User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 15

Things you probably never read on my talk page in the first place

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rights removal request

Hello Panda! Its been a while since we last talked, how are things going? I came by to ask if it were okay if you remove both my reviewer and rollback rights as I now aim towards content creation as opposed to anti-vandalism work. The main reason is because its quite repetitive (Gives me the feeling I should be a better help to the community than I am now) and I aim to work mainly towards articles which will help the project expand so in removing my rights it keeps me away from the anti-vandal fighting and makes me focus on the content creation! Thanks. Acetotyce (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Acetotyce: I'm surprised you wanted reviewer removed, but I have removed them both. Cheers - hope all's well! the panda ₯’ 22:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Ah yes, reviewer rights played more of an anti-vandalism role for me as opposed to editing articles that are pending-changes protected. When the time is right I may request again in the future if I ever do plan to edit articles that are P-C protected frequently. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Let me know, from what I can see, I'd be able to hand it back no issue the panda ₯’ 23:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rights removal request

Hi Mr Panda,

Given your shocking treatment of people, will you now resign from being Wikipedia admin?

Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry ... didn't see this until after I just blocked you for continued personal attacks. Nice attempt to try and call me "WP:INVOLVED", but I'm not falling for it. the panda ₯’ 10:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer#User:Cutest_Penguin

If possible please grant me reviewer right as per request made at Reviewer. If granted I would use it wisely in reviewing pending changes. Thanks!. CutestPenguin ^discuss 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed it. Please don't WP:FORUMSHOP and please don't re-request any additional rights until after at least 4 more months of good, solid work the panda ₯’ 09:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that I am unblocked, could you or I edit my User talk page to remove the Block Review?

DangerousPanda, allow me to hereby declare that I am no longer blocked, and thanks to the effort of another administrator, PhilKnight, I am free to edit and leave messages in other users' talk page, like here. As he said, I was blocked because of zh Wikipedia, and now that the administrators there have unblocked me, I should be unblocked here in Eng Wikipedia as well. Now that I am cleared, can you or I remove the obvious Block Review requests on my User talk page? Please reply. Orzel Bialy (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You can remove anything related to a past block once you're unblocked the panda ₯’ 15:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article: Madison McKinley

You had helped with the sockpuppeting problem on article Madison McKinley, which was ultimately deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_McKinley

It looks like the article was relatively quickly recreated on the Talk page of an AfC page with a slightly different name Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madison McKinley Garton, with a redirect created from the Article namespace [1].

How best to handle? Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect. Keep an eye on the draft - IMHO the original was close to notability requirements the panda ₯’ 09:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For his great objectivity. Leedskalnin (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Aldota sockpuppet accounts

Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aldota. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category.

I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

New question

Dear Panda, I have a question for you. I make a wikipedia page and I don't know why it dosen't appear on any search engine, even wikipedia search don't find'it.The page exist. Can you help me with some intel please? Leedskalnin (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I know I can search your contributions, but would you like to give me an idea as to what page you're talking about? the panda ₯’ 18:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Andrea...etc article, I have moved it to Draft:Andrea de Andrade Wikipedia, samba dancer as it's most certainly not ready to be online as a live article. Please follow the WP:AFC process the panda ₯’ 18:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I want to thank you very much for time you have accorded to review my page and for fact that you have not delete it irreversible because I have made some work on it. I want to rewrite this article "Draft:Andrea de Andrade Wikipedia, samba dancer". Please, if is possible give me some clues about mistakes I made it and how I can replace it. Is my first article and I want to learn how to do it. From experts and not from tutorials. Is much effective to learn from other experience. Thank you very much for your amiability.Leedskalnin (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the content - nor the actual notability. That's why I suggested the use of WP:AFC the panda ₯’ 19:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Panda,I modified the format of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_de_Andrade_Wikipedia,_samba_dancer#2013:_Uniados_da_Vila_Isabel) adding a summary and removing all external links. This is an domain were I not understand very well what kind of references I can use: - you tube?( I want the reader to see the parade where Andrea participate) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/8368348/Rio-de-Janeiro-carnival-2011-the-second-nights-parades-in-pictures.html?image=25 ? (is an article about her participation on 2011 carnival at Rio) - http://ego.globo.com/famosos/tudo-sobre/andrea-de-andrade.html. (is a Brazilian magazine where appears some article about Andrea)

I understand that links like that show pictures directly http://di.imguol.com/carnaval/2012/02/18/andrea-de-andrade-da-imperio-de-casa-verde-1329567592264_956x500.jpg are not admitted. Please, give me some clues about external links. In this article I need some external links is obviously. Thanks very much Leedskalnin (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dangerous Panda, I rearranged the article and put the external references on bottom of page. Please tell me what of this references can be used and what not. This are sites of magazines which deliver public information about this person . Help me to finish this article please. Thank you very much. Leedskalnin (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at it. Wow. Um. Where do I start. First, your first two sections don't belong - Samba has its own article, as does Carnival - it's an article about a person. I'm then failing to see how they meet the notability requirements - the text and the ref's don't show it the panda ₯’ 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I apologize for mistakes, obviously it was wrong to put "samba" and "Carnival" like headings, thanks for correction. About notability I read the link about it and I found this:

"In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual"

Now, assuming that Andrea de Andrade is a "low-profil individual" person, considering the rate of increasing her number of instagram followers on day (aprox. 1000) is obviously that this assuming ranking is changing explosive.But Andrea is not a "low-profil individual",in my opinion si a "medium to high profil individual" wich will evolve to highest. If this is the matter of your observation about notability I can't do anything, is obviously that we have other perceptions about what means an ranking of public profile of a person and I respect your opinion.

If is not this the matter of discussion (the public ranking of Andrea), and maybe I need to describe much in detail the external references, or to find other references (is plenty of them on web) please to give me a clue. Again thanks for your availability and amiability. Leedskalnin (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

1,000 Instagram followers? geez, I have more than that and I'm very low profile. Remember, this is notability and not popularity - this isn't MY opinion, it's the Wikipedia notability standards set by the project/community. You were at one point trying to use an image as a reference - no, just because she's in the image and was listed in the image caption, does not make the image about her, or can it be used as a ref. You're using non-reliable sources in a couple of spots. If you have to describe a reference, it's probably not a good one. Your draft is also full of what we call "peacock words - adjectives or adverbs that are flowery and non-encyclopedic. We don't care how wonderful, lovely, passionate or pretty something was (whether a costume, a dance, a person) we need objective (not subjective) facts. the panda ₯’ 10:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I did not say 1000 instagram followers, but the increasing number of followers on day (that means if yesterday was 42000, today is 43000), that I mean to say. Even this rate is increasing, today 1000, tomorrow 1020 etc. She have you tube videoclips with hundreds of thousand of viewers. I understand the point with adverbs and adjectives, I am agree with you, indeed I must don't use the fulminant (and pointless of course) description of person or they actions.You are perfect right I don't think about that. You make light in my head with your obs. about references: If for example Andrea win the contest for "queen of battery(or muse)"I must references the magazine link where appear the news "Andrea Andrade has win the contest for queen (muse) battery for ...etc." not the a picture what show the dancer. I understand correct?

Please you can show the spots where you find the non reliable source (I want to clarify in my mind this thing)and where you find reliable (if this exist)in my article?

I think I must to replace this "peacock word" (good expression) with the description effective of parade: how much dancer passé on "avenida" the time duration of parade, the number the allegorical chariots (floats),describe the battery lead by Andrea (numbers, organization),short depict of Andrea costumes, etc. without adverbs and adjectives, just facts. I can make reference to journals which depict in words the parade (for reliable source).I'm on the good road of understanding? Thank you very much for your patient with me. Leedskalnin (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Panda, I found this link https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRES_Mocidade_Independente_de_Padre_Miguel. In him is quoted some references at Andrea.Is possible to use this references in my article? http://www.sidneyrezende.com/noticia/110000+andrea+de+andrade+e+coroada+rainha+da+bateria+da+mocidade http://ego.globo.com/Gente/Noticias/0,,MUL1631349-9798,00-ANDREA+ANDRADE+E+COROADA+RAINHA+DE+BATERIA+DA+MOCIDADE+NO+RIO.html

Also, is permitted to make references at this Wikipedia page in my article? Leedskalnin (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That guy's website does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. And no, since Wikipedia is user-editable, it is not possible to use other Wikipedia articles/languages as a reference the panda ₯’ 13:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you have no idea how much valuable was this intel you give it to me. I sincerely appreciate your objectivity (a quality very rare in our days).Now I thing I have a clue about the spirit of a true Wikipedian. I must begin the true work to search real information (not peacock words -genial expression form ) for this article. Please let me know if, in course of this work can I ask you some questions about dilemmas which sure will appears. I hope in few days I can present you (if I may)a different article. Thank you very much for you availability and amiability!Leedskalnin (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dangerous Panda, is it permited to make a references to a official website on facebook? https://www.facebook.com/unidosdevilaisabel/photos/a.346940525365703.85194.196230143770076/346940718699017/?type=1&permPage=1 Thank you! Leedskalnin (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You have read WP:RS, right? I've linked to it many times. Of course it's not acceptable the panda ₯’ 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I removed the Facebook link, indeed is not permitted and finished the work on article(it was hard because of references).I try to respect how much I can the Wikipedia spirit. Again, the problem with references, but this time I try to find some good reliable references. In limit of your time availability please take a look at this draft and give me a verdict. If you find non reliable references please simply delete it. I have great confidence in your expertize. Thank you very much for your time and apologize for my insistence.Leedskalnin (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I found a picture of Andrea on her instagram site and I want to ask you under what condition may I upload this photo on my article. I need the accord of the Andrea right? Or the accord of the photographer? I thing that because the photo was in personal cont of Andrea, she has the copyright of the photo. I am wrong? It's a little complicated for me to understand this condition of copyright. I read this chapter and in this case of photo I don't know what is the status of this picture.And who I must ask the permission to use this photo. Thank you very much.Leedskalnin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

See the image use policy...Number 1: we never upload images to draft articles. Number 2, the copyright holder would need to release the image to Wikipedia, and seeing what many people do to such images, most won't do that the panda ₯’ 09:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand, right, the pictures may be subject to vandalism, I never thought about it. I want to ask you(for my information),in this example, a picture from instagram account of this person is copyrighted by instagram , by the person who appear in photo (when she did make herself the pictures) or by the photographer who make it? Although, if I thinking more, if I paid something to make me a pictures the copyright belong to me (or not?).Please give me some clue. I read the copyright Wikipedia definition but I am still confuse. You say "the copyright holder would need to release the image to Wikipedia", this mean the owner must send the photo on mail to Wikipedia and accompany the picture by some written word by what it give his accord, or must send something in the paper form with signature etc.? Thank you,Sir .Leedskalnin (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Panda I discussed with the photographer of Andrea and he give permission to Wikipedia to use the photo absolute free just to mention is adress of instagram and his name.It is enough for copyright?Thank you,Sir.Leedskalnin (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir,can you tell me something about my draft? Please,when you have have some time available make a short review of the article,don't forget me. Thank you very very much!Leedskalnin (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I know that sometime I can be a "pain in the eyes" but I don't know if you will reviewing my draft. I must complete some format request (I don't know) for submitting you this draft for revision, or is it not necessary? I guess that is a long waiting queue of drafts for revision but can you tell me approx. how long I must waiting for an verdict? Thank you very much.Leedskalnin (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, I have young children, one of which starts school for the first time tomorrow - I have real life that takes much greater precedence over Wikipedia. I advised you to follow the WP:AFC process. However, a quick glance shows me that none of the notability elements have been met yet - Wikipedia articles take months to draft, so if you're in this much of a rush, it's not a good sign. the panda ₯’ 08:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse me Dear Panda, is not about rush believe me, it's like after an examine,everyone is curious to see what is his level. About "real life" you are not the only who have one, I have too a boy of 12 years, anyway, I understand you perfect. I understand what is the situation with the draft. I don't want to continue to write on it because I don't find any other information about the subject. I will find another subject "suitable" for Wikipedia. Thank you for you patient! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedskalnin (talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Leedskalnin: Remember in this situation you have all the time in the world well not all of it :P I believe you should focus on finding reliable sources that show the notability of Andrea de Andrade, by adding reliable sources Panda stated above, by reliable he means sources such as mainstream news articles like CNN, BBC, RT or CBC... (Book sources are perfect too but the book should be notable) the ones that aren't directly related to Andrea de Andrade but explain a lot about her. On second hand it is best that sources like wordpress, blogspot, youtube, twitter, instagram or any other social site to be strictly avoided. Remember that adding non English sources that may seem reliable in my opinion should not be there as some browsers lack the capability to directly translate the source. If you cant find any good sources its best to decide on working on a different article, one where you have interest in and one where you can find some really good sources! If you have any questions just ping me in on my talk page or continue off here. I'm willing to help you out, I too have siblings that start school tomorrow, but I may not be as busy until later this year. There are many places in Wikipedia where you can be of great help! Wikipedia is a community, a large team of editors on a mission to create the largest encyclopaedia accessible to anyone! I myself had a rough start but with the proper guidance any editor can change this place in a good way. Cheers! --Acetotyce (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not the best advice there. "(T)he book should be notable" is nonsense. Also, your opinion about non-English sources is contradicted by policy (see WP:NOENG). Panda gave this guy sound advice, so please don't confuse him with your opinions about what constitutes an acceptable source. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Thanks, apologies for my "opinions" on second hand the book notability part was just book sources in general a fiction novel source used for a non fiction topic wouldn't make sense would it? that's what I meant. My use of the word notability was my mistake. As for the sources most I pointed out were right but I agree on the fact that what I said did slightly go against WP:NOENG but it states there that non English sources aren't recommended but they are allowed, as compared to the way I said it where such sources are not recommended. Again thanks for pointing that out, apologies for the confusion. :/ --Acetotyce (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say that they're not recommended. It says that when English-language sources exist about a topic, they are preferred. Otherwise, thanks for clearing that up. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

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.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney. Thank you. —Msnicki (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

MsNicki, I'd have to say I'm incredibly surprised by your inflaming of an already afire situation, and your reaction to a statement that was in no way insulting to anyone is ... well, unbelievable really the panda ₯’ 09:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I see everyone has rushed to the ANI thread, which has then careered wildly away into allegations of "admin involvement," "admin conspiracies," and "alleged taunting." Instead of all that, it seems simpler and much less drama-filled to come here and ask if you could see your way to lifting the talk page restriction on BtBB, on the chance that the disruption that led to the block has ceased and they wish to post an unblock request.

The restriction can always be reapplied if required, but I reckon lifting it at this point might help de-escalate the issue. - Euryalus (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As I just said on ANI, this is a re-imposition of a removal of talkpage access already. It was lifted once, and they went right back at it. How many strikes does one get in baseball? the panda ₯’ 09:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm, dunno - I'm Australian and baseball is a mystery to me. :) I appreciate the point you make. BtBB is a long term editor who I would give another chance to, but happy to leave with you either way. Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You want me to believe your response to me was "in no way insulting to anyone"? Oh, please. Is this a new way of insulting my intelligence? 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. Msnicki (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly was not meant as an insult, nor can it be read as one. "Give your head a shake" means (at least where I grew up) to "shake the sleep/alcohol/fatigue (depending on the specific situation) from your eyes, re-focus and re-read what has been said". Nothing insulting in the least. Your "analysis" has little to do with the reality of the situation, and you're smarter than to have made such comments that were not based on the reality of the situation. Suggesting I was "involved"? Not based in reality. "Teaching a lesson"? not based in reality. You were the sole person planting any insults, and I have yet to launch a single one. If you honestly and sincerely believed I was attempted to insult you, then you were required to address it with me personally - we could have save you a hell of a lot of embarrassment by making sure we were reading from the same book the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:51, 4 September 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.

An editor you unblocked has been reported again

• Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello DP. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: ). Can you see a reason why his previous two-week block should not be reinstated? You are the last admin to unblock (September 2). He's been blocked twice already for edit warring on War in Donbass, so at some point the advice ought to be taken. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Fully agreed. Original 14 day (minus 2 days time-served) block reimplemented; AN/3RR report closed and editor advised. Thanks for letting me know the panda ₯’ 20:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Socks and ducks

Hi,

Sorry to bother you but this edit of yours has just been brought to my attention. Given that there has been massive controversy, that two apparently independent sets of socks had previously been identified and blocked, with some accounts let off the hook, and that a week down the line the jury is still out on the exact nature of the next batch, I am struggling to understand your comment that affirming my initial caution in identifying one particular sock with another is "unhelpful" when clarifying the context of that initial mention. Please forgive my impertinence in now asking you for an explanation, but your comment is now being used against me so I really do need to understand exactly where it is coming from and what justifies it. 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Sorry to butt in, but again I don't understand why you say there has been "massive controversy", since this is inaccurate. There were a series of socks being disruptive, and they got blocked and the problem ceased. Another obvious sock appeared, and started causing further disruption and harassment. The SPI admin confirmed this account was a sock, and I only repeated this fact after they stated it. I feel it is unhelpful to continue to give the impression the jury is still out here, as I do not believe that it is. In addition, I don't know what you refer to when you say some accounts were "let off the hook", as I'm not aware that this has ever happened, and you give the impression that there are two sides of socks opposing each other, which I don't think is a particular good reflection of events. I realize there was one other group of socks, but their activity appears to have been minor, and was not a long running, persistent problem like Festal's sockpuppetry. Esmeme (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

About my draft

Hello, Dangerous Panda, referring to my draft about Andrea de Andrade, I don't know what to do with it. I talk about it with Cullen328 and he says that if I would find the reliable source it can be an article. The career of Andrea was very short but with a lot of high titles for a samba dancer.Cullen328 say it could be a good article if would have some good references (a short but spectacular career). Unfortunately I don't find nothing in English mass-media,so, I want to ask you that the draft must be deleted or it can remain in archive of my account. I want to start another draft about the life of an Greek orthodox Saint, Venerable Paisios Aghioritul (1924-1984).Please tell me is a suitable English Wikipedia article? And how can start another draft? Thank you very much!Leedskalnin (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leedskalnin. Sources about a Brazilian dancer can be in Portuguese. Some of your sources are good. I recommended that you delete the weakest ones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Move

Hi, DangerousPanda. I was wondering if you could delete the page 'Wonder Pets!' and rename the page 'Wonder Pets' (with no exclamation mark) to 'Wonder Pets!' (with an exclamation mark). I would do this myself, but a redirect already exists at the target page name. I have asked others about their opinions on the move, and they are mostly supportive (see here for the discussion), just in case you were wondering. Thanks! Momsandy (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Momsandy: I have seen that discussion, and it's not yet time to act on it. The concept of "mostly supportive" means it's not fully supported. There's no rush. When policy-based discussion has stopped, then an admin, then a change can be acted upon. Right now, based on the policy-based arguments, I'd have to close it as no consensus - heck, there isn't even consensus on what title it would move to, and thus the default to to stay where it is the panda ₯’ 09:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You got mail

Hello Dangerous Panda I sent you an email and would appreciate a response

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontee0987 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done a few days ago the panda ₯’ 09:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks the panda ₯’ 09:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I demand to be unblocked

Hello, I'm User:Keverich2, you blocked me on Saturday Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Keverich2_reported_by_User:Darkness_Shines_.28Result:_1. I don't understand why. I believe I've made my case rather clear: controversial statements, unless backed by a reliable source, should be deleted. If anyone should be punished for edit warring, it's User:Darkness Shines . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.245.16 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A few key points on this dumb game you're now playing, Keverich2.

1. When blocked, you may NOT edit Wikipedia. Period. That means anonymously or creating new accounts. If you do, it's block evasion which simply hurts your chances at future unblock, and will force me to extend the block on your original account - One more edit to this project, and I will extend your original block further
2. We don't do "punishment" - blocks are to prevent continued problematic editing.
3. If you wish to be unblocked, return to your account, file an unblock request as per the instructions given.
4. If you decide to request unblock, read WP:GAB, WP:AAB and WP:NOTTHEM very carefully first

Unblocks are not rocket science; extensions of blocks due to ridiculous behaviour is easy the panda ₯’ 11:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you such a bitсh?

Abusing your powers as administrator to silence opposing points of view? Was your granddaddy UPA member or something?

PS: it only takes a few days to make a new account. Cheers!

Funny enough, I do have a relative who went to UPA. Thanks for noticing :-) the panda ₯’ 12:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to this UPA, obviously. You seem to live in Canada, which is a major destination for immigrants from Western Ukraine. It's a 'peculiar' community. Some of the most rabidly-nationalistic Ukrainians live in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.14.0.137 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying to be offensive, but I just don't see it working. My apologies for your failed rhetoric. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's a major destination for immigrants from all over the world, mostly because we don't play pathetic intercultural bullshit here, and because we're so darned nice the panda ₯’ 18:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Panda hows your igloo fairing out this season? Dog sleigh in good condition? Gotta love being Canadian! --Acetotyce (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because we are polite does not mean we don't have feelings eh? How a'boot you say something nice 176.14.0.137? It feels great! If you like it you can come join Canada with us. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 19:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Gee, what a provocative section header. Brings out all the stalkers. I'm American, but I sometimes think about relocating to Canada. The people are more reasonable. They have a better sense of humor. And they have some of the most stunning countryside I've seen, including British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia (to name a few I've had the pleasure of visiting). We won't talk about the mayor of Toronto.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I could never move to Canada, the cities are much too clean - it makes me nervous not to have a certain amount of litter around me at all times. BMK (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But, then, I've lived in NYC for 40 years. BMK (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that explains a lot. Don't read too much in my comment, which is, of course, drawn from stereotypes. I was born in NYC. Besides, I've discovered I like clean, maybe not Singapore-clean, but orderly. It helps soothe the chaos of my brain.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reason

I was trying to move the page to its proper title, Wonder Pets! (with an exclamation mark), but it oddly didn't allow for that (the name already exists as a redirect). Can you please delete the Wonder Pets! with an exclamation mark page so that I can move it to its correct title? Thanks! Momsandy (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Momsandy: Hell no. The RM discussion isn't complete - you have not got any authority or consensus to move to anything. Besides, you're the one who STARTED the RM discussion, you most certainly may not determine consensus then act on it. You don't get to toss your ethics out the door just because you're on a fairly anonymous website the panda ₯’ 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Um...could you just delete the redirect? The proper title is with an exclamation mark, it's in copyright and more. If you don't, I'll just have to find another way...this is getting out of hand. Momsandy (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Momsandy: Indeed, you have gotten out-of-hand. Exclamation marks are not a part of copyright law. Leave the redirects alone, and leave the article alone - I think you've done more than enough already. Let someone close it in a week or so, and stay away the panda ₯’ 21:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Titles cannot be copyrighted. BMK (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am speaking with other admins about the topic, and they seem much nicer about it. The exclamation is listed in copyright statements ("© 2007 Viacom International, Inc. Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., Wonder Pets!, and all related titles, logos, and characters are trademarks of Viacom International, Inc." on "Wonder Pets!" books, merchandise boxes, official websites, etc.) and the show's logo has it, so I am certain the page should be moved. Momsandy (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, it has been over a week since the discussion started, and more people support it than disagree.

Again, COPYRIGHT makes no difference on logos, etc - that's trademark law. I am prepared to block for further disruptive moves the panda ₯’ 21:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not moving any pages anymore, I did not mean to when I did - you're the one getting out of hand...just stop leaving messages and stay away from the...well, me. Momsandy (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's disruptive. And sadly, no, while your disruption continues, then I'll have to make sure it stops the panda ₯’ 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't moved any pages disruptively since what you saw...you aren't getting this yet. I will have to explain: I did not mean to move those pages, I accidentally clicked the Move Page to "talk" and tried to revert it (those moves, which happened over an hour ago and have not happened since, were the only moves I have made today). Now, stop trying to prove yourself right and leave me alone. I am experienced on Wikipedia and Wikia (under different usernames, but I feel unsafe telling them to you), and know how to handle this. I would try to return the pages back to their original state, but that's what moved them incorrectly in the first place. Sheesh. Momsandy (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The use of multiple screen names on en.Wiki is generally not allowed. Please read WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, and link your accounts together on their talk pages if you have more than one, so other editors can clearly see the connection between them. BMK (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page that you have only one ID here, and were referring to the different ID you have on Wikia; however, please do not delete comments on other people's talk pages -- better to add an explanation, like this one, and let the editor whose talk page it is to remove it if they want to. Best, BMK (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remember, User:Momsandy, Wikia and Wikipedia are very different entities - our rules, culture, etc are different. The WP:MOS discusses titles of articles, and "making them match copyright" is not a valid reason - especially when you're actually talking about trademark. So, stop suggesting moves based on invalid reasoning and we'll get along fine. the panda ₯’ 21:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to point this out, pages like Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Go Diego Go! have exclamation marks, and since Wonder Pets! is spelled with one, why shouldn't it have one on its page? Momsandy (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There's not much point to making your argument here: admins on Wikipedia do not make decisions about content, that's done by a consensus of editors, which admins implemement. You've got an RfC open on it, just wait for the result -- the world's not going to end any time soon (I don't think - and if it does, whether Wonder Pets has an exclamation point or not will hardly matter). BMK (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

deleted for being real and true?

Dangerous Panda deleted my article citing that it does matter if its true, it does not matter if its sitting on the shelf at whole foods which took 7 years of hardcore work, he simply erased it from existence because he is abusing his power as an editor and has a chip on his shoulder, why else would you remove something true that has refs??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramadog2369 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ramadog2369: I've never deleted the article. I responded to your request for undeletion by reviewing the "article", and then declined with a clear statement about notability for businesses. I then advised you on your talkpage that "existence" is not sufficient for an encyclopedia, and that you might be a bit confused about that. No chips, no power the panda ₯’ 22:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Page protection request: SALT

Dear DangerousPanda. Please SALT the article names NPK Twice(Rapper), NPK Twice, and Npk Twice (Rapper). The article Npk Twice has previously been salted by you. The page has been recreated over 10 times! It has also been deleted per a deletion discussion. Thank you in advance, I really do not want to see that page in the new pages feed again.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  08:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

AfDs need more input

Hi.

There are a couple of AfDs the desperately need additional high-quality input, either because they are relisted twice so far or have extremely low inputs so far. I thought it was high time I publicized them. Here they are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date (Unix)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia OS
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad

Your input would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I just wanted you to know that I fixed the accidental moves I made - if you never pointed them out to me, I would have never known I moved them (I wasn't trying to move them). Thanks!

Momsandy (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

please, put "Dufunct Saturday Morning Cartoon block" in the Vortexx page, please

put "Dufunct Saturday Morning Cartoon block" in the info of Vortexx, because that block become defunct today...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.147.88.229 (talk • contribs)

There's no need to be in a hurry - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. You may a) gain consensus for its addition, and b) follow the directions provided to make the request on the article talkpage the panda ₯’ 09:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NPK Twice(Rapper)

Hello, a while back you SALT'ed a few pages for me - Npk Twice at ANI and blocked Kasirap (talk · contribs). Well today JitanMimbiri (talk · contribs) created NPK Twice(Rapper). Could you please delete and SALT and deal with the sock... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth SALT'ing Npk Twice (Rapper) too. No doubt that it will be created at some stage. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, successfully nominating a page to be protected from IP editing, "opinionating on stuff" [sic] (in ref to ANI discussion of HiLo48), and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

New user Campb292 & block

Point taken. Thank you for your help - JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Malusia22

I think you might as well extend the block on the IP you just hammered by revoking his talk page privilages - he would continue on his tomfoolery in userspace even after his main editing abilities are blocked. And while we're at it, is a rangeblock on the 49.151.x.x IP range feasible? Sure enough, it's a shared range, but given the crass and intense abuse we witnessed I think we have no choice but to do so. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur on to this request. Look at these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Simply unacceptable behavior. -WayKurat (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ker-pow!

Blimey, you're quick on the draw... Good block of our FBI friend, beat me to it by a nanosecond. Remind me never to get into a showdown with you. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL ... and people think we pandas are slow! the panda ₯’ 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Good at punctuation, though. Or... not? Yunshui ^雲_水 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently depends on caffeinated bamboo intake at the time LOL the panda ₯’ 12:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reverts. Don't know if you've seen this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_needs_blocking --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned

User:The ed17, who as you know disagrees with your block of User:Lecen, has left a comment at WT:Arbitration Committee#The saga of arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about The ed, Ed :-) I'm currently in communication with Lecen. I cannot fathom The ed's inability to actually read a) arguments, and b) timeframes in this situation. He's done Lecen more harm than good the panda ₯’ 15:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation

Sometimes it seems that you are the only one who understands why this is important, and that's what makes you a valuable administrator. I think some of the others think that Wikipedia is like any other online forum or website, where "flame wars" behind fake usernames are considered usual and without real life consequences. Wikipedia is an online volunteer project, an academic endeavor, that is much more visible to the world than a petty blog. I'm sorry that others have their vision clouded to an extent that prevents them from seeing the dangers of spreading rumors and mudslinging in Wikipedia. I am also sorry that you are being mistreated by others for having the guts to take a stand. Placing all that on the side, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation. Your action means much to me. Thank you for understanding, for being a true hero, friend.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are truly kind words, and ones that are appreciated the panda ₯’ 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

NavarroCollege

In April you unblocked this account, which I had blocked in January for violating the username policy. Instead of requesting the promised name change, the user simply created the new account. Yesterday, was just informed, the account was used to edit the article again, so I have reblocked it. Just a heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No issues. Thanks for the heads-up the panda ₯’ 14:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange page ownership and wikilawyering

Dominus Vobisdu started to remove long standing content from Ayurveda about 2-3 days ago. As per Wikipedia:BRD, he should have discussed about the content before he would remove it again, but he didn't.

I brought it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_verification, there, 6/6 editors agreed that there was no need to remove any content. But Dominus Vobisdu refuses to discuss, and started to Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP(see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ayurveda_and_modern_medical_terminology) now he has resorted to simply reverting and making no discussions. It is also disruptive because his talk page shows that he has been doing same thing on other article pages. What to do now? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to block, but someone beat me to it. the panda ₯’ 11:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice

Hello! I was really interested in learning how you had edited your talk page, so I clicked edit and got your even cooler backend. I was wondering if you could point me in a direction that would show me how to do that as well. Recently, my gender has been getting confused, with people using the wrong pronoun. It really doesn't bother me, but, as wikipedia gets more and more users, it would be cool to be able to give trans/gender ambiguous/queer/nonconforming folks the ability to post a notice (like your's on the talk page edit screen) that says "hey, this is my preferred pronoun when you're speaking about me in the third person."

So long story short, send me what you know!Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL ... all my stuff is pure trial, error, borrow/modify. I'm not a computer-tech-dude generally. In terms of gender, YOU set that in your preferences when you first signed up, or you can click your preferences tab to do it now the panda ₯’ 11:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi, how are yo?. I need your help as a librarian. It turns out that in the article Afro-Latin American placed an erroneous Venezuelan black population of about 5 million people and attach with a reference which I believe is not due; as the only authority to offer and ethnic demographics in Venezuela is "INE" who points a much lower [2] I corrected the info, and user changes reversed, cause I do not want an edit war, and I placed the information is official. Greetings, I hope your answer.Jaam0121 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

rfcu

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves (not certified yet). NE Ent 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Now deleted due to lack of proper certification after more than 48 hours. Please join the discussion on my talk page. We should not ignore the underlying dispute(s). What would be ideal is for everybody to get their concerns addressed one way or another. Jehochman ^Talk 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Kkm010 at ANI again

Hello DP. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive859#Edit-warring to add original research... earlier this month.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More WP:OR immediately following a block. Upon checking the editor's talk page (in a version before he blanked it) I noticed you'd issued a previous block:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kkm010&oldid=629718090#October_2014_2

I'm almost at the point of thinking that a further block of User:Kkm010 would be allowed per normal admin discretion, based on his continuing to make edits of the kind that led to the first block. An example of the continued behavior is this edit at ZTE, dated October 18. That edit adds mention of what he claims to be an Annual Report, which is simply this 'printout' of financial data sourced only to Google. Perhaps you would feel like commenting in the new ANI thread. I'm wondering if an indef is justified pending a promise for him to clean up his act. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Q: Closed discussion

If somebody has edited a discussion with the addition of more than 1,700 characters, few minutes after it was closed by other user. Such edit can be removed? Or archived discussion can be edited for making a reply. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

My complaint

As much as I'm willing to work through interpersonal issues, this issue was raised at ANI, and argued to death. The stick needed to be dropped. Many people have different opinions about everything on Wikipedia, and we have to agree to disagree, and live with the outcomes as per the community. I have NEVER broken any rules, policies, or even guidelines in the incident noted below. Could it have been handled differently? Of course - everything can be. However, WP:AGF and the community were pretty clear on this one. As noted above, however, the statements below are now just proof that someone refuses to work together - I had asked a simple question about such willingness, and the below was the response. Clearly, the wrong thing for the community as a whole, and certainly not the way to resolve an issue the panda ₯’ 18:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My complaint is that I think you show poor judgment, make poor choices and produce poor outcomes. I've argued that you were wrong from the start to block Barney rather than warn him. Per WP:BEFOREBLOCK, "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. ... administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking." You never gave him that warning before blocking and you never tried to actually help him. You violated the guidelines. You were also blind to Bearcat's behavior, defending it when you should have been warning him to stop, else he, too, might face a block. Bearcat behaved like a complete WP:DICK throughout. He promised to withdraw his AfD nomination if sources were provided, they were, by others, and he never did. He had thoroughly lost the argument over his nominating arguments to Barney, then tried claiming he'd meant something else all along. That made Barney angry and he called Bearcat a liar. 29 minutes later and w/o discussion, you blocked Barney. You should have warned, not blocked Barney and should also have reminded Bearcat that admins need to model the behavior they desire and that a thicker skin would really help. Worse, you allowed and then defended Bearcat making posts to Barney's talk page you knew Barney considered provocative while Barney was blocked, a clear violation of WP:IUC, "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." On his talk page, Barney tried to explain that he had caught Bearcat in a clearly illogical argument and that he was using hyperbole, "[Bearcat] also apparently omitted to conduct a WP:BEFORE search for sources because when such a search is performed a plethora of sources are to be found. When I politely pointed out this to him and gave him the opportunity to correct himself, he refused to do this, asserting things that are clearly not true to anyone with at least half a brain (that a leader of a party group is equally as important as a non-leader) and started to make personal allegations against me. He has now compounded his lies by writing further lies at WP:AN/I which have led a productive and editor of good character being blocked. WP:BOOMERANG should have applied to the petty vindictive request of a liar and a troll." The problem is, that's not an unreasonable opinion. He just can't post it in those words. There are a couple there that he can't use. You should have explained that he can hold any opinions he likes, he just can't post them all and that the issue here is mostly his choice of words. This was a productive editor who deserved to be coached, not blocked from his talk page. But it really went south was when you allowed Bearcat to post this long rant completely disagreeing with everything Barney ever said, going back to the AfD. Bearcat was no less defiant and no less clear about what he thinks. But Bearcat knows to say, "you're the one who's misrepresenting the matter", rather than "you're the one who lied" even though they certainly mean the same thing. Again, you absolutely should have put a stop to that and didn't. Instead, you defended Bearcat's behavior. Up until then, I think your judgment had been poor and I think you made poor choices but it doesn't look to me like you were particularly invested emotionally. I think that changed when Barney responded to that long initial rant from Bearcat by also calling you Bearcat's "pet admin". Anyone here can see you have a thin skin, and that you're quick to take insult and this was about as direct as it gets. I think that's why you decided to allow Bearcat bait him, so that each time Barney responded as predicted, you had a new reason to move him closer to and eventually out the door. I don't know if this was conscious behavior but it's certainly what happened. Each and every one of the following blocks, leading up the final indef even from his talk page happened after Barney responded uncivily to something you had just allowed Bearcat to post. You were complicit in this game of pushing Barney into further breaches and it started after he called you Bearcat's pet admin. Msnicki, you are indeed entitled to your opinion. You shared this at ANI. The community disagreed with your analysis and opinion. I will not respond further, other than say that I do appreciate that at least one other person has a different perspective - that's normal in any community. the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) All of this happened before I spoke up That's when I spoke up. By that point, whatever "path" you think I was on was irrelevant. Barney was already completely out the door, left only with a WP:STANDARDOFFER. I had nothing to do with any of the choices or the outcome I've been complaining about because it all happened before I ever spoke up. I asked you to reconsider your decision and I explained that I was concerned about an appearance that you might have become emotionally involved and that I thought you'd been wrong to allow Bearcat to continue to provoke Barney on his own talk page while Barney was blocked. Per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, I'm entitled to question your decisions and expect thoughtful responses. Instead, I've endured a lot of personal attacks (including the liar word that got Barney in so much trouble) and endless other abuse, continuing, obviously right up to this moment with your demand that I prove my good faith because clearly I've never shown it before, a clear and continuing violation of WP:AGF. When I explain and the community concurs, it's been explained - you don't get to keep beating me with a WP:STICK. Admins are not your personal abuse toys. the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Since then I've explained as best I can that I don't care that you're so uncivil to me personally. This is the internet. It happens all the time. I do care that if you're going to be an admin, especially one who blocks others for being uncivil, that you shouldn't do it yourself. I also care, more deeply, that you show poor judgment, make poor decisions and get poor outcomes and then refuse to explain your actions. I also care a lot that you refused to allow Barney to have a new opportunity to resolve this with a new admin. Instead, pretty much all I've gotten is a lot of tedious and completely irrelevant personal attacks and silly demands to know if I care about your feelings. (A: Not really.) I've never been uncivil to you. Period. See my explanation waaay above about that the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC) What should happen I've been thinking about what I should do and what should happen. First, me. I should take my own advice. On his talk page, I advised Barney that when you find yourself dealing with a difficult person here on WP, you have basically just 3 choices. You can walk away, you can find a way to get along, or you can go at it but coloring only inside the lines. I have tried to get along and I have tried to go at it, trying very hard at ANI to negotiate some way for Barney to get a fresh chance with a different admin and here to see if DP would be willing to respond to my complaint. If DP thinks I've ever been uncivil to him, he's welcome to post the diff. I don't think he can. The third option is you walk away. There's nothing I can achieve here. I have done my best to stand up as a Good Samaritan for Barney and I achieved nothing. I've said I don't think DP should be an admin and explained why but he still is. I'm only a reporter, you've all heard my story and I don't have the power to do anything. There's no reason for me to stick around for a tedious argument questioning my good faith and asking if I've considered DP's feelings. There's nothing I can do here. It is up to you. I've been thinking about why there's no particular process to get someone's adminship revoked. I was delighted when it sounded like NE Ent had discovered the RFCU. But now I know that's little more than an opinion poll. So I've continued to wonder why there's no process. I've decided it's because you don't need one. Admins should be subject to the same guidelines and the same possible sanctions as anyone else. If they violate the guidelines, they should get blocked and have to redeem themselves in the usual ways, demonstrating that they understand how they violated our guidelines and that can follow them in the future. If an admin refuses to do that, he or she should eventually end up with the same WP:STANDARDOFFER that befell Barney. The only problem here is that admins rarely block each other, even for flagrant (as here) violations, violations that would certainly bring blocks against non-admins. This is wrong but again, I have no power to affect this except by pointing out the problem. Per WP:BLOCK, DP has repeatedly met the common rationales for blocks. A block can't be cold block, but it's clear DP has not shown any intent to end the problem behavior or to comply with WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It's an ongoing problem. I recommend that DangerousPanda be blocked for persistent and ongoing violations. Msnicki (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC) I am fully accountable and responsible to the policies I agree to uphold. Are you? This continued manhunt is uncivil. The community spoke. You don't then get to rehash the exact same things in an RFC/U ... and you've been told that already. You don't get to ask the other parent hoping to hear a new answer. the panda ₯’ 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• DP, you and I get along pretty well, and I've commented about you here before (and have done so in a positive way more than in a critical way), but in general, I've not been a critic nor apologist for you, so I would like to think I have a fairly neutral perspective here. Whether you like it or not, this process is going to move forward and likely for some time. Some previous instances of behavior may seem minor to you and others, but a significant number of people disagree, and I believe they do so in good faith. This doesn't mean every comment is accurate, but it means it can't just be dismissed. How you proceed from here is just as important as those events. As someone who recognizes your value here (without being blind to your shortcomings), I would strongly advise you to step back a bit, listen more, and fight your natural instinct to be defensive. The thing about "community expectations for admin" is, it doesn't require or even matter if you agree or disagree with them on a personal level, they simply exist and you and I have to work within them. This is now more than a couple of people who are finding fault, and if you take a harsh or dismissive attitude towards the issue, those numbers will simply grow, and you ensure your perspective will be given less consideration. I know that in your heart, you are a fairly humble guy, but you come across gruff and dismissive even when you don't mean to. Now is exactly the right time to dig a little deeper into that humility well and listen to those with complaints, including at the Arb case. My involvement so far has been purely about procedure and fairness, and I expect that is where it will stay. Where this process leads you is very much up to you, so do yourself a favor: keep calm, listen, and don't be reactive. Dennis - 2¢ 16:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unsuitablity for admin role and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, NE Ent 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

NB, DangerousPanda, there have been a number of statements by arbitrators suggesting that we are awaiting your statement regarding the case. Could you please take the time to do so, or at least let us know whether you intend to engage in the process? Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Have followed up by email... Worm^TT(talk) 09:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi again

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.

---

Hi, Dangerous Panda. I respected your position in June during the contretemps between User:Winkelvi and myself, though I believe that other editor's behavior was let off lightly in our mutual blocking. And I think my belief was accurate since I've only just come back to Wikipedia after the frustration of that whole incident — and within days that editor was back on my talk page to bait me. When I responded on his talk page he first bragged about how he told me "fuck off" in June, and then began cursing me again freshly: [3].

I believed back in June that there was something alarmingly angry and antagonistic about this person, and from the looks of things, I was correct. I've asked User:Dennis Brown for help and advice, since he was involved in June as well and felt, wrongly, I believe, that I was baiting Winkelvi. I swear to you as a generally well-regarded editor for over nine years that I was not. So I have to ask now: Is he going to be allowed to curse me and harass me?

To reiterate what I wrote Dennis: I swear I was minding my own business, and he came to my page unsolicited, for no good reason and with incorrect information. I quoted to him the infobox template that shows he is incorrect, and yet he keeps ignoring it while asking me to give him documentation. If nothing else, can we agree he shouldn't be throwing around the f-word with other editors?--Tenebrae (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are important here: This edit [4] prompted me to attempt to inform Tenebrae with a good faith effort that his reversion was questionable and why [5]. The article he edited is on my watchlist, and I was about to deal with a pending reversion there, that's why I knew he had reverted the edit to begin with. After reading my post on his page, his response was to not WP:AGF and accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not) [6]. He then proceeded to my own talk page and left the following [7] and, after reading a communication between me and another editor, took it upon himself to disparage me at another editor's talkpage here [8]. Ironically, he keeps returning to my talkpage to continue accusing me of bad faith actions and harassment [9]. All I did was try to inform Tenabrae of something I thought he might be unaware of. That's it. The drama has come only from Tenabrae. With all of his follow up posts at my talkpage as well as the talkpages of others (including yours), the only harassment I see is coming from the drama created by Tenabrae. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda is a bit tied up, both in real life and with other duties here, so probably isn't going to have time to respond. I'm going to do my best to simply comment from the sidelines, without getting dragged into it. As for Chris Evans and "spouse", I see that one person and their IP sock has already been blocked for edit warring over it, and I see a distinct lack of discussion on the talk page. Like many other content issues, I'm betting this is part of the problem: too much action, not enough discussion. This is what BLPN and RFCs are made for. As for "F-bombs", there is a distinct difference between "I wasn't fucking baiting you" and "fuck off". To be fair, he wasn't cursing you, he was cursing in your presence. Is it crass? Perhaps, I probably use the word too much in the real world, so I understand how someone would here, but crass isn't the same as uncivil or personal attack. We really can't do anything about crass. Now Tenebrae, you question my judgement back a few months ago, and by all means, that is your right and I won't debate you. All I can do is offer my perspective. You are welcome to get another admin's perspective as well (although I don't recommend dragging this to ANI). I personally think you are sweating small stuff (cussing) and it isn't serving you well. That said, Winkelvi, the previous "fuck off" comment isn't something I recommend repeating, but I am guessing I told you that the first time, so I won't labor it here. Dennis - 2¢ 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Pardon me for butting in--Tenebrae, you know I'm a straight shooter: I think you're overexaggerating a bit. Take it easy. Winkelvi has a tendency to get hot-headed sometimes, but there's nothing here to get upset about.

  Now, can we talk content a bit? If Stan and Evans are indeed each others' spouses, legally in some states but not others or whatever, our infobox can reflect that. Nothing wrong with having a same-sex spouse. But here, ahem, I don't think these guys are gay, and I don't think they're married to each other, legally or spiritually or common-lawly. As for blocks and all that, you should see the blocks I threw around yesterday: Dustbinnostrils, 75.80.47.160, Fandom edits, Evanstansus. I was already thinking this was a 4chan thing. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. I know admins have a tough job, dealing with personality and policy disputes on what seems a near-constant basis.

I'd like to make three points.

Tolerating editors who tell others to "stay the fuck off" a page is bad for Wikipedia. It engenders an atmosphere palatable only to angry, poorly socialized white guys in their 20s. It's disrespectful and a distinct turnoff to, among others, older editors, women, and many ethnic and religious groups — see how much a committed Christian or Muslim appreciates being told to "stay the fuck off"

If we want Wikipedia to be uninviting except to people like Winkelvi, then by all means let it slide. Yet I can't help feeling odd about this: If I start telling people to "fuck off" when I'm upset with them, that's OK, you're saying? Or are you saying it's OK for Winkelvi to use that kind of language but not me? I'd be interested in hearing the rationale if that's the case.

Second, as for use of the word "spouse" in this context: The Infobox Person template draws a distinction between "spouse" and "partner." I don't believe we can unilaterally decide to change the meaning of "spouse" in this context without community consensus. Speaking strictly personally, as someone with many gay friends, married and not, it demeans the fight for marriage equality if we use the term spouse so loosely. Be that as it may, Winkelvi's claim is 1) not the dictionary definition, 2) not the mainstream-public definition, 3) definitely not universal among gays, as my gay friends make very clear, and perhaps most significantly, 4) not the Wikipedia template's definition.

Finally, after everything Winkelvi did in June, including demanding I stay "the fuck off" his talk page, there is no reason whatsoever for his coming to my talk page except to deliberately stir up trouble. He could have made the very same point on the article talk page(s). I was minding my business, not even thinking about him, when he came to my page. That's what started things. Why?

Given Winkelvi's "crass" and "hotheaded" behavior, as the two posts above themselves describe it, I'm perplexed as to why he's allowed to get away such behavior. What gives him the right? I don't understand why it's considered OK. How is such behavior good for Wikipedia?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that many people will occasionally say "fuck off". I don't remember doing it here, but in the real world, yes, I've told someone to fuck off more than once in my life. Probably once every year or two. Granted, in the real world, when I get fed up, I can be crass, I won't deny it. I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem. If it isn't a habit, then it is just a singular rude overreaction. I tend to not get involved with singular instances of someone having a bad day, and realistically, I have no idea how your day was, or Drmies, or Winkelvis. We are human, we all can be asses some times. We can forgive small amounts, be the better person, as long as it isn't a daily thing. If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you. As for Muslims or Christians, I don't make any determinations based on my impression of anyones religion, nor do I use my own religious views as a measuring stick here. As admin, that would be inappropriate to do so. I would also note that I know plenty of very devout Christian who swear plenty, and I know atheists who never swear, so I'm not convinced someone's religion is a major factor in how offensive that is. It is to most everyone, lets just work with that. That is why is should be rare.

As for "spouse", I'm going to stay out of it. It isn't my specialty, and that is a landmine of a discussion that I don't want to enter simply because I'm too ignorant of the nomenclature to be of any use to anyone. I know what my gay friends say about it, but that isn't a universal view, nor a policy view, so I just won't say. Besides, those are issues for editors to resolve. Me acting as an admin, I have exactly zero authority to decide. Dennis - 2¢ 23:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I am truly perplexed by Tenebrae's accusation that my only purpose for going to his talk page was to harass him and "stir up trouble". I could understand him feeling that way if I had been brash, "crass", or rude in the comments I left. But none of that happened. I already explained what my purpose in going there was what I stated on his talk page. That's all there was to it. I had even forgotten about our conflict a few months ago and didn't remember what had occurred until he came to my talk page, brought it up, and made baseless accusations there as well as in the edit summary he left when deleting my comments. The proverbial straw was when he then headed straight for an uninvolved editor's talk page to post disparaging and disrespectful and totally unnecessary comments about me there. Like I stated above, the only drama here is coming from Tenabrae. Even after this episode, I'm willing to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones - to edit in the future with him collegially and peacefully. I have serious doubts -- based on him flying off the handle and making this whole thing into something it's not -- that he will be willing to do the same. But it would be a nice surprise if he proves me wrong. As far as the content discussed re: "spouse". Tenabrae's take on how the gay community addresses the issue is incorrect. "Spouse" has been used and continues to be used by gay and lesbian couples for decades to describe a significant other in a long-term, committed same-sex relationship. The reason being that commitment ceremonies of many types have been occurring long before same-sex marriage was legalized. "Spouse" is most certainly a term used in legal AND non-legal same-sex relationships. Whether that fits Wikipedia policy or not, I don't know for certain. Regardless, that wasn't the point of my post on his page anyway, my point was that the content added was unreferenced and that was why it needed to go. Sadly, what was meant to be just a friendly FYI from me to Tenabrae has turned into a dramatic over-reaction that just didn't need to happen. I hope he can see his way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting his grudge against me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't edit-war with an other editor, telling him "fuck this" and "fuck that" and create an environment where I was so frustrated to deal with inappropriate behavior by someone who's put a book on his User's page that can have no other reason to be there except to say, "Oh, look! I can behave as badly as I want to and tell people to fuck off ...but I can't help it, it's the mental illness!" That's not a get-out-of-jail-free card ... you're still responsible for basic actions, such as not telling people "fuck this" and "fuck that" and for not poking a stick at someone. You were under no requirement to comment anywhere but on the article talk page. Instead, you deliberately chose to come to my talk page and poke at me. Having the audacity, after everything you did, to come poke me is harassment.

And Dennis, I'm sorry you feel it's OK for Winkelvi to tell me "fuck this" and "fuck that." Like most people, I curse in real life as well. But you missed the point in quibbling with my examples: Wikipedia is supposed to be a respectful and collegial environment, and having foulmouthed editors who create a a hostile environment is antithetical to that. I guess I do have to take this to the Civility noticeboard to start. I asked for help, and you side with the angry, poorly socialized man who screams curses and obscenities at other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And Winkelvi is a liar as well. RE: "accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not)." He most certainly did.

• How about this excerpt: "(as if it's any of your fucking business). And if you keep this bullshit up on my talk page, I'll remove your comments as well. Simply because you're starting to really piss me off..." [10]
• Or this edit summary: "now stay away from my talk page and fuck off" [11] Which I hope Dennis Brown will note is a personal attack: It's not the adjective form "stay off my fucking page" but the verb form "fuck you." Why is an admin letting that personal attack slide?
• When an editor starts an ANI, he is required to let the other editor know. I had no choice but to post the ANI notice on his talk page. Despite this requirement, this is how he responds: "(→‎ANI: stay the fuck off my damn talk page)" [12]
• We're also required to post 3RR notices. So he falsely accuses me of harassment though according to Wikipedia 3RR reporting policy I had no choice put to post a 3RR warning: "(→‎3RR: already told you to stay the hell off my talk page, this is now harassment)' [13]. Shortly after that, Dangerous Panda blocked him. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:05, 5 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.

Evading block/falsifying articles

Hello. This IP is falsifying Afghans in Iran. I'm reporting it to you because I noticed that you wrote this and checked this IP and then I checked both IPs' location which is the same city, both IPs from that city are editing the same articles and writing exactly as this person who lives in that same city.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklane Rejection 18 June 2014

Hi DangerousPanda, Thank you for reviewing my article on the company Blacklane on 18 June. You said that it didn't sound objective enough, so I have made a whole bunch of changes now and have resubmitted it. I was hoping you might take a look at it, as you are one of the people who has already read through it and therefore know a bit about it already. Also, if you still don't consider it ready for exposure, could you possibly give me some suggestions as to how I can change it? I decided to take it on as a response to a request in the "Requested articles" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies and am determined not to give up! It'd be great if you could help me out! Thank you! All the best, -- Reconnamon (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Good faith effort to resolve long term admin conduct issues

Hi DangerousPanda. As I mentioned on Jehochman's talk page here I have concerns about your fitness for adminship because of your demeanor when interacting with other editors and in some cases, your judgment when using your admin privileges. As you know, similar concerns about temperament and civility were raised in your RfAs.

I think you do a lot of good work here, but your interpersonal skills need a lot of improvement. Your judgment is sometimes questionable, and you sometimes act in haste.

I would like to discuss these concerns directly with you, without distracting comments from other users. My hope is that you will acknowledge that these conduct issue are problematic as a whole, and that you will undertake to change them.

There are areas where I believe your conduct fall shorts of what the WP:ADMIN policy requires of admins. If these were occasional lapses they could easily be overlooked, but they seem to form a pattern.

Relevant WP:ADMIN policy excerpts

“Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.” “... consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.” “..., if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.” “In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases… to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors).”

Examples of incivility, rudeness and disrespect

Context provided in the diffs. This is a short list of comments from the past year.

1. “I'm sure something could be worked out if The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric”
2. “for the hard of hearing”
3. “You need to screw off with the suggestion that I'm trying to make him "knuckle under" and the "gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave" bullshit.”
4. “so seriously, screw off with that bullshit.”
5. “That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language.”
6. “Who says I'm going to handle anything? Jumping off into bizarre conclusions, aren't you? You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me before coming here, rather than attacking and making random, unfounded accusations. All the best to you - I have little time for people who choose this bizarre stance”
7. “WTF! Discussion belongs on article talkpage, not here - spamming links - especially to a primary source that is unacceptable doesn't belong ANYWHERE” (edit summary)
8. “Go ask the closing admin” (In response to a editor's request for an RfC close review)

Ratcheting up drama

[14][15][16]

Poor judgment and acting in haste

• Edit warring block of Flyer22 for two reverts
• Unilaterally unblocking Eric Corbett four hours after he was blocked, with an edit summary "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA". Then refusing to consider comments that were logged in the discussion following the unblock, and dismissing the concerns of several editors as "emotional". See User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 14#Unfortunate

Not responding well to criticism

• “That one's even more false. Hell, did you even read my extensive analysis? WTF is this, "fuck the Panda over day"? I didn't get a card for that in the mail. C'mon Ed, everything I typed today is in English”

I don't think a long list of diffs is necessary, but I'm happy to provide more if necessary. The reason I'm raising this and the reason that I endorsed NE Ent's RfC/U is because of the visceral reaction I have whenever I see your signature on a noticeboard or user talk page. I cringe at the thought that someone has just been talked down to, cussed out, taken to school, or otherwise subjected to rudeness or hostility.

I don't think I have personal issue with you. I'm torn to some degree because on one hand, your decisiveness and no-nonsense approach can be an asset to the project if tempered with restraint, self-reflection and patience. On the other hand, if, when I first started editing here, I had been treated the way I have seen you treat other editors, I would have quietly walked away and never looked back.

Again, my hope is that you will consider what I have said, change your approach, and put this kind of non-admin-like conduct behind you. The ball is in your court.- MrX 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX:, I appreciate the calm, polite elements above. Some of the above is going to be difficult to address, based in part on it being "opinion" of one or many people when just as many people have the opposite opinion. Obviously, those kinds of things will always be difficult to "resolve". A great many are also pulled completely out-of-context, while others have indeed already been resolved. One of the apparently ironic things: when wrongly accused of being uncivil, it appears I often become uncivil :-) That's probably a cultural reaction more than anything, but yes, one to be curbed. More to come after I have had some time to review and reflect. the panda ₯’ 11:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Responses

MrX, I'm going to take these 1 at a time as they take extensive research in some cases. In some ways, these answer may appear to be justification, but that's not the intent - I'm trying to explain because you're right, if people don't know what's going through my mind, they often make up their own stuff :-) the panda ₯’ 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The "I'm sure something could be worked out" comment: Yeah, I lost it on my colleague admin - but you already know why, I believe, and my colleagues know better than to do what happened in he first place (that said, someone else's incivility never excuses my own...usually). In case you didn't read the details, as has already been expressed, I changed usernames for privacy reasons - some user of another website "distantly related" to Wikipedia actually phoned my house. In The ed's original post, he re-used that same username TWICE, which possibly put my family at risk again. He also had made tremendously inappropriate comments, included massive WP:ABF, and escalated what could have been an easily resolved situation - and that was detrimental to the other user's well-being. As you have seen, The ed later redacted and apologized for doing so, and recognized that his statements needlessly escalated the entire thing. Did I respond well? No - but I take possible threats to my family very seriously, and I'm certain you can understand. Will I endeavour to say "meh" when people do that in the future? I'll try - but if I perceive a threat, I will act to quash any threat.
• The "You need to screw off with the suggestion" comment:
• The "so seriously" comment:
• The "That's the most ridiculous paragraph" comment:
• The "Who says I'm going to handle anything" comment:
• The "WTF! Discussion belongs on article talkpage, not here" comment:
• The "Go ask the closing admin"comment:
• Ratcheting up drama 1:
• Ratcheting up drama 2:
• Ratcheting up drama 3:
• Ratcheting up drama 4:
• Flyer 22:
• Eric Corbett:
• The "That one's even more false" comment:

Hi DP. I really appreciate your willingness to dialog. I posted some examples of comments and conduct that I quickly gleaned from the past few months. My intention was not for you to have to defend or explain each one, but to recognize that these incidents are not rare, and in fact they are quite common. To put it another way: the overall admin fitness issue that I raised will not be resolved by you defending each of these examples. May I propose that instead we discuss your conduct at a high level, and introduce examples and explanations only as necessary?

My view, and the view of the community as expressed in policy, is that admins need to be cool headed almost all of the time, even when provoked. It's understandable that many people blow their tops occasionally. The concern is that these outbursts, taken in consideration with the sometimes sarcastic, condescending, and authoritarian tone that you frequently use, leaves one wondering if you're not operating in a near-constant stress mode. - MrX 14:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: You put some odd examples then ... sometimes in odd orders too! But they do, in some cases help establish something else. ArbComm has, for example, essentially stated that "baiting" is unacceptable behaviour. No editor - admin, IP, named account - can bait another party with impunity. For example, we CANNOT ever put ourselves into someone's head and ascribe meaning to their actions. So, if editor A says to editor B "you did this because you were thinking XYZ!", and editor B says "um, no...guaranteed, no", then it is wholly inappropriate for editor A to continue baiting editor B with that same or similar statements.

I'm aware that "perception" takes over, and the written word has its challenges. However, we as a community of interest has to take WP:AGF at face value, and thus value the statements of our editing colleagues. A further extension of this is treating people like adults. Hell, I'm in my mid-30's, there NO need to tell me to stay away from something if it's blatantly obvious that I should stay away from something. Respect is a 2-way street, as is civility. You cannot poke and poke and poke and then be shocked when you get an actual human response from anybody.

Am I saying that in most of the cases you provided above I was provoked? In these cases above, yes. Is it that way in all cases? Admittedly and absolutely, no. Can I say for certain that someone has got angry a number of times on Wikipedia because they either misread my comments, or ascribed their own meaning to it? Yes. In most cases, after a quick clarification between 2 editors, everything went well - I'm a pretty approachable guy as long as someone approaches me with a willingness to AGF.

Try as anyone might, we can never make our words so bulletproof that someone won't misread them. I make a living with the written word, and obviously I still don't always get my point across correctly. There is always going to be some form of interpretation/filtering, and it's not intentional by any of us. If we are, indeed, an AGF-community, then if someone misreads my comment, and I explain/correct it ... then we're all REQUIRED to AGF that that was indeed what was meant. I am human. We're all human. We have backgrounds, histories, differing levels of education, various levels of English grammar. Because of the variances of the human condition, we have no choice but to AGF if we're going to act as a community. I can only think of twice in all my years here where I ever intended to insult or condescend (there, I admitted it).

Twice.

Period.

Above all, the one thing that people know about me here is I don't bullshit about what I mean. Period. If I say "look, I never intended to insult you", then it means I never intended what I typed to come across as an insult, and I'm honestly sorry if it did. It means nothing else, and you can take my statement to the bank.

Now, if you'll excuse me for a bit, we have a bit of a serious incident in the heart of my city, and since I still carry Kevlar, a Camera, and a Notepad, I have a few things to do the panda ₯’ 15:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. I take you at your word that you usually don't intend to insult other users, but the bare reality is that you frequently do. Being baited or provoked is not a license to respond in kind (see Jehochman's insightful suggestions below). This is especially true of admins, whose words carry significantly more authority and impact that the other users. In this exchange (full context here), Msnicki made a good faith attempt to intervene. Your intemperate reaction included an edit summary of "enough of the bullshit" and a suggestion for her to "screw off". Other options available to you were to disagree with her, debate her on the merits of her suggestion or simply ignore her. Unfortunately, you took to low road. Perhaps it made you feel vindicated for a brief few seconds, but I bet you wish you could take back those words. By the way, I say this having fully endorsed your block of Barney the barney barney.

You say that can't control how others interpret your words. Indeed you can, by not responding off-the-cuff and by phrasing things more diplomatically. Almost all of our other admins manage to do it because it's what the community (and society) expects. - MrX 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I hope you stay safe in Ottawa. This discussion can continue when you get back. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi DangerousPanda. Please let me know if and when you are willing to resume our discussion.- MrX 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MrX, as per my email, please be patient: we had in incident that my work life required me to throw on the Kevlar and get busy on. Yeah, I've poked around a some UAA and RFUB for a few minutes here and there, but not enough time on Wikipedia since last Wednesday to follow up. This quite obviously has nothing to do with "willingness", so if you don't mind me saying, I find that suggestion rather insulting the panda ₯’ 10:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't leave you with the impression that I thought the discussion had concluded. I look forward to continuing it when you return.- MrX 17:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: I appreciate your patience. I set aside this conversation so that I could try and sincerely focus on Msnicki's concerns, and work together with her. Unfortunately, I've now seen that she does not have a desire to work together, and that saddens me that I spent so much emotional capital on that only to find that someone was insincere - that's disheartening. I will now be returning to this discussion - sorry for putting yours aside, but I can only handle one such emotional conversation at a time. I do hope you were not insulted the panda ₯’ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: I see that this section was auto-archived while I was away, and I have undone that. Obviously, it's always been my intent to proceed with this discussion, but real life takes precedence. Now that I'm back from my trip, and mother-in-law is out of hospital, how do you wish to proceed? the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi DP. Since the dispute about your admin conduct has escalated to a full Arbcom case, it would not be productive to continue discussing it here.- MrX 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, Arb members were awaiting our discussion. You were away (which is your right), and now it'll become a case, rather than dealing with it in the most drama-free method, which is always preferred. Unfortunate that you'll now get lumped into it from the wrong side as "the guy who could have prevented it". Cheers the panda ₯’ 18:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin judgement

In light of your recent very limited time on Wikipedia, I was surprised that you found time for this block of Rm w a vu, an editor who has contributed for a least the past eight years and who has never been blocked before. There are several aspects of this incident that elevate my concern about your judgement as an administrator.

• Rm w a vu has contributed to Wikipedia for at least eight years (ten, according to him)
• Rm w a vu has never been blocked before
• Rm w a vu has never previously been warned for edit warring
• You blocked Rm w a vu for 36 hours. Isn't the norm for a first block to be 24 hours? (See WP:EW#Administrator guidance)
• The other two editors (Adamstom.97 and TriiipleThreat) were also edit warring. Did you consider page protection as an option?
• TriiipleThreat warned Rm w a vu and 12 minutes later reported him to ANEW although Rm w a vu had made no further edits. You then blocked Rm w a vu 39 minutes later.
• Rm w a vu was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself in the the ANEW case, which he pointed out to you here and which your rather condescending response ignored.

Given the recent scrutiny of your admin conduct, I would think that you would err on the side of restraint when considering blocking someone, especially since similar blocks have been criticised in the past.- MrX 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What a pile of bollocks, that guy had 5 reverts. so 36 hours is appropriate, and he did not need warning on editwarring, he choose to file an editwar report after all, so knew what 3RR was all about. I am not a great fan of DP, but he is not the crappy admin a fair few here seem to be making him out to be. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your colourful comment, some of which is factually accurate, but I'm hoping to discuss this one-on-one with DP as mentioned upthread.- MrX 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur with MrX's concerns. Blocking is a last resort, not a first resort, and if the user has been warned, it is best to wait and see if the warning has an effect before elevating the response to a block. Under normal circumstances this would just be a sub-optimal handling; but while you have an arbitration case pending, to which you haven't yet responded (and which is causing a great deal of time investment by many other editors), you would be wise to cease further administrative actions. Will you agree to that condition? Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Indeed, blocking is a last resort. Someone who edit-wars, and goes to AN/3RR to report that the other people are meatpuppets who are edit-warring with him is unfortunately a last-resort situation. I was very willing to unblock them, as I noted - but they first had to show understanding, as per wP:GAB the panda ₯’ 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions by Jehochman

Let me introduce three resources that could help you in situations where somebody is making you, DP, upset:

1. If a remark is rude, unfair or very stupid, feel free not to respond, especially not to respond immediately. Silence is sometimes an appropriate response.
2. Before responding, take a look at How to Disagree. In your own response, try to maintain the highest standard: refuting the central point. If the other person is doing worse, identify what they are doing, such as "You're just calling me names. You aren't refuting my argument."
3. There's an excellent book called The Civility Solution: What to Do When People Are Rude.

Regardless of whether you have been meeting admin standards of behavior or not, it would be beneficial for you to work on your skills. Skills aren't innate; you have to develop them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I liked that Paul Graham, "How to Disagree" article, especially as it gets to the heart of the dialogue I wish I could have with DP. In the Barney incident, the incivility I experienced was the level 1 stuff Graham is talking about. I've been online over 30 years going back to USENET. By now I've got a pretty thick skin and it's hard to make me care that someone I don't even know was rude to me on the internet. I find it tedious to argue about whether DP's initial response was uncivil in no small part because I've been mentally filtering this stuff for decades and I don't care that he was rude to me personally. I do care that admins simply should not do this, especially if they expect to block others for this same behavior, and that I can't get past that tedious level 1 discussion to talk about the level 6 issues, what Graham calls the Central Point. For me, that central point is the poor judgment and poor choices resulting in poor outcomes. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, I am glad you like the article. Yes, admins should set good examples of how to behave, but they are human too, and make mistakes. So, you've been around a long time. Do you remember UUCP mail routing? Coredumps? PDP-11's? Ah, the good old days. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure do. My first USENET post in mid-80s, something about oversampling that can still be found in the Google archives, shows my path as utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!(redacted). And I sure do remember core dumps, but I worked on S/360s and HP minis like the 2100, not the DEC stuff. Msnicki (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Msnicki: In my rare spare time over the last couple of days, I've been trying to put together a clear English explanation surrounding the paragraph that I took offense to, and then you took offense to my reply. Prior to that moment, we had a fair amount of only positive interactions - so I was indeed surprised by the response - especially knowing that I had no intent to insult or be uncivil in my reply. I felt at the time that I was merely breaking down the logic in your paragraph, not attacking the person delivering the message. However, based on the path you've gone down since that time, I need to know if you're actually open-minded about hearing my side (you've unfortunately not shown signs of that up until now), or if you're simply going to say "wrong" and continue the panda ₯’ 10:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you're busy, so I'm going to give you time to think about whether that's your best response before I reply. Feel free to delete this if you decide to make any changes. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand? Of course it's not a response...I asked you a question in order to find out if it was worth putting together my response, or if you were simply going to discount my feelings the panda ₯’ 19:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I wanted to be sure you weren't rushed. But if you have time to get back to blocking, I suppose you've had the time you need to think about your response to me. Please see below for my thoughts. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Msnicki, I asked you a question - I asked if it was even worth my time responding to your concerns, because I NEEDED to know whether or not you had made up your mind, or were actually PLANNING on working together. I waited 2 days for your reply. Instead of replying, and giving me the warm fuzzies that you actually intended to work together, you posted your stuff below. I believe that means your answer was that you refused to work together to ensure we were both working for the betterment of the community the panda ