→DangerousPanda desysopped: If you don't mind, MrX, can we hat this tangent? Re-reading it, it's just not that helpful. Revert me if you wish. |
|||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
:::::::{{u|Jehochman}}, you've just accused NE Ent of "hounding" DP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&curid=10875351&diff=637272281&oldid=637262601]. See, that is the point I'm making -- no valid criticism is allowed, anytime, anyplace, without drawing these bogus anarchizing labels like a magnet. (And you accuse ''me'' of adding "heat"?! How hypocritical.) [[User:Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso|talk]]) 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::{{u|Jehochman}}, you've just accused NE Ent of "hounding" DP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&curid=10875351&diff=637272281&oldid=637262601]. See, that is the point I'm making -- no valid criticism is allowed, anytime, anyplace, without drawing these bogus anarchizing labels like a magnet. (And you accuse ''me'' of adding "heat"?! How hypocritical.) [[User:Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso|talk]]) 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{hat|Tangent, read at risk of boredom}} |
|||
::::::::NE Ent has clearly been hounding DP. What else would you call a long and relentless pursuit? Has it not been long and relentless? Has NE Ent made a balanced presentation of the facts, or has it been a one sided presentation of negatives only? Check the definition of the word "hound" and you'll see that it has several different meanings. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 04:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::NE Ent has clearly been hounding DP. What else would you call a long and relentless pursuit? Has it not been long and relentless? Has NE Ent made a balanced presentation of the facts, or has it been a one sided presentation of negatives only? Check the definition of the word "hound" and you'll see that it has several different meanings. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 04:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Jechochman, if you wish to coach Dangerous Panda on his talk page, or rally sympathetic admins to defend him, I suppose that's your choice. Could you please do it without discrediting other editors. Accusing NE Ent of hounding crosses a line, especially in an Arbcom case.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::::Jechochman, if you wish to coach Dangerous Panda on his talk page, or rally sympathetic admins to defend him, I suppose that's your choice. Could you please do it without discrediting other editors. Accusing NE Ent of hounding crosses a line, especially in an Arbcom case.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
::::::::Let me add some facts. In 2014 NE Ent made 2840 edits, approximately, and of those 135 were in article space. That ratio is ''twice'' as low as my own, and I'm known as somebody who does a lot of talking relative to the amount of content editing. (Sort of goes with the administrator job, and also my work at [[WP:ITN/C|In The News]] generates a lot of non-article edits.) NE Ent is a very frequent contributor to AN/I (sorry, can't get an edit count; the tool chokes on that page and it's long history) and NE Ent likes to get involved in controversies, especially controversies involving administrators. When evaluating a complaint, it's a good idea to look at who's complaining and put in context how much complaining they do. Secondly, I am unimpressed at the evidence presented by NE Ent. There's a 1000 word limit. NE Ent doesn't present evidence, they just link to the defective RFCU, a page that is ''way'' more than 1000 words, and expects everybody to read it. Not good. To do a proper job, NE Ent should select the best diffs and make a concise presentation. How is DP supposed to defend himself against such an amorphous mass of accusations? If somebody threw that mess at me I might also become very discouraged. These cases shouldn't be "won" by burying the "opposition" like that. So, these are some of the facts that lead to my conclusion that NE Ent has been '''hounding''' DangerousPanda. NE Ent isn't making proper use of dispute resolution; they are applying heavy pressure to get a particular result at all costs, regardless of what's fair. I hope both NE Ent and DP will reconsider what they have been doing (or not doing) here and see if there might be a better way forward. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::Let me add some facts. In 2014 NE Ent made 2840 edits, approximately, and of those 135 were in article space. That ratio is ''twice'' as low as my own, and I'm known as somebody who does a lot of talking relative to the amount of content editing. (Sort of goes with the administrator job, and also my work at [[WP:ITN/C|In The News]] generates a lot of non-article edits.) NE Ent is a very frequent contributor to AN/I (sorry, can't get an edit count; the tool chokes on that page and it's long history) and NE Ent likes to get involved in controversies, especially controversies involving administrators. When evaluating a complaint, it's a good idea to look at who's complaining and put in context how much complaining they do. Secondly, I am unimpressed at the evidence presented by NE Ent. There's a 1000 word limit. NE Ent doesn't present evidence, they just link to the defective RFCU, a page that is ''way'' more than 1000 words, and expects everybody to read it. Not good. To do a proper job, NE Ent should select the best diffs and make a concise presentation. How is DP supposed to defend himself against such an amorphous mass of accusations? If somebody threw that mess at me I might also become very discouraged. These cases shouldn't be "won" by burying the "opposition" like that. So, these are some of the facts that lead to my conclusion that NE Ent has been '''hounding''' DangerousPanda. NE Ent isn't making proper use of dispute resolution; they are applying heavy pressure to get a particular result at all costs, regardless of what's fair. I hope both NE Ent and DP will reconsider what they have been doing (or not doing) here and see if there might be a better way forward. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
===Proposed enforcement=== |
===Proposed enforcement=== |
Revision as of 05:45, 9 December 2014
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
- Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:Kurtis
Most of these are lifted straight from the Kafziel ArbCom case from earlier this year; however, I've made some additional revisions to reflect the specifics of this case.
