Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Lecen/Archive 19. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:Lecen/Archive 19. (BOT) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{-}} |
{{-}} |
||
== October 2014 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[Image:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision, you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks]] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals|procedure instructing administrators as follows]]: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
|||
:{{ping|DangerousPanda}} this is not a good block. First, you've taken this action quickly and unilaterally without waiting for other administrators to see the current situation (or put another way, phrased like another editor on your talk page, you're too quick on the draw). Lecen removed the comments as soon as he realized that he posted them in the wrong forum. I assume that he will want to re-post them at [[WP:ARCA]], assuming he doesn't just throw his hands up in the air and retire at this surprising turn of events. Second, innocent mistakes are not grounds for a block; they're punitive and serve only to drive editors off the project. You should reverse your block and allow other administrators to comment. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{ping|The ed17|}} How is it unilateral? You of course read the AE discussion that led to this? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 09:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Not one person was in favor of blocking until Sandstein's comment. Lecen realized his error and removed his offending post, presumably with the intention of going to too proper forum (ARCA) after the AE concluded. For whatever reason, you decided that now would be a brilliant time to jump in (without any other administrator commenting) to hand out a [[Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_should_not_be_punitive|punitive]] and completely unwarranted block. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 09:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Bizarre accusations - especially considering my OWN suggesting of a 1-month block prior to Sandstein's recommendation. If you'd been willing to discuss properly, I would continue - but immediately assuming bad faith means I'll happily ignore you from now on. You're also making bizarre assumptions about the remove post that don't hold water. I'll be happy to hear from Lece - but it better not contain bullshit about "accidental" posts, etc. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 10:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sure. You, the outlier. Sandstein, after Lecen's comment. Lecen removes comment. You block. Bad faith? No, simple facts. |
|||
::::::Now, bullshit? Did I stutter? I wrote that Lecen wrote and saved the post in a genuine misinterpretation about the purpose of AE ''vis a vis'' ARCA. Even one of the commenting administrators noted how they are easily misunderstood: "Despite this page confusingly being a subpage of WP:Arbitration/Requests, it is actually run by rank-and-file admins, not ArbCom." [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 10:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Also: you say "I'll be happy to hear from Lece {{sic}}". I would check your email. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 10:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The ed 17, I appreciate your kindness in supporting me. I really do. But let it go. It's only a block. |
|||
::::::::"DangerousPanda" said he would "''be happy to hear from Lecen''", implying that I never reached him. I sent him an e-mail, which he only bothered to reply today, after The ed 17 pressured him to do so. An administrator who uses words such as "''but it better not contain bullshit''", "''fuck you, that's inappropriate''", "''The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric''", shows that he highly unfit for the position. I do admit that I'm quite a bit surprised to see that no else sees his behavior as reproachable. |
|||
::::::::Regarding, Sandstein, he was well aware that I made an honest mistake there, as I did that time when he blocked me for a month. Still, he failed to remove his comment asking for a week-block, and failed as well to reproach DangerousPanda's behavior. That's the kind of administrators we have around to pursue and environment of fairness and good behavior? |
|||
::::::::Let me take a rest for a week. Let Sandstein and DangerousPanda play "petty tyrants" as they do. They find fulfillment doing that. --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen#top|talk]]) 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Lecen, I am in receipt of your e-mail where you complain about your block, but such complaints should be addressed through the appeals procedure linked to above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 07:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Lecen, I am not sure if anyone has told you about this, but there is a discussion about this at [[WT:AC]]. One of the things about arbitration is that it is very difficult, near impossible, for arbitrators or ArbCom to unilaterally take action unless someone actually approaches them in the correct venue. The Ed raised this at WT:AC which brings it to our attention, but we can't take formal action there. What was needed was for you or someone to formally appeal this following the procedure. Waiting out the block is your choice, of course, but if everyone did that nothing would change. If admins acting at AE do overstep the mark, there needs to be ways for ArbCom to formally review that. At the moment, we have to wait for multiple stages of an appeal process to work their way towards us. This is in some ways intentional, in that it prevents frivolous filings, but in cases where a filing would not be frivolous, it can be frustrating. I was half-following what was happening at that AE request, and was waiting for a WP:ARCA filing about the whole situation following the point where you (correctly) removed the text that you shouldn't have posted there. But things were then short-circuited by DP's block of you. This should all have gone straight to WP:ARCA and the block has (IMO) been largely a waste of time, partly because it was made in the first place, and partly because the way it was appealed failed to really work. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] and [[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]]), if you don't mind, I'd like to raise a few points: |
|||
