Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence/RFCU


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

To remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: , 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
DangerousPanda recently underwent a username change. It's accepted practice that admins may maintain a secondary, non-admin account for use on non-secure computers: EatsShootsAndLeaves is a declared nonadmin account.

There can be no doubt DP cares about Wikipedia and has spent a good amount of time of doing admin scutwork. To be fair, his blunt, direct approach is often efficacious with newer but misguided editors. Unfortunately, he lacks the sense of nuance and good judgement to interact with more experienced editors in some of Wikipedia's numerous gray areas. When challenged or questioned, he too often lashes out in an uncivil and inappropriate manner. To paraphrase an old advertising slogan, DP doesn't create the drama, he just make the drama worse.

As may be apparent from some of diffs I've had stored, I've had concerns about DP for a long time. I've hesitated to throw a well meaning editor under the RFCU probably leading to arbcom bus, and I take no pleasure in doing so, but enough is enough. I cannot in good conscience continue to engage in a project where "shut the fuck up" is a tolerated means of communication from those with power.

Desired outcome
or
 * 1) DP will resign his administrator privilege.
 * 1) DP will not participate in WP:AE
 * 2) DP will rename the EatShootsAndLeaves account DangerousPanda (non-admin)
 * Struck per request of second certifier. NE Ent 18:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Expected outcome
I suspect some folks will be tempted to tell me I "can't" ask for a resignation at an RFC/U. It would be disingenuous to put some politically correct request DP "engage more productively" or the like -- as documented below, if he won't listen to Wales, folks commenting at arbcom, or the arbcom voter election guides, it would be quite egoistic of me to think my RFCU would magically fix the problem.

I suspect that while community criticism make cause a hiatus of DPs worse tendencies in the immediate future, eventually he'll return to prior behavior and an arbcom will have to finally address the issue. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and he'll take the path of least drama and resign.

Evidence of disputed behavior
Personally, I think an editor who ever thinks it's appropriate to say to another human being, regardless of their current wikistatus, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=553561200&oldid=553555261 Good luck integrating with humanity someday.] or who's idea of responding to criticism is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee&diff=629184926&oldid=629168506 shut the fuck up] should not be an administrator. He has received feedback over the years from Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, and election voter guides, and unfortunately the inflammatory behavior continues.

General
Per Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Creation, I'm just noting a few instances of DP's chronic poor judgement I've noticed along the way.


 * Jumps into discussion of user and another admin, blocks and reverts talk page access User_talk:Ron_Ritzman/Archive_13 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ron_Ritzman&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1] reverted by original admin[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brendon111&oldid=492949248#Unblocked.2C_but_please_read]


 * Inappropriate block reverted by another admin [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AWalter+G%C3%B6rlitz] see also User_talk:DangerousPanda/Archive_8


 * 3rr blocked without verifying notice was given [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AKnowz]


 * Bizarre block because editor with in good standing with visual disability in using word "disabled" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AYworo] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yworo&oldid=493999630#May_2012] After unblocking, despite it being pointed out by two other admins there was no way the edit summary was a personal attack, rather than apologize gracefully, asserts his way was only way to interpret comment and snarkily attacks editor [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYworo&diff=493633660&oldid=493608736 attacks editor].


 * Implies editor is lazy for filing ANI instead of RFC/U.Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive773


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D0%92%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%8293&oldid=533243467] snarking blocked user "Come into the 21st century"


 * December 2012 ANI thread hastily deletes articles without CSD, and arbitrarily removes some of the editor's users rights, complains about having to pay his mortgage, complains about the editor "hastily filing" an ANI instead of coming to his talk page, responds to legitimate feedback from many well established editors with sarcasm ("Have a fantastic Christmas, Philip - you're an inspiration" )


 * Blocks user Beeblebrox as compromised for saying "fuck off', despite the fact Beeblebrox had previously documented (User:Beeblebrox/fuck off his opinion its use is sometime justified. Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive244[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&diff=prev&oldid=534392810] refuses to accept responsibility, claiming his error was "looking up to Beeblebrox." Note the disruption extended beyond English Wikipedia due to Beeblebrox's advanced user rights.


