Wikipedia

User:Jehochman/Draft

< User:Jehochman

To remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: [FILL THIS IN WITH CREATION DATE AND TIME]), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:21, 8 November 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

edit

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

edit

DangerousPanda is an administrator. 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, when challenged or questioned, he too often lashes out in an uncivil and inappropriate manner.

As may be apparent from some of diffs I've had stored, I've had concerns about DP for a long time. I take no pleasure in doing so, but enough is enough. I cannot in good conscience continue to engage in a project where incivility from those with power is tolerated.

Desired outcome

edit
  1. DP will follow the civility policy and also behave in a manner befitting an administrator.
  2. DP will use account names that are unmistakably linked in order to enhance transparency. He might use Dangerous Panda and Dangerous Panda (non-admin).

Evidence of disputed behavior

edit

Key examples of incivility and conduct unbecoming an administrator include:

  1. Good luck integrating with humanity someday.
  2. shut the fuck up

General

edit

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Creation#Length, I'm just noting a few instances of DP's pattern of poor judgement:

  • 3rr blocked without verifying notice was given [4]
  • Bizarre block because editor with in good standing with visual disability in using word "disabled" [5] [6] 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].
  • [7] snarking blocked user "Come into the 21st century"
  • December 2012 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Behavior_regarding_User:Bwilkins 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" )
  • Ill considered block at WP:AE, poor reaction to criticism [14]

Disruptive secondary account name

edit

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

 This user is an alternative account of someone with tens of thousands of edits, and they certify that it will not be used for sockpuppetry.

without displaying the account name in clear text. He refused a request talk:DangerousPanda&oldid=505497639#alternate_account to make the link explicit. He plays "gotcha" with editors who don't grok that ESAL == DP [15], [16] and acts as if he owns the black and white formatting of the DP and ESAL signatures [17] 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 [18].

Note also when addressing the committee DP makes sure to use both names [19].

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

edit

(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

edit

[DROP IN DIFFS RELATED TO THE SAME INCIDENT AS MSNICKI: BARNEY]

Attempts by certifier Msnicki

edit
  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

Other attempts

edit

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

edit

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. [NE ENT signs here]
  2. [MSNICKI signs here]

Other users who endorse this summary

edit

{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. [NE ENT SIGN HERE]
  2. [MSNICKI SIGN HERE]

Response

edit

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.


{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}


Users who endorse this summary:

edit

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

Views

edit

This section is for statements or opinions written by users 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.

View by certifier Msnicki

edit

[YOU SHOULD PROBABLY TRIM THIS -- IT'S VERY LONG. PEOPLE WON'T READ LONG STATEMENTS. TRY TO BOIL IT DOWN TO ITS ESSENCE]

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 Wikipedia: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 admin 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#ANI discussion, 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854#DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney. 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) [NEED TO RE-SIGN this]


Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

edit

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. 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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

edit

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. 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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

edit

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jehochman/Draft&oldid=1141566908"