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Administrators
2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. They are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and to perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticism of their actions or conduct.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur , but too long. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Administrator accountability
3) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify their actions where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
DangerousPanda: Administrative actions
1) DangerousPanda has at times hastily blocked editors without fully considering other options beforehand, and often with very limited prior notice.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
DangerousPanda: Response to criticism
2) DangerousPanda has oftentimes failed to respond to criticism of his actions in a civil manner.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
DangerousPanda admonished
1) For conduct unbecoming of an administrator, DangerousPanda is strongly admonished.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Harmless but insufficient. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I was thinking there might be an alternative remedy in which DangerousPanda is instructed to refrain from making personal attacks and assuming bad faith towards other editors, as well as using his administrative tools when other less severe solutions may suffice, and that a failure to do so would carry the prospect of a future desysop via ArbCom motion. That way he can retain the tools and all the benefits that come from his work as a sort of last chance, in which he must either permanently moderate his tone or lose sysop access. Obviously this proposal would be divisive among members of the community, so I'm submitting it here for consideration. Kurtis (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- On the one hand he has never been given an ArbCom admonishment. On the other hand a final warning means that next time he slips up, even in the most minor way, somebody will go running to ArbCom screaming for a desysop. We're here and a lot of effort has been invested. Rather than kicking the can down the road, I think it's time to decide one way or the other. Either what's been going on is excusable as an acceptable error rate for his high level of activity, or else it's not excusable and there's a desysop. I'm not too optimistic because DP hasn't invested much effort trying to resolve these issues. The responses appear dismissive to me. He could say things like, "Hey, I'm sorry I got a little snippy, I was under stress and will make sure I do better next time." Unfortunately, he hasn't been saying the right things in response. Words are important because actions often follow words; people have a strong desire to be consistent with what they say. Jehochman Talk 15:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
people have a strong desire to be consistent with what they say.
Are you kidding, Jehochman?! Some people relish in obfuscation and manipulation. For example I've seen DP employ a pat response many times to any criticism: "I don't see what that has got to do with anything." (Or variation of.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
DangerousPanda desysopped
1.1) For conduct unbecoming of an administrator, DangerousPanda is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- The only option. Mr. X has extensively researched and assembled evidence showing the recent extent of the problem, Msnicki has given a more detailed description of a particular example, and I started with evidence documenting how long this has been going on. Other editors, mostly with administrator user access level, have suggested no remedy or a lesser remedy is all that is needed. Don't listen to them. Nor should, in fact, should you listen to me; I'm not a victim here, any flak that comes my way is a result of where I choose to contribute.
- Instead, first consider a reasonably intelligent, reasonably self-confident potential editor who might start to edit Wikipedia and observes the petty bullying DangerousPanda often engaged in. They will not go wading through all the WP-this and WP-that to figure out what to do: they're just going to go away saying "Those Wikipedians are a bunch of jerks." Now the usual wiki-lame "counter-argument" is "show me a list..." No. I can't show you a list of either Unicorns or Dark matter, but the former are mythical and the latter is 84.5% of the universe.