::::1) [[User:The ed17|The ed17]]'s "block and run" allegation is actually correct. The moment I was blocked I sent an e-mail to both Sandstein and DangerousPanda (I wasn't aware that I could still edit my talk page). Sandstein replied here that he couldn't do nothing about (although he could have told DangerousPanda that his request for a week block made no sense anymore, but he only did so... yesterday). DangerousPanda, however, simply ignored me. It was only ''after'' The ed17 pressed the matter at the ArbCom talk page that DangerousPanda bothered to reply, and he did so ''only'' a day later. DangerousPanda is not being truthful on this matter. |
|||
::::2) DangerousPanda said that I "then became insulting". That's not correct as well. From the very beginning I tried to reason with him, explaining the situation. I got replies such as "You are the harasser", "You have been meticulously harassing the other party for months", "If you want to properly address the block, without bullshit about punishment, and without bullshit about what the other party did", "you have lost the ability to make further comments, even related to a case", "Address your behaviour. be an adult about it", "someone had to take off the kid gloves and tell you the truth bluntly", "If you refuse to follow my directions and suggestions to help you, I will ignore all further emails", etc... not to mention what he wrote in the ArbCom talk page, such as "fuck you, that's inappropriate", "The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric", etc... |
|||
::::3) As you can see above, DangerousPanda is overly aggressive, insulting, partial and patronizing. He refused to moderate his tone ("My tone is helpful", according to him) and admitted that he had been following me for some time ("I've followed your behaviour on this case"), which means that he was far from being an impartial arbiter. After my fourth e-mail, I simply gave up and accused him of having napoleon complex. (if DangerousPanda allows, you can see the e-mail exchange by yourselves) |
|||
::::4) I have to accept his aggressive behavior and keep my head down? He is an administrator, he is supposed to be cool-headed, neutral and be a role model. He lacks all those qualities. How could you ask me to appeal my block to a person like him? It's unfair from the start. Carcharoth and HJ Mitchell have both requested him to unblock me, but he hasn't done so far. He says that "[t]here was general consensus that some form of action needed to be taken". A generic desire to resolve the problem and he believed that it meant that I should be blocked? Read the ArbCom enforcement page: no one asked for my block, they only said that something should be done about my relationship with the other two editors. He also said in his last message: "Sandstein suggested a week [block]." Sandstein had just replied that his suggestion didn't matter anymore, and DangerousPanda still keeps me blocked! He's blatantly disrespecting anyone else and acting on his own. Why is he an administrator? |
|||
::::5) I'm sorry, but today is already Tuesday. My block will expire in a couple of days. You were all slow to react and I can see that nothing will be done regarding DangerousPanda's actions. I know that you're all good meaning, and trying to resolve the matter. I appreciate that. But you all seem rather impotent, unable to put an end to DangerousPanda's arbitrary actions. Why should I keep asking for anyone to be unblocked when it's obvious that the block itself was unfair from the beginning? I can't even defend myself there, at th ArbCom talk page. You should all be talking with DangerousPanda, not with me. |
|||
::::Kind regards, --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen#top|talk]]) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::From what I can see above, something does need to be done about what happened here. I think ArbCom does need to review the e-mail exchange between you and DangerousPanda to see exactly what happened. But the person that needs to initiate that is you. I am an arbitrator, but I can't unilaterally act here. You need to request action from ArbCom as a whole. If you are happy to wait your block out, then do that and when you are ready to present your request for a review of what happened here, you should do that. If you want a clarification regarding the original arbitration case, you would go to [[WP:ARCA]]. If you want to complain about the e-mails you were sent by the blocking administrator, you would write to the arbitration committee mailing list, or if both you and the blocking administrator agree to publish the e-mails on-wiki, you would raise it as a new request for arbitration. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]], I'm afraid I won't do that. It's painfully clear by now that the ArbCom is slow and timid to react. The last thing I want is a vindictive administrator like DangerousPanda going after me if I report him. Who will protect me from him? The ArbCom? Clearly not. I regret the day I decided to warn the community of what Marshal and Cambalachero were doing. I came out of it as the bad guy and I all had was one headache after the other. --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen#top|talk]]) 20:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Lecen|Lecen]]: The main issue is that the appeals part of arbitration is quite complex, and ArbCom itself is bound to its own rules, which means that they cannot act out of it without getting significant backlash. I'd still recommend to bring this matter as a [[WP:A/R/C|request for arbitration]]. There are some serious points ArbCom should look into, but it has to be presented to them on that page for them to act properly. ''<small>→ Call me</small>'' [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''Hahc'''</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''21'''</font>]] 00:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: Let me address a few things: |
|||
:# "Block and run" - no. I've made it very clear that I keep Wikipedia things on Wikipedia. I did not respond to the email from Lecen - first, because of the time of day it arrived, and second because Wikipedia appeals, etc need to remain on Wikipedia. I only ''replied'' to their email after being harassed into doing so by another editor |
|||
:# "insulting" Yes, the emails show that for themselves, and I will be pleased to send the entire email exchange to ArbComm. |
|||
:# "not impartial" Yes, I have indeed followed Lecen's continual behaviour surrounding the ArbComm case. That does not make me impartial. I did not go out of my way to block Lecen. I've never been aggressive, nor disrespectful |
|||
:# "disrespecting everyone else"..."not cool-headed" Quite clearly no. I've posted two elements to the discussion today alone, neither of which have been replied to. If someone shows me I'm wrong, I'll happily unblock, and fully apologize for the a) error in reading consensus, and b) the error in the functioning of AE if that's the case. Flat out, honestly and truly unblock and apologize with true remorse. In terms of not being cool-headed, I'm sorry, but I changed my username intentionally because of privacy and harassment. For a frickin admin to refer to me TWICE using that username is unethical, and unacceptable from an admin - I believe that when my security is threatened, and the security of my family, that I'm permitted to become a little angry, no? |
|||
:# "arbitrary actions" Again, this all gets resolved very easily. My goal from the start has '''always''' been to get this unblock, and to get all parties back to Wikipedia work. |
|||
: I will not stick around when I see flat out lies, and again, I will release all emails '''in their entirety''' to ArbComm if needed - the above snippets taken out of context certainly to not paint a complete picture of what was said, and by whom, and indeed falsify the entire exchange. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 21:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::@4, I've apologized for using your former username on the AC talk page, but I'll do so again here. I certainly wasn't intending to use it out of malice or spite. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{replyto|The ed17}} You can obviously understand that you escalated the entire situation right from the very beginning, rather than help it. I believed that you were a better person than to have done that, and I was flat-out shocked - indeed, it's sat there for days (not even sure if you actually redacted it like you should have). Indeed, without that escalation, I'm certain this whole situation would have been resolved days ago - Lecen was unfortunately emboldened by your own lack of respect for me. There are no angels in this whole thing, but 3 humans with pride and emotions <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've redacted the name now, but I have to take issue with your "emboldened" statement. I suspect that Lecen was even more outraged than I was by the block, so I don't think I played a role in the emails between you two. But yes, certainly many individual's perspectives and emotions are feeding into this. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 21:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Thank you. There remain 2 ways for this block to be over right now, and I'd be happy to be the one to remove it. The first one, Lecen knows - agree to actually ''live'' by the terms of the existing [[WP:IBAN]], which he declined to respond to in the email exchange. The second is still awaiting response on the AE talkpage. If someone can actually show me I was wrong about the process of AE, I will - as promised - undo the block with full apologies, and true remorse. <small>Hell, I'm not happy to have placed the block in the first place, so have I felt remorse up until now? Yup</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: ... and WT:AE has been busy overnight with contradictory statements from people - some suggesting the block was fine, and the process was fine. However, I'm going to go with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=next&oldid=629688578 comment from Arbitrator Salvio], and issue this unblock. Lecen, this unblock is not due to a GAB-compliant request, it's due to one Arb's suggestion that if you did, indeed, remove the offending post of your very own volition, then it should be held that you changed your mind about the content. As such, this block should not have occurred. I am sincerely sorry to have ever made this block, based on Salvio's interpretation. Salvio does go on to suggest, however, that the post you removed ''does'' provide an opportunity to warn - and I believe that the warning was rather inherent in our email exchange, but I will make it clearer: you IBAN prevents you from making certain types of posts, and the community takes Arb-imposed IBANs extremely seriously. My personal view is that you do much better work on Wikipedia when you ignore the altercations - those altercations have got ''you'' in trouble more than once, and if at all possible, stay away from the drama that occurs during interpersonal conflict: as other admins have noted, you tend to personalize those conflicts, which leads to bad judgement. Speaking of personalizing, I myself personalized a statement by a fellow admin, which a) changed my judgement ''after'' this block, and b) may have interfered with proper exchange of information between us. I would hope that you are as apologetic as I am about that situation. At this point, I can do nothing but apologize for the block as enacted - please know that it was never done with malice, but was a good faith response to the discussion, and to the actions I saw. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:DangerousPanda|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda </font><font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’</font>]]</span></small> 09:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Lecen, maintain your dignity, appealing this block was never going to lead anywhere. When you come back we can start work on your latest article. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Doubt == |
|||
[[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]], I'd like to ask the ArbCom to review: |
|||
# Marshal's allegations that I have routinely called him a "fascist, racist, etc...". Do they have a foundation or not? |
|||
#My two blocks to decide whether or not they were fair. |
|||
What is the correct procedure? I'd like to do that only once, and at the same time. Also, I want to be clear that I have no intention of seeing anyone sanctioned. All I want is a simple and direct statement from the ArbCom regarding the points raised above. --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen#top|talk]]) 21:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I've passed the above on to ArbCom. It may not be possible, but I'll try and get an answer. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== My amended statement at RfC == |
== My amended statement at RfC == |
||
Revision as of 11:49, 25 October 2014
My amended statement at RfC
I've amended my statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves to add additional detail and some links. I'm really under the gun at work and this RfC came up unexpectedly so I'm pressed for time to do proper strikethroughs, etc. Bbb23 had a good suggestion, that I notify anyone who's added an endorsement, so you can decide if you think you need to re-sign or remove your endorsement or make a different response. Msnicki (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)