Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

The evidence submission phase for this case has closed. Any further additions to this page may be reverted.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Current word length: 480; diff count: 26.

NE Ent filed an RFC/U that was deleted per policy

I looked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves (now at /RFCU) with the intention of moving it from the "candidate" list to the "certified" list. I was aware that there have been complaints about DP's style of interaction, and I had little doubt that an RFC was a good idea. There were two signers. Superficially it looked good, but upon closer inspection I noticed irrelevant and dubious material (ArbCom guide statements, hearsay taken out of context), and that the certifiers referred to incidents in 2014 and 2012 (stale, and not the same). I read the instructions at WP:RFCU and decided to delete the page. I communicated [1][2][3] with the filers, offering to (1) userify their content (e.g. User:Jehochman/Draft), and (2) explain how to fix it on a second try. The deletion was discussed, reviewed and sustained. This was normal; all the participants acted in good faith. Subsequently the community started a discussion to eliminate the RFC/U process as "overly complex, ineffective and divisive" (per Gandalf61), which appears to be the likely result, though discussion is ongoing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Panda has been extensively involved in discussions about civility on Wikipedia

DP contributed the most content of any editor, and has the third most human edits to the now deprecated page, WP:WQA, the one about civility enforcement. NE Ent is the second most prolific human editor of that page. [4]

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
• en.wikipedia.org
• Total revisions: 44396
• Number of editors: 4707
• 2014-11-19 14:17:05

¹ Number of edits
² Average time between edits

Dangerous Panda has not sufficiently engaged in discussions about the issue(s) in dispute

October 22: MrX posts concerns: [5] and [6]

October 22: I provided DP friendly advice. [7] After prompting, he agreed. [8] In that same thread you can see failure to address Msnicki's concerns.

22 Oct - Nov 2: One or more banned editors join the discussion to foment strife. [9][10][11][12]

October 29 (10:46): DP blocks (10:46) Rm w a vu who had just received a warning (09:55) for edit warring, but hadn't yet responded nor made further reverts, nor even logged in for over 4 hours previously. Rm w a vu had a clean block log,[13] and had been editing Wikipedia since 2006.[14]

October 29 (17:29): Msnicki posted her concerns again.[15]

Nov 1: Request for arbitration filed by NE Ent. [16]

Nov 2: MrX raises concerns about the Oct 29 block.[17] I concurred and asked if DP would cease further administrative actions while a case request was pending.[18] DP's response was defensive and failed to acknowledge the poor form of issuing a hasty block immediately after editors had expressed concerns about DP's administrative style.[19]

Nov 2: Dennis Brown leaves a fair and insightful comment.[20]

Oct 22 - Nov 17: DP posts lots of responses that don't really address the issues in dispute: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

Repeated lapses of judgement when using administrative tools

Incivility in response to criticism

Confusing use of multiple user names

DangerousPanda has used several signatures including Bw****ns, EatsShootsAndLeaves, ES&L, the panda, dangerouspanda, and DP.

Complaints about his use of alternate accounts and signatures have been repeatedly rebuffed:

• July 26, 2012
• August 2, 2012
• August 31, 2012
• September 15, 2012
• September 16, 2012
• March 5, 2014
• February 14, 2014
• May 12, 2014

Examples of misuse

Frequent incivility, hostility, and disrespect directed toward other users

Rude, often hostile, edit summaries and comments. From the past six months:

Frequent hostile edit summaries

FFS WTF

Hostile responses to requests for help

Gist of the case

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence/RFCU.

Absurd Elephant in the room -- Previous account

Claims at Statement by DangerousPanda regarding the old name are absurd.

Wikipedia is just a website; if volunteering presents a real world threat, the reasonable thing to do is request a courtesy vanish or to clean start.

WP:RENAME clearly notes "Renames appear in the user rename log or global rename log and requests are moved to the archives. This is done in the interest of transparency," and the rename request DangerousPanda filed said only "Reason: I believe it's an account I created. Renaming my primary (admin) account to a new name, but will maintain full transparency" (emphasis mine). Stating the obvious, any wiki-savvy dispute resolution gnome knows how to use Special:Contributions/DangerousPanda.

I named the RFCU oldname-DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves to maximize community participation; after DPs reply I moved the RFCU and immediately CSD'd the redirect. (I did this due to a mix of courtesy and not wanting the oldname usage to be a distraction.) The RFCU had links like User_talk:oldname/Archive_8#April_2012 -- logically if "oldname" is problematic the redirects would have been deleted in the many months since the rename. Furthermore, an editor who claims that having an account name buried in the "someone with tens of thousands of edits" link on User:EatsShootsAndLeaves meets the implicit public notification requirements of WP:SOCK#LEGIT -- see [46] -- doesn't even bother to remove the oldname from the top of their archives so a simple hover on User_talk:DangerousPanda or this page reveals the name. File:Acnov2014-1.png, File:acpage.png

So on the one hand, any use of oldname by another editor is justification for an "exempt from WP:NPA" personal attack, but DP himself has failed to take rudimentary steps to reduce the visibility of it.

The absurdity of the situation is evidenced by one arbitrator revert and revdeling [47] usage of the name at one moment, and another adding a link [48] to the August 2013 case request, which has oldname emblazoned all over it. So saying "oldname" is very, very bad, but linking to it is okay??? Are we to believe a person or non-robots.txt compliant web crawler isn't going to follow the links?

Allows editors to be cursed at, and more

I'm a longtime editor with a virtually impeccable record and much goodwill in nearly 9 1/2 years on Wikipedia. I've mentored many editors and could call on a dozen fellow editors, including a couple of admins, to vouch for my good works. As can happen in 9 1/2 years, I was involved in a dispute this spring in which the other user repeatedly cursed me with the f-word [49] after my very polite posts on his talk page [50], [51]. He did so again and again [52], [53], and was verbally abusive even when Wikipedia rules required my notifying him of things like 3RR warnings and ANI [54].

Despite all this, and despite neither of the disputing editors going over 3RR, Dangerous Panda blocked both of us [55]. OK, fine ... except for his giving the other editor 24 hours and me 60 — excusing the cursing completely, and adding the extra time on a subjective and false claim [56] that I was "FORCING [his caps-lock] the other person to edit war". No one puts a gun to someone's head and "forces" them to edit war, and even if this were possible, it takes two people egging each other on. Given my good-faith efforts at dialog and the other editor's immediate verbal abuse and cursing at me, this disparate block shows extremely questionable judgment. And letting an abusive editor throw f-bombs with impunity seems to make a mockery of WP:CIVIL.

Tag-teaming

He and fellow admin Dennis Brown also appear to WP:TAGTEAM. Among other examples, Brown even responds for Dangerous Panda on the latter's talk page here [57], explaining, "DangerousPanda is a bit tied up...." This indicates off-Wiki contact where two admins talk about things they don't want seen in public discourse. That they both believe it was OK for the other editor to curse with f-bombs (DB: "'crass' isn't the same as 'uncivil'") is also troubling.

I am involved editor. Kevin Gorman opened an AN case against me. DP closed the case in my favor. However, he did so despite previous involvement in the case. Also, DP, rather than serving as a neutral arbiter as a case closer, showed clear bias against me both in the case closing comments, and in discussions that followed.

Closing an AN case despite prior involvement

• 29 June 2014: DP writes on Howunusual's Talk page about the open AN case.

• 11 July 2014 Despite this previous involvement, DP served as the closing administrator on the same case.

Given that previous involvement, DP should not have been the closing administrator. DP's close of the case was a violation of administrative conflict of interest, which states: "...it is important to avoid conflicts of interest, because such circumstances cast doubt on the fairness of the closure, and often make the closure unstable. Even the appearance of conflict of interest is worth avoiding, for the same reason."

Bias by DP both in the AN case close, and, afterward

• In the AN case closing comments, DP showed bias.

The reason for the AN case close was that there was a clear lack of consensus. DP never mentioned that in the close. Instead of referring to that, or to the commentaries made on my behalf, DP clearly took sides. For example, DP wrote in the close:

"Increasingly unacceptable is Memills badgering of a select number of commentors, so it's better to close this before they do themselves more harm."

I had not "badgered" anyone. Also, the closing statement by an administrator should primarily focus on the consensus, or lack thereof. It should not serve as a platform to air personal opinions / biases.

• After the close, DP continued to show bias re this case.

On Kevin Gorman's Talk page DP wrote

"...there was no other way to close that mess."and " ...there was certainly no consensus to (for an indefinite T-ban) yet.

The inappropriateness of this comment was pointed out by Ihardlythinkso:

Hey Panda, how about you just be professional and do your function per WP:ADMINACCT!? Our job is to determine consensus and there was most certainly no consensus to indef is just fine. But your "yet" above connotes a distinct bias, and your own opinion in the close was inconsistent w/ your job to weight a consensus of !voters' opinions. (Why do I, a reg user, have to point this obvious out to an admin?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After the close DP falsely accused me of "name-calling" on my Talk page:

This is 100% unacceptable. Any further such comments, "name-calling" whether directed at a specific individual or not will be proof of continued WP:BATTLE behaviour, and I'll be blocking you myself. If you had made this comment before my close, be assured the close would have been very different the panda  ???” 16:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP's charge of "name calling" was factually untrue. I had not engaged in any name calling, but had simply thanked Shakehandsman on his Talk page for his support during the AN, and, I expressed that I found it disconcerting that by doing so he was then subjected to mud slinging by another editor.

The above are but only a couple of examples where DP has failed to demonstrate the level of neutrality and factual accuracy that is expected of admins per WP:ADMINACCT, especially when they are the closing admin. Taken alone, they don't amount to much. But, taken together...

Current word length: 914; diff count: 18.

Initial disclaimer may be found here.

A history of incivility and misusing administrative tools

In addition to the links provided by Jehochman and NE Ent above, there are numerous examples of situations where DangerousPanda had let his emotions cloud his judgement. Here are some that date back to 2012 and earlier, which shows that this is a longstanding pattern rather than a more recent development:

• This was his comment on an editor review in June of 2012 (subsequently removed by Worm That Turned). When questioned about it on his talk page, this is how he responded.

• An instance where he was too hasty to use the block button occurred in May 2012. An editor inappropriately marked a bot operated by DangerousPanda as inactive using AWB, which was a reckless mistake on their part; DangerousPanda subsequently hit the rollback button on that edit, as you can see here, and proceeded to leave him a notice on his talkpage. After discovering that he'd done the same to several other bot accounts, DangerousPanda took the extraneous solution of blocking him for 60 hours a mere three minutes after raising the issue with Rcsprinter. He posted the exchange at ANI for review (which is good), but his response to the criticism he received was less than reassuring.[58]

• A discussion on Ivory Coast's talk page where DangerousPanda's involvement further exacerbated an already contentious debate over the name of the article.

• Assuming bad faith on the part of another user: "Now it appears that having this side discussion here was an attempt to circumvent the consensus process ... is "I can't do consensus" really the message you're trying to send?" This was followed up on his talk page.

• Needlessly aggressive opposes at Hahc21's first and second RfAs.

• Inappropriately labels a misguided talk page edit as "vandalism" in an edit summary (using Twinkle).

• This thread, on face value, was a classic case of an editor "abusing" an admin; however, DangerousPanda never responded to the situation at ANI, and although the reporting editor did not behave admirably by any stretch of the imagination, DangerousPanda wasn't very polite either.

• This whole discussion regarding an account's username demonstrates unduly negative assumptions on the part of DP.

• Aggressive language directed at two contributors who, although tendentious in their editing habits (at least at the time), acted in good faith. Follow-up discussion located here.

• An ad hominem argument against the editor who proposed that we close WQA (which was marked as historical following a lopsided discussion where nearly everyone came out in support).

• Needlessly aggressive comment to a well-meaning contributor who misunderstood the scope of the BLP policy.

• Makes a valid point in this discussion, but the concern I have is his patronizing tone (specifically the smile emoticon at the end of the message).

• Dealing with an editor who was certainly behaving inappropriately (making jokes on ANI about applying a 6 month block to someone who'd done nothing wrong), but in such a demeaning tone that it could potentially dispirit people from contributing to Wikipedia space.

• Brusque RfA vote.

• Excessively critical tone taken towards an editor who made a very minor lapse in judgement.

• Another instance of being overly brusque.

• And another, with this one being based on a misconception on the part of DangerousPanda (non-admins were not explicitly restricted from commenting on the related discussion).

• Gruff demeanour in a community discussion, especially towards Ebe123, who was evidently acting in good-faith (granted, I do agree that non-admins shouldn't be closing unblock requests).

• Rude response to an editor who was asking for DP to review a situation in which he'd previously opined. It was also inaccurate to say that there were any assumptions of bad faith on the part of Ian.

• RfA oppose comment where he references his previous block of the candidate (i.e. the bot-tagging and subsequent kerfuffle that I'd mentioned above), but makes no explicit reference to the fact that he administered the block — and went so far as to claim that it received "mixed reviews" at ANI, when it was widely opposed. I confronted him on his talkpage about it afterwards, and this was his response.

• Blocked PumpkinSky for 24 hours in June 2013 after edit warring with him on the requests for adminship talk page. PumpkinSky made a post on a recently closed thread, which DangerousPanda reverted; PumpkinSky re-added his comment, and DP again reversed with the curt message to PSky "Stop edit-warring". In addition to the block, which is a textbook example of an involved action on his part, DangerousPanda temporarily fully protected the page. Also see the subsequent ANI discussion and follow-up on PumpkinSky's talk page.

EatsShootsAndLeaves

EatsShootsAndLeaves was created as an alternate username in 2012. The plan was that he'd use it to edit in place of his main administrator account for six months, per the suggestion made by Jimbo Wales that he take a break for a while. He returned to active adminship a couple months earlier than expected. His identity was never kept a secret, nor was there any intended confusion or deception. It is clear who he is when using either of his accounts, even in the same discussion. Although he regularly switches between the two, it is very likely that DangerousPanda uses ES&L as a public login. Regardless of why he does it, no violation of WP:SOCK is being committed.

First and second RfAs

DangerousPanda has had two RfAs, one in 2009 and the other in 2010. The first was almost evenly split between supports and opposes, with the latter camp expressing serious misgivings about his temperament. It was closed with a final tally of 31/30/10. He made significant improvements in the coming months, and easily passed his second RfA in January 2010 with a tally of 106/8/2.

Contributions to Wikipedia

DangerousPanda has always been more of a behind-the-scenes contributor than a content creator, and it is in this field where his attributes shine. He has been a prolific commentator at the various administrator noticeboards (particularly ANI) since 2008, where he has garnered significant praise for his hard work and dedication from several users over the years; evidence of this can be seen here and here.

Poor behauvior after making an erroneus admin action

The unblock request in question was mine (July 2013) about a block which was mistakenly based on a premise that I had intentionally edited another editor's comment to make a personal attack. The unblock was first denied by DP; he called my reasoning "bordering on a lie" (diff). However, my second unblock request was accepted by Tariqabjotu - a decision which was found to be correct by a following ANI discussion.

The following ANI discussion can be found HERE and includes all relevant diffs.

A short summary of what was presented in the ANI thread: DP still maintained that his decision had been correct, and harshly criticized Tariqabjotu for "letting the editor off", "trashing my ability to read" and marked it as "disgusting" in the edit summary (diff). Other editors weighed in and told DP was wrong - DP continued getting angry with them for figuratively stepping on his toes (diff, diff2). It is problematic if an admin cannot admit he was wrong or take criticism for his actions at all, and that seems to be the case with DP here.

Incivility

Since many diffs about incivility have already been posted here and in the RFCU case, I'll just mark the worst one I've come across as evidence here.

• Diff 28 July 2013 DP told the editor whose sanctions were being discussed "Well, f- you then.", "-- you totally fucked up" and "may you rot in the hell that is eternal block. " The editor who that was directed at is not currently blocked.

DP should never have been made an admin

Why? His first RfA failed miserably w/ 49% opposed, with at least 23 of 30 opposers citing his temperament and making insults as basis for their !vote. If an editor "improves" she/he can reapply. DP did so 8 months later, passing w/ 93% supports. (Have more than 2 of the 106 !voters responsible for making him admin responded to this RfAR?!) But did he improve? Before: Good luck with your future interactions with the human race. ►BMW◄ 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) After: Good luck integrating with humanity someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC) No editor should have to face insults of that nature, let alone from an admin.[reply]

Add'l examples of insults

• Multiple derogatory PAs against an editor's character. [59]

• Mocking and ridiculing me over a complaint I have re admin The Bushranger's PA on my user Talk, and again in AN, that I was/am a "classic narcissist": ... you can hardly consider being called a "narcissist" to be a major personal attack? On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 0.75. "Asshole", "dickface", MF's favourite C-word ... those are right up at the top. DP 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC); So what if you're narcissistic? DP 14:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough space

DP has a distinct bias against me (no doubt stemming from my criticisms of his wiki-friend and enabler admin Dennis Brown [60]), I've experienced numerous dishonesties (the case page demos how liberal he is w/ dishonesties), threats, feigned neutrality, and disingenuous and intentionally twisted remarks in nearly each and every sentence designed to shame, defame, ridicule, threaten. (I have no doubt about this, since DP is intelligent enough to be coy/slippery. IMO he uses his admin status and WP as playground for his belligerence and bullying. [Or, there is a marked competency issue that explains.]) There isn't enough space nor even is it appropriate in this venue to attempt to prove this through diffs, but it can be done and I'm willing to do it elsewhere if called upon. As a result of these experiences I've had nothing to do with DP for some time, and will not have. I've only responded when he has made further baiting remarks at me at my user Talk, AN, this RfAR, etc. (I would like an IBAN with him to stop these behaviors. Thanks for your consider.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to snipe

@Drmies, oh gee thanks for your dirty snipe "that Ihardlythinkso wants all admins on the Guy Fawkes bonfire is hardly a secret, for instance" meant to defame and discredit my testimony here. (Maybe you should join admin Kudpung's "anti-admin brigade" campaign. Or simpler still, just stop telling lies.) Re your support of admin DP, you also put your full support behind admin Toddst1 (calling him "an excellent admin"), which was telling. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lapse of judgement

Ordinarily I would not bring something like this up here, as this incident taken in isolation is simply not a big deal. I only introduce this single personal experience, so as to help build the case for "repeated lapses of judgement"; it is of course up to the Committee to determine where to place the bar on the accumulation of these "minor incidents" and whether the bar has been crossed. The evidence is at User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 1 § Authority to subvert?. He was going by the user name "EatsShootsAndLeaves" at the time. On September 5, 2013, I was working on "subverting" the 3-letter shortcut WP:FNC from an old user-space essay on "football naming conventions" to the Wikipedia naming convention for files. He asserted that the "acronym has been used over the years", which was a stretch at best. I responded with my position, and understanding of the applicable rules, and waited nearly two days for a response from him. Finally, I just gave in to his demands, as the issue was just not that big a deal to me. He came back then and explained "I haven't been online much the last couple of days", which unfortunately I have the growing impression is a well-worn excuse that he uses. It was not until John Vandenberg intervened three months later (unsolicited by myself) that I was able to re-use the shortcut as I had initially intended. I believe that the policies support my view on this. This is the only experience of this nature that I've had with an administrator in my time on Wikipedia, so in that regard, I view this administrator as an outlier. Best regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Panda has a bit of a temper sometimes. Yeah, I'm an admin too--no doubt the Wikipediocracy crowd will see a blue line being drawn here; I don't care very much. In fact, I should thank "Hersch", whoever that is, for the unbalanced below-the-belt hit piece, since it reminded me that the Panda was up on the block here.

I have known the Panda for quite some time and while I don't always agree with them, or with their temper (I'm very, very even-keeled myself and NEVER say a bad word), I do not see any evidence that they abused the tools in any systematic way or are somehow unworthy of being an admin. Looking at the evidence provided by Mr.X, I'm actually struck by edits such as this. Sure, an admin shouldn't yell at people, but in this case the admin is yelling at other admins, putting the lie to this suggestion that we're all a bunch of reach-arounders. (For the record, I really do not agree with what Panda said and how he said it, and to two admins I hold in high regard--and a "civility block" might have been appropriate.) Standards of behavior for an admin ought to be higher than for other editors, but Panda's behavior does not rise to that level, in my opinion--and at any rate one may well interpret that as "should be blocked sooner", but that's not the same as "should have tools taken away" (apples and pears). The July 29, 2014, situation sketched above is part of a much larger set of issues and is hardly evidence of faulty judgment. I will concede that I am not happy with what is indicated in the other situations, but I do not believe that it warrants desysopping, or whatever else one has in mind here. I will concede one other thing: it does not look good when an admin is gone for a few weeks after a controversial thing.

Then again, some of the testimony in here is not worth as much as some of the other stuff, and it seems to me that there's a few editors here who must be pleased that they get to unload on someone they appear to have a bone to pick with--that Ihardlythinkso wants all admins on the Guy Fawkes bonfire is hardly a secret, for instance. I note also that I appear to be the only admin to break a lance for the Panda, and I do so unabashedly even if with reservations. Occasional lapses of judgment? Sure. ("Sure" in that American way, of in between yes and no.) Worthy of admonishment? Yes. Mistakes were made and follow-ups were not sufficient? Yes--but if we couldn't rely on other admins to correct our mistakes we would really be up shit creek. Worthy of desysopping? No, not in my opinion.

User:Adamsalti

Detailed here: declines unblock when the editor has acknowledged several times that he now knows he should not puff his own business, calls the editor a jerk, blocks talk page access because the person asks good-faith questions, describes himself as one of the most patient admins on Wikipedia, implies the person is insane, says he used "fricking" because he's "too polite to use the other word." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.