- Barney the barney barney cannot speak because DangerousPanda's total mismanagement of the dispute has left them indef blocked with no talk page access, and perhaps lost to the community.
- Next, consider Msnicki, who knew there was a serious problem but said in the rfcu: "I searched the WP: namespace, trying to figure out how a mere mortal here might ask for admin recall. I gave up." Consider Hobit who just found it easier to fade away, or Psychconaut: "But even I actively avoid any and all administrative discussions where DangerousPanda is present. Not only is this user particularly unpleasant to deal with, but the fact that they wield the tools puts me in constant fear that they'll be misused in response to some perceived slight."
- Finally, consider Lecen, ridiculously blocked for a comment that he had already retracted. Arbitrator Carcharoth may not have sent a Western Union Telegram, but "it is very difficult, near impossible, for arbitrators or ArbCom to unilaterally take action unless someone actually approaches ...Waiting out the block is your choice, of course, but if everyone did that nothing would change." is about as close as you can get. Even with that invitation, Lecen's reply is telling: "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." Overly aggressive administrators are being allowed to think the community supports them, not because editors respect them, but because editors fear them. This is not a sign of a healthy community. You can't fix Rfa, but you can send a message that you will not tolerate administrators who abuse the trust given to them by the community, not only in the classic "INVOLVED" situations but in an inability to simply act like decent human beings when interacting with others. NE Ent 19:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- In the RFCU I began There can be no doubt DP cares about Wikipedia and has spent a good amount of time of doing admin scutwork. Nonetheless, I stand by my statement "an inability to simply act like decent human beings" (emphasis added). WP:CIR should apply as much, or more, to administrators as the rest of the community. NE Ent 03:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please, let's not play games with semantics. Saying "{Editor} acts like an {insulting noun}" is equivalent to saying "{Editor} is an {insulting noun}". Your unnecessary assertion that DP isn't a decent human being derails your whole argument, because you have no way to prove that. To make a point effectively, grab hold of the facts and stick closely to them. Start with diffs and then summarize what they show. You don't need to show he's a bad guy; you just need to show that he's making errors, refusing to discuss, refusing to admit, and refusing to correct them as he should. Jehochman Talk 04:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Where I'm from, "Act like decent human beings" is another way of saying, "treat people decently" (See Golden Rule). I actually think NE Ent's above comment is apropos. This:
"Overly aggressive administrators are being allowed to think the community supports them, not because editors respect them, but because editors fear them."
speaks to the nuanced aspects of civility which don't quite rise the level of blockable offenses, but are simply hostile, aggressive and disrespectful. - MrX 05:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Where I'm from, "Act like decent human beings" is another way of saying, "treat people decently" (See Golden Rule). I actually think NE Ent's above comment is apropos. This:
- Comment by others:
- I suppose the 23 of 30 !voters who opposed DP's 2009 RfA on the basis of temperament and civility issues were also conducting a "witch-hunt", huh!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agree w/ Msnicki (as contended in my Evidence). But you missed the point, Jehochman -- 1 minute ago or 10 years ago, what is basis for "witch-hunt" allegation? With people casually tossing irresponsible descriptions like "mauled by an ugly lynch mob", "with malicious glee stabs you" (Carrite at DP's Talk) and "witch-hunt" (Doc9871 above), apparently there can never exist any valid criticism, as one or more of those name-calls will most certainly apply. We might as well close up shop and all dispute resolution venues. No one can say a negative thing about anything -- it means they're not AGF'ing, right!? (And for that, they oughtta be banned, they're breaking policy and we'll make an exception in that case for saying something negative.) Do you get it now?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Adding heat to this case isn't productive. If you have concerns about comments, go ask the people who made them. The comments you complain about aren't mine. I asked the "witch hunt" asserter for details. That's a very polite way to suggest that an idea might be shakey. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're still missing the point. Your
More recent info it may be more convincing
shows you misunderstood the ref to 2009 RfA. (It wasn't to introduce evidence. It was to demo how the name-call is bogus -- because if it is not bogus now, then it wouldn't be bogus then. Or ever. And it is just one name-call of a category of name-calls that anarchize argument.) If you don't get it now I'm done trying to explain to you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're still missing the point. Your
- Jehochman, you've just accused NE Ent of "hounding" DP [15]. See, that is the point I'm making -- no valid criticism is allowed, anytime, anyplace, without drawing these bogus anarchizing labels like a magnet. (And you accuse me of adding "heat"?! How hypocritical.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Tangent, read at risk of boredom |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Proposed enforcement
Not applicable here.
Proposals by NE Ent
Proposed principles
As I'm endorsing Kurtis's 1 and 3, I'm going to number to interleave theirs.
Purpose of administrator user access level
1.1) In order to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia, some editors are granted additional technical abilities by the community. These editors, designated "Administrators," have no additional authority beyond any other editor, but rather are entrusted to judiciously evaluate situations and take action based on community standards.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- This needs rephrasing, not because the concept is wrong, but because the word "authority" is ambiguous. In one sense of the word, administrators do have extra authority; for example, only an administrator has the authority to speedy-delete a page. I think what is meant here is that administrators are expected/required to use their authority in accordance with the community-adopted policies and expectations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- In fact, "authority" appears in Wikipedia:Administrators only once: "I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." (quote from Jimbo Wales) NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- "...and take action on behalf of the community." Administrators are entrusted to know or to find out what the community wants and implement it. If there is a deletion discussion, an administrator reads the discussion, summarizes the result and performs any needed technical action. If an editor misbehaves, an administrator can determine, based on the community's feelings that have been recorded as policy or expressed in discussions, what to do. Jehochman Talk 04:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Be nice
2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in other editor(s) behavior.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- It's not a "notion": it is part of the Administrator's job description. It is expected administrators will have to, for example, block some editors; the manner should be "Unfortunately you've demonstrated an inability to follow community norms" rather than "Die, you vile piece of disruptive scum." NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others
Assistants, not Paladins
2.5) Per policy, administrators assist the community in building the encyclopedia.
2.5.1) Per policy, administrators assist the rest of the community in building the encyclopedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I understand the point being made here, but I'd quibble with the wording. Administrators are first and foremost part of the community. They are community members who are provided with some extra tools for the purpose of, as stated, assisting with encyclopedia building (and maintenance). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- The contributions of some admins (e.g. DangerousPanda) appear to indicate the perception of the role as a "Knight Protector of Wikipedia." This does not work, because Wikipedia is too big.
- There are 6,837,788 articles, 117,283 active users, and approximately 1133 active administrators (active, semi-active). That comes out to about 35 articles per user and 4,000 articles per administrator. It's only gonna work if all editors, with and without administration user access levels, work as a team.
- I'd also like to get beyond the notion the primary role of administrators is "minimize disruption." Reductio ad absurdum: indef all the editors, full protect all the pages, delete all of the Wikipedia: namespace --> no disruption! Collateral damage: no encyclopedia, either. The role should be to help manage disputes when lesser means (warnings, discussion) prove inadequate. NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Updated per NYB's comment. NE Ent 03:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Agree with NYB's quibble.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Transparency
4) Administrators are encouraged to use alternate non-administrator accounts when contributing from insecure networks. These secondary accounts should be immediately and obviously recognizable as being the same user as the administrative account.
4.1) When using public computers to participate in the same venues as their primary account, administrators are encouraged to use alternate accounts. These secondary accounts should be immediately and obviously recognizable as being the same user as the administrative account.
4.2.) When setting up alternate accounts for legitimate purposes, editors, and administrators in particular, should be careful to choose usernames that minimize the potential for confusion. (Jehochman)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I don't recall that insecure networks were an issue here (though perhaps I have forgotten something). Is the concept that administrators should use only their main administrative account, and that any alternate accounts should be plainly linked to the main account? If so, that would raise the question whether administrators are excluded from other permissible uses of alternate accounts (of course with only one being the administrator account), but I don't think it's necessary to get into that issue in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- I've tried socking with User:Jehochman2 but everybody spots me. Change "encouraged" to "may" and I support this. Jehochman Talk 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- The wording "insecure networks" is somewhat imprecise. A legitimate reason to use a second account is when using a public computer, or one that you don't have control over. SSL/TSL does a nice job of encrypting login credentials between a client browser and a web server over otherwise insecure networks. In any case, Dangerous Panda's inexplicable back and forth between accounts is at best, confusing, and at worst, misleading, especially from the vantage of less experienced editors.- MrX 21:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
DangerousPanda: Administrator accountability
Continuing numbering from Kurtis's
3) When concerns were brought before ArbCom, he declined to submit substantive evidence explaining his actions, a breach of administrator accountability.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- This is a bit unfair. DP has stated that he's been unavailable until early this week.[16] He had relatives visiting.[17] We have no way of verifying any of this, but per AGF we ought to accept these explanations. Before anybody says DP didn't assume good faith of others, that doesn't alleviate our obligation. Jehochman Talk 05:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Decorum
2) All editors, especially those with the administrator user access level, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Without going overboard with the WP:COATRACK, I'd appreciate if the committee would remind folks the policy requirements (job description) of Administrators isn't some sort of Jack Sparrow like "more of guidance than actual rules." We really do mean what the page says. NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is consistent with past practice: please see All administrators reminded and all editors reminded NE Ent 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Thanks for these proposals, but they're out of scope. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Barney the barney barney3) User:Barney the barney barney is unblocked.
DanielTom4) User:DanielTom is unblocked.
|
Note: Although I respect Salvio's conclusion that unblocking users previously blocked by DangerousPanda is outside the scope of the case, I'd be open to a proposal to the effect that his disputed blocks that are still in effect should be reviewed. I'm not saying that I would agree or disagree with the proposal, but I think it would at least arguably be within the scope of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- DanielTom was blocked by Drmies then Toddst1, not by DP. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I do not understand why unblocking Barney would be "out of scope". This block has been the essence of my complaint from day one. I've said repeatedly that I don't care that DP was uncivil to me. I do care that he's uncivil but expects to block others for the same behavior. But the single most important complaint I've been making, the one I thought you accepted to arbitrate, was about DP's poor judgment and poor outcomes with Barney. Yes, DP should not be an admin and you need to fix that. But you need to undo DP's actions that brought us here as well. I cannot for a moment believe you don't have the authority to fix this or that you didn't understand what the case was about when you took it. Please. Do the right thing. No excuses. I am appalled that DP gets months of due process but even the ArbCom cannot do the right thing for Barney because it's "out of scope." Unbelievable. Where's the new line I'm supposed to get in to ask for this to be done? Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- The essence of my complaint has been that DP railroaded Barney right off the site. This complaint is what's in the evidence, e.g., in my statement in the RFCU. If my complaint is sustained, why in the world should Barney have to request an unblock? We should unblock him because it was wrong in the first place. Never mind what Barney would ask – he's blocked and can't participate here anyway – this is what I'm asking and it's the reason I'm here. Did all the rest of you think the only interesting question is whether DP says fuck you too much? I came here to get a problem fixed and I still want the problem fixed. And it goes way beyond coarse language. It's not just that DP is an admin, it's that he's done some damage that I want undone. Are you claiming that community basically has no ability to ask for a review of this, that only Barney, as the wronged party, can do that? Please tell me that is not true. Msnicki (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Barney isn't a party to this case. If he wants to be unblocked, he just needs to say so, and I or some other admin will consider it. Ask him to login and post
{{unblock}}
with a statement that he will certainly follow all Wikipedia policies (promising to do what' already required isn't costly). That should be sufficient as long as the facts you present check out. Jehochman Talk 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Barney isn't a party to this case. If he wants to be unblocked, he just needs to say so, and I or some other admin will consider it. Ask him to login and post
- Are you willing to unblock him from his talk page so he can do that? Msnicki (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Talk page access restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! That was the right thing to do. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- If my complaint is sustained, can that long list of 5 blocks imposed by DP be hidden from view? In the future, anyone looking at that list who doesn't know the whole story will get what I believe is an unfair impression of Barney. Msnicki (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Talk page access restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you willing to unblock him from his talk page so he can do that? Msnicki (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: