you are not a collegial member of the WP community, and in violation of policy & guideline to boot.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by conceivably involved Dank

You only get to hear why I'm conceivably involved if you take the case. Not commenting on Panda in particular at this time, but I do have something to say: what I'm seeing here tips me off of my fence. We should stop pretending that the community does a good job of dealing with perceived problems with admins. It doesn't ... sometimes people avoid dealing with admin problems when avoiding it doesn't help, and sometimes people are loud in a way that pushes people away from Wikipedia ... but regardless of what happens, what we're doing now, waiting as long as we do before we bring the discussion up at Arbcom, never ever works. Arbcom should be involved whenever there's a serious discussion, with diffs, that indicate that an admin's behavior is problematic, regardless of what we imagine the result of the discussion will be. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved SarekOfVulcan

Just wanted to say that I agree with Dank that "serious discussion with diffs" is when Arbcom should step in. Admin accountability is important, and failing a community de-adminship process, Arbcom needs to be willing to jump in earlier before all heck breaks loose. If you get in early enough, this doesn't need to be a huge timesink. No comment on DP either way here, this is a general statement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SB_Johnny

The wise thing here would be to take the case and suspend it, and temporarily remove button access until Mr. Panda returns to wikitown and participates. There are actually a lot of issues worth looking into here both specifically and generally, and as others have noted Arbcom is (like it or not) the only body with the ability to oversee or discipline admins en.wp. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brian Dell (bdell555)

1) User:B******* (earlier this year renamed DangerousPanda) started multiaccounting in July 2012 as EatsShootsAndLeaves in reaction to Jimbo's request to give up the bit and and endeavoured to obscure to the absolute maximum that the two accounts were connected. Editors objected, including me, and ES&L decided to delete one of my objecting comments calling it "vandalism", which would have been one thing, but the real offence in my books was the edit warring over another comment signed by me with respect to whether that comment, MY comment, said what HE wanted it to say or whether my comment said what *I* wanted it to say. In an effort to justify this interference with another's person's comment, he then falsely claimed my comment had been replied to. The playing fast and loose with the record is a bigger problem than the notorious incivility in my view.

2) For an example of this admin's sense of judgement, User:Sceptic1954 gets reported for edit warring. ES&L suddenly decides to ignore whether @Sceptic1954 violated 3RR and instead weighs in on the content, calling the complainant's content "crap." The background here is that Sceptic1954 was the new incarnation of Hardicanute who had been indefinitely blocked, something that should have been considered before berating an editor for submitting a documented complaint that Sceptic1954 was edit warring. Sceptic1954 later goes on to make 9 reverts in 6 hours, provoking another complaint, and when called on that Sceptic1954 asks readers "to look at the outcome" of the previous complaint, pointing out that "I wasn't warned let alone blocked, in fact I felt vindicated." "Vindicated" and therefore feeling emboldened to take disruption to new heights, because instead of cautioning Sceptic1954, E&SL had pointed the finger exclusively at Sceptic1954's complainant. Even Bbb23 had to admit that, finally, the "edit-warring [by Sceptic1954] was egregious and against so many editors I lost count", a substantial reversal from the previous time when Bbb23 declared that "ES&L is absolutely right" to leave aside the question of whether Sceptic1954 violated 3RR and instead make an issue about the content introduced by the party complaining about Sceptic1954. The point being that a good admin is not caught out calling a dispute in one side's favour (only criticizing one party to the dispute) with that favoured side later committing egregious violations that can no longer be ignored because a good admin has done the homework necessary to figure out who is the real problem editor. An editor was kicked off the project, comes back under a new name, gets reported to an admin noticeboard, and there gets "vindicated" by E&SL/DP so that s/he can continue cause grief for other editors until, finally, the offender is back on the noticeboard guilty of violations that can no longer be waved away. If anyone was truly "vindicated" at the end of this, it was the admin who banned Sceptic1954 indefinitely back when known as Hardicanute, NOT the admin who gave the returning offender a new lease on life by declining to weigh in on the edit warring or behaviour infractions (as opposed to content infractions) that's supposed to be an admin noticeboard patroller's primary job. DP often makes some observation, typically contemptuous, that is of questionable relevance such that the discussion or decision process is steered into an unproductive direction.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DangerousPanda

I have literally just walked in the door after holidaying with my in-laws who themselves traveled 18hrs just to visit (luggage is still in the front hallway). I had been made aware of this surprising turn by e-mail, and although I have not yet have time to read the details, I wanted to at least confirm that I will obviously participate once rested and fully apprised of the details. the panda ₯’ 06:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update None of us in the house are quite normal yet after the time change from the trip. I would rather not err in my initial responses, so I will start putting something together after a proper rest. I will note, however, that I have been actively engaged with more than 1 editor in trying to resolve apparent issues, and have always been open to such the panda ₯’ 01:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay in getting back here. I want to briefly address the heart of the matter here, that being "is there a need for this now". From my perspective, no - as others have said, there is no urgency, and indeed the "usual processes" have yet to be exhausted. I would also argue that since my self-imposed exile, the difference in my perspectives and reactions has been night-and-day different. I could address the suggestions of "bad decisions being made", but in many cases, the supposed "bad judgement" were confirmed in another forum such as AN/ANI, so it would merely become a battle between people with different perspectives. I'll therefor start by discussing the change in perspectives first.

From what I can see, there are only 2 key "civility" situations being raised that have occurred since my self-imposed 6-month break (which is a long time ago now): the Msnicki situation, and the AE discussion. It is during these two conversations that I'm accused of being egregiously uncivil.

The AE discussion: It's well-known that I was forced to change my username - once. Where I used to go by my real name, a member of Wikipediocracy called my home after social-engineering my phone number from the subject of an article I once wrote. I take the safety and security of my family as paramount (hence me spending part of the day yesterday at the emergency unit with my mother-in-law). My colleague admins all know it's improper to refer to people by previous usernames (no matter what reason), but when it's for privacy situations, it's even more urgent to refrain from doing so. Over the last month or so on AN/ANI I have had to ask a couple of non-admins to retract their use of that username. So, when an admin of all people used it during an AE discussion, I admit I got very pissed off. The admin in question has since apologized for its use, and redacted its use as well. As everyone can see from the rest of that discussion, I was 100% willing to discuss the situation surrounding the AE block, and when my colleagues finished discussion on the way forward with that block, I personally did the unblock, and wrote an extensive apology for the misreading of AE SOP's. It is readily shown that I was very willing to listen to the logical discussion, take things under advisement, take responsibility, act, and amend - indeed, you won't see me closing many AE cases for awhile.
The Msnicki situation: I'll admit, this one baffles me. I acted on an ANI complaint - the filer had raised SERIOUS personal attacks in an AFD. ANI agreed that a block was needed. The blocked editor HAD been warned, and indeed had been blocked for similar behaviour before. Everything in WP:BEFOREBLOCKING had been met. I then patiently tried to help BtBB get unblocked, and the first step (according to WP:GAB) is understanding and acknowledging the reason for the block. BtBB refused, and instead ratcheted up both the rhetoric AND the personal attacks. Yes, I eventually was forced to remove talkpage access, but after further ANI discussion it was agreed to give him another chance - so, again, I happily (and hopefully) listened to the community and restored. The block, and the situations around that block have been discussed and confirmed at ANI - I did not act alone, and as I said, I went above-and-beyond to try and get BtBB unblocked. Out-of-the-blue, Msnicki made some serious accusations. In my reply to her, I believed I was quite careful to refute the substance of her arguments, and did not attack, behave uncivilly, or resort to ad hominem. Msnicki disagreed, and believed that I had attacked her - and even took it to ANI. Because Msnicki focused on BtBB, the answer she got was to confirm the BtBB decision, and not to discuss me. She has quite clearly held a grudge, as it has now come up multiple times and indeed, we were actively discussing the situation to try and resolve it. I asked her a simple question, which was basically this: "is it worth me taking the time to write up an answer, or have you already made up your mind?". She read the question (she made a 1-sentence response), but declined to answer the question - instead came out swinging. At that point I did the right thing: I disengaged.

Could these 2 items be further discussed? The AE incident was clearly not what it has been portrayed to have been - I reacted poorly (and humanly) to a fellow admin putting my family at risk, but then the rest of the discussion shows me clearly taking the argument under advisement, waiting for consensus, and taking accountability. The Msnicki discussion is one that I was 100% emotionally engaged in - I know that I never intended to be uncivil, and have even stated on ANI that I would take no admin actions related to BtBB (except unblocking, and in future cases where it was an emergency and would not violate WP:INVOLVED). This is exactly the resolution she asks for, and this was stated months ago.

The other element from the beginning is "is this needed right now". I reviewed the original RFC/U. Yes, it was a mess. Hell, it was originally intentionally setup to get me angry by actually including my previous username in the title. Yes, NE Ent obviously follows me enough to know why I changed my username. He refers to the AE discussion in the RFC/U and above, so he KNEW that using that name would get an emotional reaction. I chose not to bite. That RFC/U did, however, spawn discussions on my talkpage. One was what I thought was a sincere attempt by Msnicki. This other is still ongoing with MrX, which I believe at one point was becoming fruitful.

I am indeed 100% committed to civility on Wikipedia, and I do expect it of myself as well. As I admitted on my talkpage, there have only been 2 times in 10 years where I intentionally insulted someone that I can recall. The situations listed in the filing of this RFARB do not actually show what they intended to show - but they do clearly show my willingness to learn, to discuss, and amend. I do not believe that there is a case here - there's no pattern shown, and no protection of anything or anyone required. I have been open discussing my behaviours that have occurred since I returned from my exile, and have shown complete willingness to resolving them if the other party is also willing to resolve. Otherwise, I'll take under advisement and disengage.

The above is likely too long, but it's complex, and a complex situation needs a complex (and complete) response the panda ₯’ 09:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add I was never averse to an RFC/U - so undeleting/resubmitting one has never been off the plate. It has always been a key step in the process. However, making it useful - address current things, show me where you really tried to work with me for the betterment of my actions/behaviours, and honestly AGF that things can be resolved are key things. I am indeed not the same person I was a year ago - and everyone knows that I have always been willing to discuss things. Those who show up here at Arb, of RFC/U with the goal of punishment instead of assistance are looking at things the wrong way - especially when we're by no means at "the end of the line". This is, as I say, why I appreciated the RFC/U in that it at least generated discussion on improvement with at least one person who was as sincerely engaged as I was. the panda ₯’ 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I have suggested no such thing! Please show me where it appears that I suggest a different set of rules applies to me, and I'll change it, because I have no such beliefs. The editors of this project have more rights that we as admins, and are subject to a greater degree of respect than admins. the panda ₯’ 11:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: I'm not sure what your comment has to do with anything. I found the original filing (using my old username) "disgusting" yes, because Ent did it to provoke me. Yes, I was originally not going to participate in a revised RFC/U ... however, as has been clearly stated, I rethought my interactions with the community and the way forward while away on holiday, and reconsidered. You do remind me of something I missed: there's an example used above where I snapped at someone who I had bent over backwards to help - but then they stabbed me in the back (I think it was TheShadowCrow). You're a perfect example of how I have changed since then: I bent over backwards a few weeks ago to try and get you unblocked at ANI, and have also worked my butt off to get the apology from another admin that you're dying to have ... and obviously, your thanks leaves a lot to be desired. I do appreciate you coming forward and reminding me of that. the panda ₯’ 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jusdafax

It was not difficult to see this coming, as I said in my oppose in Dangerous Panda's successful Rfa back in 2010. Now the subsequent years of controversy are ArbCom material, and I strongly urge that you take the time to sort through this matter by taking the case. It appears to me, particularly after reviewing the material presented here, that this editor has indeed proven themselves notably unsuited to be an admin, overall, despite making some brilliant use of the tools on occasion that I fully endorse. However, it is the long-term and well documented abusive behavior that I am concerned about here. The health of the editing community is at risk, in my view. Jusdafax 09:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by probably uninvolved John Carter

Simple and straightforward. Follow Floq's advice above. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I am neither here nor there on whether ArbCom should take this case. I do want to speak up about following disingenuous lines by BW/DP/ESAL, however: "It's well-known that I was forced to change my username - once. Where I used to go by my real name, a member of Wikipediocracy called my home after social-engineering my phone number from the subject of an article I once wrote. I take the safety and security of my family as paramount (hence me spending part of the day yesterday at the emergency unit with my mother-in-law)." The clear intimation is that the first pseudonym was a "real name," which according to several people in the know about such things at WPO is asserted not to be the case, thus this testimony is quite possibly untruthful.The assertion that a home phone was discovered by "social-engineering my phone number from the subject of an article I once wrote" is nonsensical, not to say ludicrous. The claim that a Wikipediocracy poster made telephone contact is an unproven bogey: does DP have a diff for having filed a complaint about that? This strikes me as a transparent attempt to garner sympathy through misdirection, casting aspersions upon others. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil

I don't have much to add to everything above, but I urge the committee to immediately take on this case, suspending any action beyond that until DP's return to regular editing. I think there's enough issues raised here that some form of review is required, if only to clear the air around DP's conduct so that he can move on. I think that RFC/U is unlikely to be anything more than a waste of time in this particular instance, what's needed is a more formal process where legitimate concerns about misuse of the tools can be sifted out from general whining and complaining from the peanut gallery. Lankiveil (speak to me)11:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

I came out of retirement simply to add my support for considering whether or not DangerousPanda is fit for admin duties. These were the actions which made me question his suitability.

  • This comment: "ArbCom has already said that saying 'cunt' is not blockable. Calling someone a 'cunt' would be. Already discussed, already determined. You might disagree, but you have neither policy nor ArbCom on your side, and this little non-policy-based tantrum isn't going to change it."[57] (emphasis mine)
  • And this discussion on his talk page, which I started after he made the preceding the comment. Link, please

Now, I am resuming my retirement. Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky Caldron

I am semi-retired but maintain a passing interest. If Arbcom declines this case I believe that the community might as well give up any hope that the type of behaviour justifiably complained about here is capable of being addressed by the structures intended to address it. Ever. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes -DangerousPanda

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I'm no longer an active clerk, but still provide advice on their mailing list from time to time. Noting explicitly here, per a request on my talk page, that I won't seek to take any clerk actions here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

DangerousPanda: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/0/1/4>

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 DangerousPanda. And Alanscottwalker is correct, RfC/U is not broken, just rarely used correctly. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. Having read the statement from DangerousPanda, and followed the situation with the RfC/U and its deletion, and the additional statement from editors unhappy with their perception of DangerousPanda's standards of administration, I think there is enough here to warrant accepting a case, both to look at the concerns raised about DP (the impression I have so far is that DP is asking for more understanding from others about his actions than he was prepared to give to those he took actions against) and to look at the circumstances of the RfC/U deletion (and indeed to acknowledge the future of RfC/U as currently being decided at the village pump). Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 15 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 agree with WTT and Salvio regarding how to proceed in the event DangerousPanda does not return to editing by this weekend. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 5 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. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Panda has not editted for 4 days. I suggest that if he has not returned by the weekend, we open the case and temporarily desysop, in the same manner that we did with SchuminWeb. Indeed, if Panda does not respond by the weekend, consider this an acceptance and a support of a desysop motion. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately that might be the correct step to take if we do not receive a statement, but I think that "this weekend" (a week after the request was initially submitted) would be too soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back at the SchuminWeb case, we opened and suspended by motion, advising SchuminWeb to not use his tools without engaging in a case. If he did not appear after 3 months, or if he requested tool removal, the case would be closed and tools removed. I see no reason not to do the same at the weekend. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And we might wind up deciding we have to do something similar here, if we don't get a response. I just don't think we need to do so hurriedly, given that DP is not currently editing or administering anyway. I think we should allow 10 or 14 days for the response, rather than 7 days, which seems like a long time to those of us who check this page daily or more often, but is not such a long time in the bigger picture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we accept and suspend, as we did with SchuminWeb, we're allowing him 3 months to respond, which I think is more than sufficient. The fact is that Panda has disappeared when the heat was on in the past, per MrX's statement. Admin Accountability means that admins should account for their actions - I've left a note and emailed DP, not had any response from either. Desysopping is not a forgone conclusion by any means, but disappearing 5 hours before an Arbcom case is filed and not returning despite being a very active admin for a case to be opened and suspended. 7 days is more than reasonable period for a break. WormTT(talk) 08:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis Brown, the only place where administrators can be actually held to account is at Arbcom. Everything preceding that is simply down to trust. If an administrator is brought before Arbcom, it's important that it's taken seriously. As I've said elsewhere, I have generally lower thresholds for accepting a case regarding administrators for exactly that reason. I'm not questioning his honesty, I'm not proposing emergency desysopping - I'm saying that him not checking in by the weekend, despite being aware of the case and despite being aware that there was a community engagement on his behaviour, is sufficient to open the case and suspend it. I thought that Arbcom removed the tools from SchuminWeb during the period of suspension, upon looking further it seems he was instructed to not use them - that was my mistake, and I'd prefer the latter solution - but I stand by the deadline of this weekend. That said, I'm not available during the weekend (as per usual), so if no Arb proposes a motion, I'll do so myself on Monday. WormTT(talk) 14:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up, I've just had an email from DangerousPanda. He certainly implies he'll be back at the weekend, I'm now willing to wait a few more days to hear his side of the story. WormTT(talk) 16:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read this all in depth I'm largely persuaded by my own comment from August last year - this one. What I'm seeing is that the community has now made legitimate attempts to work through behavioural issues with DangerousPanda - especially the recent discussions with MrX. I don't believe the concerns have been address sufficiently in that forum. As such, I would accept this case. WormTT(talk) 11:18, 14 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]
  • Awaiting a statement from DangerousPanda. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=633975509"