 * Block of Kiefer Wolfowitz [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=529892642#Re-blocked block of KW for alleged personal attack]


 * Frequently escalates, rather than deescalates the tenor of dispute resolution with initialisms such as FFS ("for fuck's sake" and WTF ("what the fuck" and lots of bold formatting: e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Honorsteem&oldid=479910295#March_2012]. Note also the piling on "gravedancing" on the blocked editors talkpage, a practice recently repeated [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ihardlythinkso&curid=28683924&diff=630093716&oldid=630080176].
 * He is quick to lecture others about behavior [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DiasMi012&diff=prev&oldid=622725015][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=557751324&oldid=557750850]
 * Attacks editors, such as Msnicki [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&oldid=624202708#ANI_discussion], who questions his decisions Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive854


 * 3rr blocks editor, who knowingly stopped at 2rr Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive261


 * Ill considered block at WP:AE, poor reaction to criticism [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&oldid=629946095#The_saga_of_arbitration_enforcement]

Feedback from Founder Jimbo Wales, July 2012
Founder of Wikipedia told him his behavior -- telling an editor "grow the fuck up" -- was inappropriate and "ground for immediate desysopping." Recommended to DP he take a six month break from admin functions, which he failed to do.

Arbcom case, July 2013
In July of 2013, an arbcom case was filed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=567583385]. Although declined, significant evidence of DP's misjudgement was documented, and some arbitrators expressed significant concern about his behavior. He agreed to take a hiatus from use of admin tools.

Arbcom election and voter guides, November / December 2013
DP unsuccessfully ran for the arbitration committee. Critical feedback from the guides includes:
 * User:HJ_Mitchell/ACE2013 lacks finesse and tact
 * Guide Simply put, I've seen him fly off the handle and be far more aggressive and confrontational than a situation calls for too many times to support him as an Arb. I feel that his apparent unwillingness to be tactful in situations where people disagree with him will be a detriment to both internal committee function and the committee's relations with the broader community. Even if his judgement was otherwise flawless (it isn't), and his answers to the election questions were profound (they aren't), I am uncomfortable with electing such an unnecessarily abrasive voice to the committee. Controversial opinions are fine. Standing firmly behind your opinions is fine. Treating routine disagreements as flame wars is not fine.
 * User:Tryptofish/ACE2013 However, he has a history of repeated instances of controversial actions as an admin, and I don't think that he would be as good as some other candidates at really listening to both sides of cases.
 * User:Boing!_said_Zebedee/ACE2013But I think he can be too hot-headed and a bit heavy-handed at times,
 * User:Heimstern/ACE2013 it's questionable whether he should even be an admin, let alone an arb (he blocked him whilst edit warring with him). Enjoys enforcing the civility policy whilst being unwilling to follow it himself.
 * User:Collect/ACE2013 opposed without detailed comments
 * User:Sportsguy17/ACE2013 does not always have a cool head when under extreme pressure and conflict
 * User:Coffee/ACE2013 way of responding to the questions on his list make me feel uneasy supporting at this time.
 * User:Ealdgyth/2013_Arb_Election_votes but not exactly a good shining example of adminhood on BW's side. In the end, just entirely too much that is concerning to allow me to support.
 * User:Reaper_Eternal/Election_thoughts_2013 He's one of the civility types who regularly posts on ANI. While it would be okay if he were civil himself, that isn't the case. This block was also incredibly bad, violating WP:INVOLVED.
 * User:Hahc21/ArbCom_2013 He has some issues he needs to address before he is suitable for the role.
 * User:Rschen7754/ACE2013 Awaiting answers to questions. Jimbo doesn't think this guy should be an admin. Combative behavior, and using the tools in that behavior. The way that he avoided the consequences was to shift to his non-admin alternate account, until people forgot about the whole thing... problem is, he still acts like an admin on that account, performing admin actions . And he had already done this before. Furthermore, I've been very disgusted with the way that he's persistently treated certain good-faith editors: 13 They may have made mistakes in the past, but that is not how we respond to them - it comes off as way more personalized than necessary. Strong oppose. This is someone who should not have adminship (and where a RFC/ArbCom request process could very well have resulted in the removal of his tools), let alone arbitrator.
 * User:Calidum/ACE2013 Oppose. he had a run in with the committee in August. While the case wasn't accepted, some the evidence presented against him is a compelling reason to vote "no."
 * User:Elonka/ACE2013 Strong oppose. Didn't even bother answering most of the questions until within 24 hours of the start of voting, and they did so by switching over to their alternate account, . This flipping back and forth between two accounts on the same page is confusing and difficult to track. ... doesn't seem to have any substantial content work, no GAs or FAs that I could find. And the DGAF userbox on their userpage is definitely not a good sign. There was an attempt to open a case about his behavior at ArbCom a few months ago. The case was not accepted, but the evidence presented is still very troubling, with extensive examples of inappropriate behavior, and I see that even Jimbo suggested that he should resign. This is definitely not someone who should be an arbitrator.
 * User:Neotarf/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_2013:_Neotarf's_picks currently using his alternate account non-admin account, (User:EatsShootsAndLeaves) after official ArbCom inquiry into multiple civility issues,
 * GregJackP neutral lean support
 * SirFozzie likely support
 * JClemens no opinion given
 * NuclearWarfare abstain

Disruptive secondary account name
A secondary issue, mentioned in some of the guides above, is DP's disruptive naming of his non-admin account. While non-admin accounts are permitted and encouraged, the general practice is to have a name which is obviously linked to the primary admin account, and to redirect the talk page of the secondary. (e.g. Hersfold, Hersfold non-admin). DP's has a cutesy connection (Panda's eat shoots and leaves, get it?) which requires cultural / biological knowledge to get. He meets the letter of the rule by putting the following on User:EatsShootsAndLeaves

without displaying the account name in clear text. He refused a request [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:DangerousPanda&oldid=505497639#alternate_account] to make the link explicit. He plays "gotcha" with editors who don't grok that ESAL == DP [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMartinvl&diff=577697821&oldid=577697647], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=628911268] and acts as if he owns the black and white formatting of the DP and ESAL signatures [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Signatures&oldid=604153009#My_Sig] Note also that Wikipedia::Signatures provides user explicit directions on how to "uncustomize" signatures, and some editors use screen readers, so it's not reasonable to assume editors will be able to make the link visually. Furthermore it makes edit histories hard to parse [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&action=history&offset=2014101417200&limit=5].

Note also when addressing the committee DP makes sure to use both names [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=622458734].

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by NE Ent
User_talk:DangerousPanda/Archive_10 NE Ent 15:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See also User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2012 NE Ent 15:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempts by certifier Msnicki

 * 1) Coaching Barney on how get unblocked on Barney's talk page
 * 2) Raising concern on Barney's talk page when DP blocked Barney from his own talk page
 * 3)  My report at ANI and the complete archived discussion
 * 4)  DP insisting that telling me I'd written "the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language" could not possibly be read as an insult
 * 5) My advice to Barney given that I had not been successful at ANI

Amended. ''I've added additional details and links describing the case I observed. Ping me if anyone thinks I need strikethroughs, etc., given that some of you have already responded but this RfC came up at a time when I'm buried at work. I'm genuinely doing my best and I hope you'll give me some slack.'' Msnicki (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was an uninvolved reporter at at ANI in the matter of DP's indefinite block of User:Barney the barney barney. I became aware of the matter when I saw the block discussion on Barney's talk page show up on my watchlist but I have no recollection why his page was there. I learned later that the dispute had started as a minor squabble between Barney and User:Bearcat at Articles for deletion/John Mutton, an obscure AfD about John Mutton, a British politician. Bearcat was the nom, so by the blue link you know the outcome went against him. Bearcat promised he'd withdraw his nomination if sources were offered, they were provided by others, but Bearcat never conceded.

The dispute began when Barney had, by my reading, pretty thoroughly sliced and diced Bearcat's nominating arguments. But Bearcat, who happens also to be an admin, was unwilling to concede and switched to different arguments as if this is what he'd meant all along. Barney made the mistake of pointing out the problem more bluntly than he's allowed, saying, "I'd like to see what other articles he's lynched with lies." with the edit comment, "user Bearcat lied, repeatedly, basically". One minute later, Bearcat went to ANI. Barney had still not received any warnings, e.g., with any templating, but 29 minutes later and before any other discussion, DP blocked Barney for the duration of the AFD (96 hours). It went downhill from there as DP allowed Bearcat (again, an admin who should know better!) to bait Barney on Barney's own talk page even while Barney was blocked in clear violation of WP:IUC. DP continued to escalate the situation until finally he had indefinitely blocked Barney even from his own talk page and driven him from the project.

Along the way, several other editors attempted to raise questions about DP's behavior but in each case, he either ignored them completely or insulted, then ignored them, driving away anyone with legitimate questions about his judgment or his use of authority. For example, here is User:Roxy the dog trying to tell DP that his initial block was excessive at ANI, where others also expressed reservations.


 * I've blocked him for the duration of the AFD (96 hours) for disruption and personal attacks the panda ₯’  21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This block needs reviewing by an uninvolved admin, quickly. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that because I've now extended it and locked his talkpage for further violations of NPA while blocked? the panda ₯’  00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is because I believe your blocking of BBB is excessive, punitive and unwarranted. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never issued a punitive block in my life. But hey, if you think personal attacks and disruption are ok, then go ahead  the panda ₯’  00:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The correct initial action should have been to caution Barney and explain that we might all understand his frustration and he is certainly entitled to hold any opinion he likes, but he's not entitled to post every one of them. He had to find ways to express his opinions within the guidelines or not at all. So far as I'd ever seen, Barney seemed to be pretty smart guy; I think he'd have gotten the message right there and agreed to strike his remarks and rephrase them.

DP's decision to block Barney from the entire rest of an AfD, and to explicitly state that as his objective, was an exceptionally poor and insensitive choice in an even more fundamental way. Barney was winning. He was strongest debater in an AfD and he was winning on the merits. Banning him from the the debate because the loser was unhappy and the loser is an admin with a thin skin has the feel of censorship and abuse of power. It just plain looks bad. It's the kind of behavior that instantly undermines any legitimacy of authority. People need to believe the system is fair. This undermines that. Even if DP could block Barney, that didn't mean he should do that. It also doesn't help the underlying interests of WP that we get outcomes that reflect the strongest arguments and the consensus of as many participants as possible. Barney was the top contributor in that debate. That's what we need. Counsel him on behavior and send him back in.

Instead, through poor decisions, poor behavior and inflexibility, DP escalated this minor squabble until he had blocked Barney even from own talk page and told him that if he wanted to come back, his recourse was the WP:STANDARDOFFER, which starts by demanding that the blocked user wait 6 months. Instead of resolving the dispute, DP simply made it worse at every step, with the result that we lost a productive editor.

When DP ratcheted the sanctions to blocking Barney even from his own talk page after Barney insulted DP, it looked to me like it was becoming personal and I tried raising my concern with DP. DP's response immediately turned personal and quite insulting, " That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. ... you cannot honestly be suggesting ... Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying." in clear violation of WP:IUC, c.f., their example, "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen".

On his talk page, archived at User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 15, where I was required to template him with a notice of the ANI discussion, DP treated it like it was RfC, insisted his remarks couldn't possibly be considered insulting, then pretended he was the closing admin, concluding, "Rather than reply intelligently and politely, User:Msnicki just continues to type improper, false, antagonistic, unsupported statements at ANI. Funny way to go from being respected to not whatsoever. Congratulations. Perhaps she should stop before I have to request further action." (Really. You have to see this.  It's quite remarkable.)

(My "unintelligent" and "impolite" reply had been to say "I'm pretty sure that when someone tells me I've written the "the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language", that I cannot "honestly" be saying the things I do and that I should give my "head a shake", that none of that is intended as complimentary".)

The pattern continued at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854. DP repeatedly accused me of personal attacks, harassment, lying, and bad faith and often used a vulgar tone, e.g., "you fucked this up and refuse to back down and eat crow", "that's being "angry" at you and your unfounded accusations and lies, plus your inability to address this with me directly rather than embarrass yourself with such false statements due to horrible assumptions. Yeah, I'm "angry" that I've lost all respect for someone who I once considered a respectable person", "You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me", "I said I would refuse to respond to your insults, false claims, and baiting, here is my response: I will continue to use appropriate restraint in all situations with all editors", "IMHO Msnicki should be blocked for these continued unfounded, unproven personal attacks", "Cut it out, becausr this bullshit harassment has got to stop", "This is a massive blemish on what has been until this date a pretty stellar wikicareer for you". (Can you live without the individual diffs for each of these remarks? I'm backed up at work and it's all there in the ANI archive.)

Yet still DP insisted he wasn't a bit mad, and that he had consensus behind every one of his actions. Every bit of DP's tone toward me was at least as disrespectful, never mind, completely unprovoked, as anything Barney had said. Yet there was DP banishing Barney for behavior that DP appeared to consider all in a day's work as an admin, the same irony that had so dismayed Jimbo Wales.

In the end, nothing happened. But Barney is gone and DP remains an admin. I think this partly reflects a thin blue line behavior at ANI, but more fundamentally that DP probably did have the authority to do everything he did. And there's the problem, DP has that authority. He just doesn't have the good judgment and the rest of the skills that should go with that. Adminship is a privilege that comes with power over others, power as we see in this case, to drive a previously productive editor right off the project. If someone is going to have and use that kind of power, it's reasonable to demand they demonstrate exemplary judgment and behavior. That's just not happening here.

I still feel bad about what happened to Barney. I think we lost a good contributor. I happen to think Barney was right in that original argument and did not deserve one bit of the treatment he got. When I failed to get his block lifted at ANI, I posted some advice to Barney about what he needed to do if he wanted to come back. But I don't think he's going to.

Fundamentally, I just don't believe DP has the basic skills and abilities necessary to the role as an admin. A lot of the work of admins is dealing with disputes and solving them. It takes the ability to model the behavior you're seeking. DP's easy anger, overeagerness to wield his power, foul language, and devastating lack of empathy, self-awareness and self-control make him simply unsuitable for the role.

After the Barney incident, I searched the WP: namespace, trying to figure out how a mere mortal here might ask for admin recall. I gave up. Thanks to NE Ent for figuring out how to call the question. There may be many ways in which DP might contribute but as an admin should not be one of them. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * 1) Msnicki (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
''{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}''


 * 1) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Lecen (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) - MrX 23:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Keysanger (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) 70.171.253.242 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Response
The only response I'm going to make here is this:

I renamed my account due to safety and security concerns - this is WELL-KNOWN. My family had already been contacted by someone related to Wikipedia. It's not possible to fully expunge my old username, due to RFA's etc needing to be linked. I have tried to "hide" the past username as much as possible.

The fact that this very RFC/U is not only NAMED after my previous username, but that my previous username has been mentioned again and again merely reopens my family to inappropriate contact, and places my safety and security at risk.

Indeed, 3 times over the last 3 weeks I have had to remind people to stop using that username. NE Ent knows better than to use it, and I would suggest it's been done to raise my anger yet again.

The most recent time someone used it, my very angry response is now being used as evidence against by by the Ent (see ). The ed actually redacted his use of my old username, and apologized for its use. Yeah, it pissed me off, and RAISED the temperature of the discussion, rather than help it.

Unlike the claim above, I did not get angry or incivil due to polite questions over my actions, I got angry that my family was once again being placed at risk.

I take the safety and security of my family seriously - and I would have expected my Wikipedia colleagues (at least those who actually mean well) to do the same.

Disgusting behaviour, indeed.

Users who endorse this summary:
''RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section''


 * 1)  the panda ₯’  18:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1)  MarshalN20  T al k 05:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by Andy Dingley
If we can't get Al Capone for gangsterism, then maybe try tax evasion? Yes, pandas aren't the cute cuddly teddy things and sometimes they're a bit bitey. This belongs as an RFC/U to be filed alongside E*** C****** for "Why don't we enforce WP:CIVL against people with lots of friends and lots of edits?" It does not belong anywhere else.

I agree with the nominator that some of the comments used (and there are plenty of them) are unacceptable. They're unacceptable from editors, they're unacceptable from admins (I make no comment as to whether they're more or less acceptable from an admin). We have a problem with this across more than one editor. So what would we like to do about it? Somewhere between a polite request and a global ban. Just what is a question too hard for this bear's little brain (it's a global problem, we have it across more than one editor). Do we ignore it and roll back CIVIL (as we've already done) and let this place sink into Usenet and just take the "Plug your ears little Timmy, if the nasty dockers swear at you". I don't know, that's a question for the community and it's bigger than this one editor. If anyone puts a proposal forward though, give me a shout, I'll probably support it. I certainly don't support this roaring panda we have at present.

As to the rest though, it's a ragbag of minor grievances. What? Just what is the issue here, other than someone with time to write an RFC has become pissed off? In particular, what's the issue with the multiple accounts? I don't like these (as a general point), never have done, but I'm not seeing abuse of them here. In all of this RfC, I just don't see what the issue is, or how the desired remedies tie into it. I admit, I don't spend much time at WP:AE, maybe the problem is local to that alone. I don't see any problem significant enough to support de-adminning (which seems impossible to achieve for our really worst of all admins) or restriction on multiple accounts.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Andy Dingley (talk)
 * 2) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Acetotyce  (talk)  00:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Cavarrone  15:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by GoodDay
Recommend DP resign the administratorship & then vanish all accounts. Under a sole new account, DP can begin anew, with his identity hidden & his family no longer at risk. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree. If DP is so worried about his family then he should do everything possible to make sure that the BW account is never again mentioned. The best way to make that happen is to resign his adminship and vanish all accounts. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) If family has been put at risk due to a previous username, then the account should be vanished asap. -- Acetotyce (talk)  23:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) DP's family's safety should be more important that his Wikipedia career. - MrX 21:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) 70.171.253.242 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) If DP is concerned about his family, why does he list himself on his user page as an administrator willing to make difficult blocks?  Per WP:AMDB, you're not supposed to do that if you're worried about "being threatened and harassed off-site or in real life".  Is this a concern that just turned up now because it's a convenient way to change the subject away from his performance as an admin?  Msnicki (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Werty1234 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Neatsfoot
Only DP can know the off-site problems he has and judge the problems his family have faced, and only he can decide if needs to vanish his old accounts and start again. It's really nobody else's business to tell him what he should do, especially as the recommendation above is based on ignorance of the actual events, and it's not appropriate for an RFC/U. (I put this here because it's a direct response to the one above, I hope that's OK). Neatsfoot (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Neatsfoot (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  MarshalN20  T al k 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Bbb23
This is one screwed-up RfC/U. First, in my view, it is not properly certfied by NE Ent. He lists two attempts to resolve the dispute. Both are from 2012. The first is a long recital by NE Ent with a single-sentence reply by Panda. The second, although it took place on NE Ent's talk page, did not include a single comment by him. Who files an RfC/U two years after they supposedly attempt to resolve the dispute that triggers the RfC/U?

Related to the above, NE Ent acknowledges that Panda, after being criticized by many, took a voluntary break from using his administrative privileges. If an RfC/U against Panda has any value, it would cover the period beginning when he came back, not go back to way earlier. I realize the pre-break issues may be useful for some background, but there is far too much concentration on the pre-break problems.

The second certifier, Msnicki, doesn't improve things. She bases her entire certification on one incident, and one for which she got very little support from others at ANI. Essentially, she's asking us to rehash something that was thoroughly discussed and rejected. Worse, based on this somewhat personal crusade (on behalf of Barney and herself), she thinks the appropriate outcome here is for Panda to resign. Incredible.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) "This is one screwed-up RfC/U."  MarshalN20  T al k 05:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  21:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Neatsfoot (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by MarshalN20
ESL/DP is neither unreasonable nor unfair. Their edits are always done with justification. Yes, this administrator is one to actually grab the bull by the horns when it is necessary to protect and uphold the pillars of Wikipedia. The only other administrator that I have seen with the necessary bravery to take on difficult blocks is Sandstein. I use the word "bravery," because this leaves their accounts and actions open to attacks and the development of grudges that can result in situations such as this RfC/U.

What is most detestable is seeing ESL/DP's old username continuously brought up to hurt him. This needs to stop.

All I see here is an administrator getting harassed. Grudge mentality should not be a part of Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  MarshalN20  T al k 05:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Dennis Brown
The RFC/U is full of problems and inaccuracies. Plus, the whole "voter guides" thing is inappropriate here as it applies to suitability as Arb, not behavior as Admin. Apples and oranges. When Jimbo suggested he back away from admin, he did, by the way, for 6 months, so you are mistaken there. (he had to keep the bit due to a bot, but didn't use that account) He is blunt, sometimes overly so, but I've never questioned his faith in using his bit to do what is best for Wikipedia. I haven't seen him use it in a self-serving way. I have seen him stand up and be willing to be in the minority in controversial debates. I have seen him stand up and make the tough blocks, and more importantly, the tough unblocks.

Is DP rude? Sometimes. I would dare say dickish at times, but those times are rare, and we all can be when we work in the most controversial areas. In DP's case, the comments and such wouldn't be a big deal if he weren't an admin so it isn't about our civility policy. It isn't a question of accountability either, as no claim is made. It is a question of expected behavior for admin, and that is a very fuzzy line indeed. If the problems NE Ent is having is limited to AE, then maybe DP should be asked to disengage in that area. Since DP has a history of bending to community will without a tantrum, this problem should have been more fully discussed on his talk page before coming here.

More likely, the purpose of the RFC/U seems to be staging for a future stab at Arb to have Panda's admin bit stripped from him. Arb won't touch a case unless it has an RFC/U first, so this looks like Ent getting the formality out of the way. The sheer lack of links showing when Ent or others have tried to resolve the issue tells me that there is a lack of communication going on. Coming here so soon, dragging up instances that are so old, using evidence that is so weak, this tells me the problem may be getting blown out of proportion. Instead of getting a real discussion, I fear this RFC/U will accomplish nothing other than ticket punching as the premise and execution are so poor.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Dennis 2&cent; 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --MONGO 13:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) I am One of Many (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Drmies (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Neatsfoot (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Patrol Forty
If an administrator's goal is to uphold the pillars of Wikipedia, they should be under no doubt that one of those pillars is about treating everybody with respect, including anyone they might personally think is completely undeserving of it. An inability to approach people who are failing to adhere to Wikipedia's rules with a sense of detachment, particularly in controversial areas, is in no way a desirable quality in an administrator.

The expectations of admins is not fuzzy, it's quite clear - hold yourself to a higher standard than is expected of ordinary users, and that applies everywhere, whether you're acting as an administrator or just chatting with a friend. If ordinary users are allowed some leeway to be occasionally rude or intemperate as long they're sincerely apologetic after the event, then it's clear that such instances in administrators should be quite rare (non-admins should be working to a '3 strikes and you're out' standard is a proposal recently floated by Dr Blofeld), and they should be practically begging for forgiveness after the event.

As Mr Wales has seemingly been at pains to communicate to all administrators recently, people unable to conduct themselves properly here should be being shown the door firmly but fairly, as this is not only just the morally right thing to do, any deviation from this path is merely going to be counter-productive anyway - "We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years."

After just a cursory look at their talk page, even post-break there seems to be an ongoing issue with an inability to remain detached or to refrain from what some people might consider misplaced attempts at humour or indeed snark/gloating.

That said, he does appear to be actively working to uphold the core principles of Wikipedia for the benefit of everyone, and seems to take an even handed approach to all users, regardless of status. On current evidence, this would seem to make him one of the best administrators Wikipedia has. He certainly doesn't seem to be the sort of admin who would ever feel personally conflicted or otherwise reluctant to act should he observe an established user making personal attacks in a repeated, deliberate and unapologetic fashion, as part of their routine editing. Patrol forty (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.


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