Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 12:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Case closed on 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Please note: Only the following parties have been included initially as case parties (in addition to the filing user) are those whose behaviour will be examined. If other user's behaviour needs to be examined you may request that they be added as parties on the talk page (please ping the drafting arbitrators) with a good reason and evidence.

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by NE Ent[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)

I assert DangerousPanda has chronically failed to maintain his conduct in accordance with the expected Wikipedia standards. Being human, it's understandable that admins will occasionally misstep and, per not perfect, beyond a brief user talk page note suggesting their behavior was suboptimal, ANI threads and arbcom cases are not appropriate. However, when the behavior is repeated over and over, and prior interventions have failed to be efficacious, action needs to be taken. The committee has repeatedly made it clear that arbcom cases about long term behavior should not be filed without community processes, especially Rfcu's, being followed. As documented above, I initiated such an Rfcu, and found an editor, Msnicki, who was willing to be the second certifier; unfortunately it was deleted in good faith by Jehochman based on wording that suggests Rfcu's may only be certified based on a single incident, not a long term pattern of behavior. After discussion with Jehochman [4], I requested review on AN; Nyttend closed the discussion on the grounds Jehochman's reading is correct [5]. Per not perfect such an Rfcu is unlikely to gain a consensus since it's about a single incident.

This leads to an absurd, Catch 22 like situation that:

  • The committee is unlikely take a case about long term behavior without an Rfcu.
  • An rfcu about long term behavior will be deleted because it's about long term behavior.


This is formulated as a "case request" because that's the way a user gets the whole committee's attention. What it really is a request for help: Tell me, tell us, what to do. Take a case on DP, or motion the Rfcu undeleted, or decline, but if you decline please tell us what to do about long term substandard behavior that never quite rises to the slam-bang desysop case, but is clearly unacceptable per the words set forth at Wikipedia:Administrators.

@Salvio, does one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification refer to myself or Msnicki? NE Ent 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus four twenty four. We have a case, don't we? Carcharoth was the fourth accept, so the request has been plus four (accepts - declines) for over 24 hours, right? NE Ent 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DangerousPanda[edit]

I have literally just walked in the door after holidaying with my in-laws who themselves traveled 18hrs just to visit (luggage is still in the front hallway). I had been made aware of this surprising turn by e-mail, and although I have not yet have time to read the details, I wanted to at least confirm that I will obviously participate once rested and fully apprised of the details. the panda ₯’ 06:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update None of us in the house are quite normal yet after the time change from the trip. I would rather not err in my initial responses, so I will start putting something together after a proper rest. I will note, however, that I have been actively engaged with more than 1 editor in trying to resolve apparent issues, and have always been open to such the panda ₯’ 01:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay in getting back here. I want to briefly address the heart of the matter here, that being "is there a need for this now". From my perspective, no - as others have said, there is no urgency, and indeed the "usual processes" have yet to be exhausted. I would also argue that since my self-imposed exile, the difference in my perspectives and reactions has been night-and-day different. I could address the suggestions of "bad decisions being made", but in many cases, the supposed "bad judgement" were confirmed in another forum such as AN/ANI, so it would merely become a battle between people with different perspectives. I'll therefor start by discussing the change in perspectives first.

From what I can see, there are only 2 key "civility" situations being raised that have occurred since my self-imposed 6-month break (which is a long time ago now): the Msnicki situation, and the AE discussion. It is during these two conversations that I'm accused of being egregiously uncivil.

The AE discussion: It's well-known that I was forced to change my username - once. Where I used to go by my real name, a member of Wikipediocracy called my home after social-engineering my phone number from the subject of an article I once wrote. I take the safety and security of my family as paramount (hence me spending part of the day yesterday at the emergency unit with my mother-in-law). My colleague admins all know it's improper to refer to people by previous usernames (no matter what reason), but when it's for privacy situations, it's even more urgent to refrain from doing so. Over the last month or so on AN/ANI I have had to ask a couple of non-admins to retract their use of that username. So, when an admin of all people used it during an AE discussion, I admit I got very pissed off. The admin in question has since apologized for its use, and redacted its use as well. As everyone can see from the rest of that discussion, I was 100% willing to discuss the situation surrounding the AE block, and when my colleagues finished discussion on the way forward with that block, I personally did the unblock, and wrote an extensive apology for the misreading of AE SOP's. It is readily shown that I was very willing to listen to the logical discussion, take things under advisement, take responsibility, act, and amend - indeed, you won't see me closing many AE cases for awhile.
The Msnicki situation: I'll admit, this one baffles me. I acted on an ANI complaint - the filer had raised SERIOUS personal attacks in an AFD. ANI agreed that a block was needed. The blocked editor HAD been warned, and indeed had been blocked for similar behaviour before. Everything in WP:BEFOREBLOCKING had been met. I then patiently tried to help BtBB get unblocked, and the first step (according to WP:GAB) is understanding and acknowledging the reason for the block. BtBB refused, and instead ratcheted up both the rhetoric AND the personal attacks. Yes, I eventually was forced to remove talkpage access, but after further ANI discussion it was agreed to give him another chance - so, again, I happily (and hopefully) listened to the community and restored. The block, and the situations around that block have been discussed and confirmed at ANI - I did not act alone, and as I said, I went above-and-beyond to try and get BtBB unblocked. Out-of-the-blue, Msnicki made some serious accusations. In my reply to her, I believed I was quite careful to refute the substance of her arguments, and did not attack, behave uncivilly, or resort to ad hominem. Msnicki disagreed, and believed that I had attacked her - and even took it to ANI. Because Msnicki focused on BtBB, the answer she got was to confirm the BtBB decision, and not to discuss me. She has quite clearly held a grudge, as it has now come up multiple times and indeed, we were actively discussing the situation to try and resolve it. I asked her a simple question, which was basically this: "is it worth me taking the time to write up an answer, or have you already made up your mind?". She read the question (she made a 1-sentence response), but declined to answer the question - instead came out swinging. At that point I did the right thing: I disengaged.

Could these 2 items be further discussed? The AE incident was clearly not what it has been portrayed to have been - I reacted poorly (and humanly) to a fellow admin putting my family at risk, but then the rest of the discussion shows me clearly taking the argument under advisement, waiting for consensus, and taking accountability. The Msnicki discussion is one that I was 100% emotionally engaged in - I know that I never intended to be uncivil, and have even stated on ANI that I would take no admin actions related to BtBB (except unblocking, and in future cases where it was an emergency and would not violate WP:INVOLVED). This is exactly the resolution she asks for, and this was stated months ago.

The other element from the beginning is "is this needed right now". I reviewed the original RFC/U. Yes, it was a mess. Hell, it was originally intentionally setup to get me angry by actually including my previous username in the title. Yes, NE Ent obviously follows me enough to know why I changed my username. He refers to the AE discussion in the RFC/U and above, so he KNEW that using that name would get an emotional reaction. I chose not to bite. That RFC/U did, however, spawn discussions on my talkpage. One was what I thought was a sincere attempt by Msnicki. This other is still ongoing with MrX, which I believe at one point was becoming fruitful.

I am indeed 100% committed to civility on Wikipedia, and I do expect it of myself as well. As I admitted on my talkpage, there have only been 2 times in 10 years where I intentionally insulted someone that I can recall. The situations listed in the filing of this RFARB do not actually show what they intended to show - but they do clearly show my willingness to learn, to discuss, and amend. I do not believe that there is a case here - there's no pattern shown, and no protection of anything or anyone required. I have been open discussing my behaviours that have occurred since I returned from my exile, and have shown complete willingness to resolving them if the other party is also willing to resolve. Otherwise, I'll take under advisement and disengage.

The above is likely too long, but it's complex, and a complex situation needs a complex (and complete) response the panda ₯’ 09:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add I was never averse to an RFC/U - so undeleting/resubmitting one has never been off the plate. It has always been a key step in the process. However, making it useful - address current things, show me where you really tried to work with me for the betterment of my actions/behaviours, and honestly AGF that things can be resolved are key things. I am indeed not the same person I was a year ago - and everyone knows that I have always been willing to discuss things. Those who show up here at Arb, of RFC/U with the goal of punishment instead of assistance are looking at things the wrong way - especially when we're by no means at "the end of the line". This is, as I say, why I appreciated the RFC/U in that it at least generated discussion on improvement with at least one person who was as sincerely engaged as I was. the panda ₯’ 05:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I have suggested no such thing! Please show me where it appears that I suggest a different set of rules applies to me, and I'll change it, because I have no such beliefs. The editors of this project have more rights that we as admins, and are subject to a greater degree of respect than admins. the panda ₯’ 11:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: I'm not sure what your comment has to do with anything. I found the original filing (using my old username) "disgusting" yes, because Ent did it to provoke me. Yes, I was originally not going to participate in a revised RFC/U ... however, as has been clearly stated, I rethought my interactions with the community and the way forward while away on holiday, and reconsidered. You do remind me of something I missed: there's an example used above where I snapped at someone who I had bent over backwards to help - but then they stabbed me in the back (I think it was TheShadowCrow). You're a perfect example of how I have changed since then: I bent over backwards a few weeks ago to try and get you unblocked at ANI, and have also worked my butt off to get the apology from another admin that you're dying to have ... and obviously, your thanks leaves a lot to be desired. I do appreciate you coming forward and reminding me of that. the panda ₯’ 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes - DangerousPanda[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I'm no longer an active clerk, but still provide advice on their mailing list from time to time. Noting explicitly here, per a request on my talk page, that I won't seek to take any clerk actions here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

DangerousPanda: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/1/0>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • The record is clear enough that NE Ent created a defective RFC/U which had to be deleted because it did not satisfy the minimum requirements, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. As NE Ent points out, when a request for comment deals with a pattern of behaviour occurring over a long lapse of time, then, in my opinion, it stands to reason to interpret the concept of "same dispute" as referring to the conduct in question in general and, so, to consider the RFC validly certified even if the two certifiers have tried to engage the subject of the request about different incidents, provided both evince the same problem (for instance, incivility). That said, before deciding whether to accept or decline the case, I'd rather see more statements. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under your reading an editor can say, "They problem is you have bad judgment as an administrator" and then find another editor who ever held that view, no matter how many years ago, and then start an RFCU. "I think you have bad judgement as an administrator" is too vague and would not qualify; "you do not understand how speedy deletion works", on the other hand, in my opinion would. And, in that context, two editors who had discussed with an administrator two different articles he speedied would be acceptable certifiers for a RFC on his knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria.

      Now the fact that, in this case, one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification; still, in my opinion, it would have been better to discuss before acting, letting him know that you would delete the RFC unless he could provide a more recent discussion. After all, there was absolutely no need to delete the page in a hurry, as the only element that DP considers dangerous for his safety had already been removed.

      About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept. AGK [•] 12:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting a statement from Dangerous Panda. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case has been accepted and can be opened by the Clerks at any time. I join the consensus to accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also awaiting a statement from DangerousPanda. And Alanscottwalker is correct, RfC/U is not broken, just rarely used correctly. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. Having read the statement from DangerousPanda, and followed the situation with the RfC/U and its deletion, and the additional statement from editors unhappy with their perception of DangerousPanda's standards of administration, I think there is enough here to warrant accepting a case, both to look at the concerns raised about DP (the impression I have so far is that DP is asking for more understanding from others about his actions than he was prepared to give to those he took actions against) and to look at the circumstances of the RfC/U deletion (and indeed to acknowledge the future of RfC/U as currently being decided at the village pump). Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also await a statement from DangerousPanda before deciding how to proceed, but my decision will not be significantly influenced by issues regarding the RFCU. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear from DangerousPanda also. I generally have a lower threshold for accepting "administrator abuse" cases, because the only place which is adequately set up to deal with them is arbitration. If there is a pattern of problematic actions, an RfC/U is good, but if it cannot be accomplished I do not see the lack of one as being a blocker for an Arbitration case. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Panda has not editted for 4 days. I suggest that if he has not returned by the weekend, we open the case and temporarily desysop, in the same manner that we did with SchuminWeb. Indeed, if Panda does not respond by the weekend, consider this an acceptance and a support of a desysop motion. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately that might be the correct step to take if we do not receive a statement, but I think that "this weekend" (a week after the request was initially submitted) would be too soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back at the SchuminWeb case, we opened and suspended by motion, advising SchuminWeb to not use his tools without engaging in a case. If he did not appear after 3 months, or if he requested tool removal, the case would be closed and tools removed. I see no reason not to do the same at the weekend. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And we might wind up deciding we have to do something similar here, if we don't get a response. I just don't think we need to do so hurriedly, given that DP is not currently editing or administering anyway. I think we should allow 10 or 14 days for the response, rather than 7 days, which seems like a long time to those of us who check this page daily or more often, but is not such a long time in the bigger picture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we accept and suspend, as we did with SchuminWeb, we're allowing him 3 months to respond, which I think is more than sufficient. The fact is that Panda has disappeared when the heat was on in the past, per MrX's statement. Admin Accountability means that admins should account for their actions - I've left a note and emailed DP, not had any response from either. Desysopping is not a forgone conclusion by any means, but disappearing 5 hours before an Arbcom case is filed and not returning despite being a very active admin for a case to be opened and suspended. 7 days is more than reasonable period for a break. WormTT(talk) 08:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis Brown, the only place where administrators can be actually held to account is at Arbcom. Everything preceding that is simply down to trust. If an administrator is brought before Arbcom, it's important that it's taken seriously. As I've said elsewhere, I have generally lower thresholds for accepting a case regarding administrators for exactly that reason. I'm not questioning his honesty, I'm not proposing emergency desysopping - I'm saying that him not checking in by the weekend, despite being aware of the case and despite being aware that there was a community engagement on his behaviour, is sufficient to open the case and suspend it. I thought that Arbcom removed the tools from SchuminWeb during the period of suspension, upon looking further it seems he was instructed to not use them - that was my mistake, and I'd prefer the latter solution - but I stand by the deadline of this weekend. That said, I'm not available during the weekend (as per usual), so if no Arb proposes a motion, I'll do so myself on Monday. WormTT(talk) 14:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up, I've just had an email from DangerousPanda. He certainly implies he'll be back at the weekend, I'm now willing to wait a few more days to hear his side of the story. WormTT(talk) 16:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read this all in depth I'm largely persuaded by my own comment from August last year - this one. What I'm seeing is that the community has now made legitimate attempts to work through behavioural issues with DangerousPanda - especially the recent discussions with MrX. I don't believe the concerns have been address sufficiently in that forum. As such, I would accept this case. WormTT(talk) 11:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for Panda, but should we not hear from him in a timely manner I only see myself accepting. NativeForeigner Talk 07:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept, seems prudent to at the very least take a thorough view of this. NativeForeigner Talk 04:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting a statement from DangerousPanda. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. I think the concerns with respect DangerousPanda need to be addressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. T. Canens (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. LFaraone 20:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrators[edit]

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community who, after being vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks.

Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop.

Passed 11 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

3) Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others. 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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Accountability[edit]

4) 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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocks[edit]

5) Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct.

While warnings are not a necessary prerequisite for blocking, before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these.

Passed 11 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

DangerousPanda's lapses in judgement[edit]

1) DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s use of his administrative tools has occasionally shown a lack of the temperament and good judgement required of administrators. For instance, on 29th October 2014, he blocked Rm w a vu (talk · contribs) for 36 hours for edit warring: the user was blocked 39 minutes after receiving a warning, even though they had made no further reverts (further details here). And on 10th October 2014, his hasty AE Block of Lecen (talk · contribs) was criticised by other admins and such criticism was met with incivility.

Other occasions where DangerousPanda has hastily blocked editors without fully considering other options beforehand, and often with very limited prior notice, include [6][7][8][9].

Passed 9 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda's response to criticism[edit]

2) DangerousPanda's response to good-faith criticism has often been uncivil and hostile [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].

Passed 9 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda's evasion of accountability[edit]

3) DangerousPanda has demonstrated a pattern of stopping editing when his actions are called into question. He edited very little between August 2013 and January 2014 after a previous declined Arbcom case request and also stopped editing between August 2012 and September 2012 after Jimbo Wales criticised his language. DangerousPanda stopped editing for a large part of the duration of this case.

Passed 9 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

DangerousPanda desysopped[edit]

1.1) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Passed 11 to 0 at 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove 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" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or other sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy in this case must be logged in this section. Sanctions issued pursuant to a remedy (most commonly, discretionary sanctions) should be logged below. For sanctions the required information is the user or page the sanction is being applied to, enforcing administrator, date, nature of sanction, including expiry date (if applicable), and basis or context.

Individual sanctions[edit]

Page-level sanctions[edit]

Also include sanctions against individuals which are enforcing a page sanction in this section, below the recorded page sanction.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda&oldid=1137488755"