Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Requests from filing party

RFCU

In the spirit of the default "public" proceedings described at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Forms_of_proceeding, I request the deleted RFCU be:

• undeleted
• moved into Arbitration space
• wrapped with one the "do not edit" template pairs to make it clear it's being placed as part of the public record rather than a forum to continue discussion. (I'm not in favor of full protection as editors may wish to add {{anchor}}s). NE Ent 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence/RFCU. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope (RFCU)

As the current community discussion (Do Away With RFC/U) is tending heavily towards delete, there does not seem to be much value to the encyclopedia in discussing the events surrounding the RFCU. Therefore, with the committee's consent it's my intention not to do so, except to reiterate it's my belief all editors were acting in good faith. NE Ent 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was dropped as a party, so presumably they agree with you. I also agree that everybody acted in good faith, that RFCU is (was) a difficult process to master. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope

I read that the basis for this case is that the administrator "has chronically failed to maintain his conduct in accordance with the expected Wikipedia standards." What is the scope of evidence that is expected here? Are any and all incidents that have happened in the past, going back indefinitely, sought as evidence? I'm thinking of all the women who have gone public recently with allegations against Cosby. Is the Committee looking to examine evidence of that sort? Asking for guidance. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent incidents are more compelling than stale ones. You have 500 words. Start with the most recent, most serious examples and work backwards until you run out of ink (500 words). End there. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what Jehochman said, yes. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Would it be prudent to add evidence from within the past two years or so if it demonstrates that there are longstanding concerns? How about evidence of constructive behavior and a willingness to improve? I've been very critical of DangerousPanda in the past, and I feel terrible about it because I have generally held him in very high esteem. My limited interactions with him have been mixed, but I'd say we get along overall. I'm very reluctant to present any sort of evidence in this case because I want to avoid tipping the scales one way or another. I don't want ArbCom to be left with only half the story, where every bad decision DangerousPanda has ever made is not balanced against the numerous positive ones. It is important for the committee to take everything into consideration before reaching a verdict. It's true that I've had concerns about his temperament going as far back as 2012 (as can be inferred from my statement on the 2013 case request); it should also be noted that I once called him an "admin's admin" for all the good things he does for Wikipedia. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  This is tricky because the more active an admin is, the more situations they handle, the more mistakes they make. What really matters is whether the signal to noise ratio is acceptable, and that none of the noise is egregiously bad to warrant a desysop regardless of the quantity of good works. I'm not sure how good ArbCom is at assessing such a broad swath of data. It might be useful for DP go go back to RFA and see what feedback comes from the community. Maybe a voluntary reconfirmation RFA would be sufficient to resolve concerns and would avoid the need for a case. If he passes, great, carry on. If he does not pass, resign and maybe try again later. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Name usage

I've made the politically difficult decision on using the original username in my evidence section. (The fact that it is actually a difficult decision is just further evidence of how farcical the situation is.) By using it, of course, I come across as uncaring asshole. Got that. On the hand, if I refuse to use it at all, it's as if I don't actually believe what I'm writing, which undercuts the position I'm actually arguing -- hence the edit summary of Eat your own dogfood.

I intentionally only used it once so that if an arbitrator or clerk think it's better left out it can easily be reverted -- I won't raise a fuss. NE Ent 22:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your argument; however, just to be on the safe side, I have removed the name of the previous account. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• The "banning" of use of thethe old name is ludicrous. It is a pseudonym, it is the pseudonym which was the name under which BW/DP/ESAL won tools, it is part of BW/DP/ESAL's editing history. If the name is so "dangerous," BW/DP/ESAL should resign tools and clean start and seek tools in a year or two through a new RFA. Otherwise, the names should remain linked in a transparent manner. Whatever is decided in this case, this principle needs to be formally acknowledged by ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about it and for the moment I'm leaning towards following a precautionary approach, that is, in my opinion, when not mentioning it does not negatively impact on the argument one is making, then it's better to just avoid it. However, if it's necessary for the discussion (for instance, to link to the original RfA), then do feel free to link to it. It's a very imperfect compromise, but, again in my opinion, it's a way to reconcile the two opposing interests. (Incidentally, I have not discussed this with my colleagues, so they may disagree; I'd welcome their input). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is ludicrous. It's also not important one way or the other. As I at least attempted to show in the evidence, it pretty much is transparent to anyone with a modicum of wiki-knowledge. NE Ent 02:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Life is difficult all around. If somebody asks for a courtesy that costs you little to nothing, just comply to make them happy. Jehochman ^Talk 02:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting permission to exceed the standard limits for all evidence

I am requesting permission to exceed the standard limits for all evidence. If granted, I will limit myself to well under 1000 words and 100 diffs as I did here. Thank you.- MrX 14:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking; I'm granting this request, but please try to be as concise as you can. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much Salvio.- MrX 15:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to the evidence presented by Tenebrae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've reviewed the situation that was discussed in Tenebrae's evidence, including the context behind it. There are a few concerns that I have with the manner in which he chose to present his case.

The first think that struck me was his claim to having a "virtually impeccable" record. It is absolutely true that his overall record has been exceptional, and he has earned the right to call himself a valuable contributor on Wikipedia. That being said, he failed to reference his previous block in February of this year, which had also incidentally been performed by DangerousPanda. The ANI discussion can be found here. DP's decision to block was tacitly accepted by the small contingent of participants at ANI but was still seen by NE Ent and a few others as misplaced, in large part because the conduct of both Tenebrae and the other involved editor (specifically The Rambling Man) were being closely examined. Most commentators agreed that neither behaved well. I think this context can be seen as important, although Tenebrae felt otherwise. It is not directly related to the subsequent situation, so I can understand why it was excluded.

As for the June 2014 incident itself, it was initially brought to ANI for review. Although Winkelvi was clearly behaving in an uncivil manner by telling him to "fuck off", he was within his remit to remove posts on his talk page and the continued engagement on Tenebrae's part (both on Winkelvi's user talk page and at the article itself) after being asked to stay away was unwise. And let's not forget, he did partake in an edit war himself, which boiled down to him re-adding a non-notable person's name to an article. I will come out and say that I think the 60 hour block was excessive; 36 hours would have been more reasonable, in my view. That's just my opinion, and the consensus was in DP's favour. The AN3 report links to the reverts made by both editors. Tenebrae has only provided references that support his side of the dispute, all the while avoiding links to any discussions in which his own responsibility was called into question. This isn't an example of misconduct on DP's part.

The other thing I would like to bring up is his characterization of Dennis Brown's involvement with DangerousPanda as "tag-teaming". Now, Dennis is currently on an extended WikiBreak and is trying to avoid anything related to Wikipedia for the time being, so I'll speak on his behalf. There was no tag-teaming involved in the incidents referenced by Tenebrae; the participation of both Dennis and DP amounted to two different administrators sharing the same opinion. Dennis gave what he felt was helpful advice in the example that Tenebrae provided — to try and avoid letting the liberal use of expletives get to him. That same link also shows nothing more than a benign response from someone who knew DangerousPanda's situation at the time.

There was another ANI report initiated by Tenebrae a few weeks ago, which by and large rehashed the June 2014 dispute while following up with a more recent confrontation. He mischaracterized both Winkelvi and Dennis Brown by describing the former's post on his talk page as "baiting" while falsely claiming that the latter condones people telling others to "fuck off" (the ANI discussion from June 2014 shows that Dennis did not agree with Winkelvi's conduct). All Dennis said was that cuss words are not inherently uncivil; it's the context that counts. In this case, Winkelvi said he "wasn't fucking baiting [him]", which is not the same thing as telling someone to "fuck off". Tenebrae's response at Winkelvi's talk page shows that he still bears resentment over what happened six months ago.

In short, I don't feel that Tenebrae's evidence is at all pertinent to this case, and misrepresents the situation entirely. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I do thank Kurtis for being considerate enough to alert me on my talk page to his comments here, and for his kind words on my record. Everyone is entitled to one's opinion. As could be reasonably expected, I disagree with his points.

Where 3RR and ANI are concerned, we are required to notify someone on his/her talk page. I would ask Kurtis to address that fact in light of his saying I went to Winkelvi's talk page "after being asked to stay away."

The difference between "fuck off" and "stay the fuck off my page" seems marginal at best: The cursing and verbal abuse is being aimed at another editor regardless, and for an admin to excuse it is inexcusable.

As for "falsely" claiming DP and DB condoned it, well, the cursing editor was free to curse me multiple times with no consequence; I provided diffs to show there was much, much more than a single "wasn't fucking baiting [him]". And I copy-paste quoted DB accurately in his saying that the cursing was OK because crass isn't the same as uncivil. There's no falsity or anything out of context: DB — who took it upon himself to answer for DP — said that verbally abusing another editor with multiple "fucks" is merely being crass. If repeated "fucks" aimed at another editor is simply crass, I can't imagine what it would take to be uncivil.

I think if you look back at my comments around the block, one would see I was not objecting to the block itself but to the disparity, when the lesser-blocked party cursed like a drunken stevedore and when DP made the false and, frankly, ridiculous accusation that I "forced" someone to edit-war ... as if anyone could force someone to do so. These are examples of extremely questionable judgment and a lack of maturity.

Finally, I'm not on trial here, and whether I do or do not bear resentment against WInkelvi over a June incident has no bearing whatsoever on DP's actions. But to clarify: I was minding my own business when I returned after a hiatus, steering clear of Winkelvi, when Winkelvi came after me. And he began cursing at me again because, why not, since DP and DB let him. (I bore no resentment against DP, as evidenced by the fact I went to him for help upon my return.) As I said to DB, allowing an editor to yell "fuck" repeatedly at another editor is a good way to make Wikipedia uninviting to many women, older people and religious people, among others. And I would like to think Wikipedia can be something for more than just angry young while males. But admins who are fine with a demeaning frat-house environment ... I don't think that's good for this project as a whole. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there was a disparity, which I think had to do with your continued posting on Winkelvi's talk page despite being told repeatedly to stop. This was seen as antagonistic by a number of commentators. Like I said, I do think that 60 hours was a bit excessive, but my opinion seems to conflict with everyone else. My point is that your evidence doesn't give the full story, and that it would not be seen as an abusive action taken by DangerousPanda when considering the circumstances. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep responding, but I did ask — and given your statement, I think I deserve an answer — what is one supposed to do when 3RR and ANI policies require warning/informing another editor? I'm not sure it's fair to suggest we're supposed to not follow these pretty basic rules.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

RE: "not the full story": DP and DB, whom he lets answer for him, did nothing when an editor hurled f-bombs at another editor, other than pooh-pooh the editor who was the victim of verbal abuse. That's a simple fact, and I provided diffs of the multiple f-bombs, so I'm not sure how much more fully one could explicate. And DP claimed I "forced" someone to do something. I didn't. Short of a gun to someone's head, I don't know how anyone could "force" someone to edit war. It was a false statement that, like allowing the cursing, showed bad judgment. What else is there to say, exactly? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on both of your points raised. You did the right thing by informing him of the ANI post. I also believe that it is inaccurate to say that you forced Winkelvi into edit warring. It takes two to tango. What I'm saying is that the decision in this case is understandable when considering the circumstances, and that I don't think it's a salient example of misconduct on the part of DangerousPanda. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your open-mindedness and your polite collegiality — you seem an excellent example of Wikipedia discourse at its best, and I thank you for that. And I understand wanting to defend a colleague, and respect anyone who would extend themselves to do so, even if we disagree. It makes this all the more curious, since you seem like someone who would never curse or f-bomb a colleague yourself, or hold with someone who did or with an admin and his surrogate who would let someone get away with it. Whatever the circumstances, f-bombing another editor is wrong, and admins who let it go show questionable judgment. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The outcome of this case is purely in DP's hands. If he can receive criticism and promise to make adjustments, I predict that he will be given a chance to prove words with actions. The goal is to solve the problem, not necessarily to sanction anybody. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I surely hope you're wrong. I don't see how extracting a promise to be good and sending him back to work solves anything. It'd be doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It would be proof that the guidelines simply don't apply to admins and that incivility and poor judgment are merely job skills. Msnicki (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The time to make adjustments was after DP's first miserably failed RfA, where one of the two points of failure was his pattern of incivility. But oh! -- his did make enough adjustments then, to pass a second RfA. Then reverted to a pattern of arrogance and incivility again. Buying into your logic leads to an endless repetition of the same. When do you get off that train?? And what makes continuing to prop up an abusive admin, whom many innocent editors are required to suffer, such a sacred paramount mandate? (I thought adminship was "no big deal". And I thought Jimbo suggested making adminship "easier to get; easier to lose". Why is one editor's adminship more valuable to you, than the experiences of many reg editors who'd like to edit free of the arrogance and abuse? Just like DB who is Panda's wiki-friend and enabler, I think your priorities are all mixed up, Jehochman!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the use of profanity: I'm quite empathetic to Tenebrae's desire to collaborate in a more restrained milieu, however the community has consistently rejected bans on profanity. I recall a long discussion years ago but am unable to find using search: this search shows multiple smaller discussions all affirming that point. NE Ent 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NE Ent, and thanks for both your understanding and the list. I had no idea this was such a widespread issue; one would think accepted norms of civilized behavior would apply among Wikipedians, and I'm dismayed to see that's not necessarily true.

The 2013 discussion at [1] is particularly fascinating, since it talks about a point I had brought up to an admin who'd pooh-poohed it, which is that f-bombs and other uncivil behavior discourages women, many nationalities, religious people and older people from finding Wikipedia a welcome environment. I used the phrase "angry young white males," and I see others in that discussion used similar phrasing.

Bottom line, I'm not sure I see what value there is in cursing other editors ... what it contributes positively to this encyclopedia and this environment. It just seems like self-indulgent venting and, clearly, attempts at bullying and intimidation. Why would any mature, intelligent person want that? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is a superset of English speaking cultures; in some of those routine use of profanity for emphasis is acceptable, in other's it's not. How to successfully integrate those cultures is a longstanding problem (see the village pump search above, Wikipedia:Incivility_blocks,Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement). I don't know the answer; I do know that as it's a policy question outside the committee's remit so discussion here isn't going to be useful. NE Ent 16:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I affirm Kurtis' assessment that Tenebrae is using selective memory in his recollection of events. In so doing, it seems to me he is dishonestly presenting himself and his bad behavior as a misunderstood martyr who's only fighting for what's good and right and pure in Wikipedia while he keeps dragging my name through the mud. I object to Tenebrae's continued obsession with and rehashing of an incident that took place six months ago. He feels as if he was wronged by both me and administrators. Administrators because they dared block him for edit warring (that he did commit). Me, because I dared use language he doesn't like. Language, I might add, that a lot of non-angry, non-young, non-white, non-males use on a daily basis, in spite of his uncivil and bordering on personal attack portrayal of me as an "angry young white male". Tenebrae refuses to drop the stick on this, even though he has been told numerous times by admins and non-admins alike to do so. I would like to know: how long will I have to endure being brought into discussions and complaints by him before he stops invoking my user name in a negative fashion in order to get what he's looking for in the way of vindication? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

A purely factual note: Winkelvi, as he often does, mischaracterizes things. Kurtis in fact says, above, that he agree with me "on both of your points raised. You did the right thing by informing him of the ANI post. I also believe that it is inaccurate to say that you forced Winkelvi into edit warring." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The scope of this case is whether the named party has met the standards of an administrator over an extended period of time and whether sufficient interventions prior to arbcom have been attempted. This necessary will result in looking at the historical record; the earliest evidence I've presented goes back to July 2012. Winkelvi has neither been named in the filing nor explicitly named in Tenebrae's evidence; I'm interpreting Tenebrae's submission as questioning whether DP acted in a diplomatic, even-handed way or not. It is one of the perennial tragedies of Wikipedia that content contributors who care greatly about the project will, from time to time, come into conflict; it's just human nature. There truly is no benefit to anyone to rehashing who was "more right" or "more wrong," because we ain't here to pick "winners" and "losers." I'll note from past personal experience that the best course for anyone who feels any evidence does not meet the standards present at the top of the evidence page is to leave a polite, specific note at the talk pages of one of the case clerks. NE Ent 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I thank NE Ent for advocating calmness and perspective. I won't stoop to respond to Winkelvi's claims and accusations; as NE Ent notes, they have nothing to do with the evidence-diffs I've presented re: DangerousPanda, who feels it's OK to let editors curse out other editors with "fuck" and its variations, which have no place in civilized discourse: One can say "Do not to post on my talk page" rather than "Do not fucking post on my talk page" since both say the same thing, and adding "fucking" does not give it any additional weight whatsoever in any harassment complaints for posting on a talk page when asked not to. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Unreal.

Tenebrae: After once again complaining about use of the the four-letter word you claim to abhor and say doesn't belong in Wikipedia, you have used the word eight times and every time you've posted in this thread. You've also said previously that only "young, angry, white males" use such language. No further comment on that is necessary, I suppose.

I'd also like to point out that two minutes after saying you weren't going to respond to me, you responded to me. Credibility and self-restraint. They are important characteristics, don't you agree? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re. Memills's evidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Memills described an incident in which Kevin Gorman proposed an indefinite topic ban against his continued participation in anything related to men's rights and feminism. Memills more or less shot himself in the foot by making what appears to be a thinly-veiled legal threat against Hipocrite at ANI (this was after he had accused Hipocrite of making a libelous statement). The tide shifted against him shortly thereafter, and a large proportion of commentators were convinced that he could not be dispassionate on topics pertaining to gender equality. Still, the consensus was not entirely clear, as there were several editors who opposed the topic ban. DangerousPanda closed the discussion by deploring the conduct of both sides, all the while essentially giving Memills one last chance to prove that a community sanction was not necessary (off-topic: Memills was topic-banned two months later by Bbb23, pursuant to MRMPS). DP's tone was extremely blunt, but he closed it with decidedly good intentions. Asking for clarification from Howunusual about a confusing and possibly offensive remark made over the course of the discussion does not make him involved.

The warning left by DangerousPanda on Memills's talk page was in response to calling commentators on Shakehandsman's talk page "gender feminists" and accusing them of wikilawyering. Again, DangerousPanda did not mince words, but he was justified in essentially instructing Memills against casting aspersions on other editors. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is about DP, so I won't respond to the comments specifically directed at me. They have already been thoroughly vetted, and there are clearly two differing sides or perspectives (e.g., as evidenced by the lack of consensus re the AN). And, there are some issues better left for another day.

Re DP's post on Howunusual's talk page, imho, DP was not asking so much for "clarification" from Howunusual, but rather asserted that his comment was "100% inappropriate." I'm not quite sure why Howunusual's comment would be difficult to misunderstand or misinterpret. Regardless, the point is the DP had previously commented on the AN case and, despite that previous involvement, served as the closer. Per administrative conflict of interest "...it is important to avoid conflicts of interest, because such circumstances cast doubt on the fairness of the closure, and often make the closure unstable. Even the appearance of conflict of interest is worth avoiding, for the same reason."

The term "gender feminist" is not a slur, nor is suggesting that an editor(s) has engaged in wikilawyering. It would be quite a stretch to interpret this, as did DP, as "name-calling." Memills (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering" is a direct quote from the same comment in which you used the phrase "gender feminist", which was an ad hominem attack because it called into question the possible prejudices of the editors in question instead of directly addressing the substance of their claims. Personal attacks are not limited to vulgarities like "asshat" and "fuckwit". Kurtis ^(talk) 19:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"fuckwit" might not be the best example. As we've discussed — and with all respect to you personally, as I know you're an editor of thoughtfulness and good will — DP was perfectly sanguine with an editor using various forms of "fuck" against me. And his surrogate Dan Brown even said that f-bombs were "crass" but not "uncivil." I would respectfully disagree. If DangerousPanda considers "gender feminist" and "wikilawyering" slurs when used against him, it's hard to understand by he doesn't mind f-bombs used against other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly I still disagree with DP's close, but trying to use it as evidence of administrative misconduct is absurd. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment. DP was operating within limits of administrative discretion here. The "evidence" presented to this struggle session for DP is getting pretty silly already. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to slur this ANI as a "struggle session," since these sorts of discussions are exactly why we have ANIs. Characterizing it in such a biased and one-sided way is disrespectful to all those editors, and there are several here, who happen to disagree with you for honest and valid reasons. You may not agree with us, and that's fine. But there's no reason whatsoever to slur us or to cast aspersions on our character. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Jni was referring to this ArbCom case, not the ANI thread alluded to above. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That was my mistyping, like a dope. I meant this ArbCom case. Just because Ini doesn't agree with other editors is no reason to accuse them of scurrilous actions. I don't see any reason to impugn the motives of people with whom I disagree. For Ini's benefit, let me certainly state without qualification that I am not involved in a "struggle session" and I find repugnant his attack on my character and the character of other editors simply for disagreeing with his stance. In my many years on this Earth, I have found that when people can't fault the arguments of their opponents, they attack the opponents' character instead. I find that sad. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23 has recently blocked Memills for six months due to violating his MRM topic ban. He is therefore limited in his ability to participate in this discussion. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for permission to exceed the 500 word limit

Sorry for asking only after the fact, but would it be alright if I were granted an exemption? I don't feel as if the evidence I've presented is difficult to navigate, and I think the context I've provided would be useful in giving the arbitrators a broader picture. That said, I will try to better summarize it in a little while, once I get a better internet connection. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed your submission and I agree that it's better to have evidence accompanied by a little bit of context, rather than merely a list of diffs; so, please try to trim your submission as much as you can without excessively sacrificing clarity and if you cannot do that in less than 500 words, don't worry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Argument presented by Drmies

Is this within the scope of the Evidence section? It seems more like preliminary statement (Drmies didn't write one back then, neither did I). I suppose it doesn't matter that much anymore now that evidence is closed, but that kind of discussion type arguments easily derails the whole purpose of the evidence section (see what Drmies wrote about Ihardlythinkso, and how the latter then replied = derail). The way I see it is that if you don't consider the prsented evidence to be relevant, then trust the arbitrators to value them as that. And if you don't consider there to be enough evidence, then let the lack of evidence speak for itself if that's the case. --Pudeo' 14:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pudeo, I thought the same thing, that Evidence pg is not a forum for a Support !vote (as in RfA). The page doc says tit-for-tat is also not allowed, and any clerk can delete. Re my MO for responding, if someone wants to insult me on a page, I'm bound to respond for personal reasons, on the same page, at least. (So a clerk perhaps s/ have removed both irrelevant comments. [They didn't though.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's of equal evidentiary value as your contribution -- more so, in fact, as Drmies is careful to present a balanced viewpoint. BMK (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is careful to present a balanced viewpoint. You just called his presentation "viewpoint". ("Viewpoint" = "opinion". The page calls for "evidence". [Are you suggesting opinion = evidence?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the evidence page is for, well, evidence, whereas comments belong on this talk page or on the workshop page. That said, considering the first phase of the case has closed, I'd say that it's superfluous to hat the relevant section or the reply thereto now. In the end, what's really important for us is diffed evidence. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

These pages exist to help the arbitration committee evaluate the question of whether the assignment of administrator user access levels to DangerousPanda is currently of benefit the encyclopedia and what remedies, if any, should be taken if they don't. To help make that process go more smoothly, it's established some protocols and solicited editors from the community to be clerks. The protocols are guides to our own behavior, not "rules" to wikilawyer over; if someone is doing something something the committee finds disruptive, a clerk will deal with it. NE Ent 10:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)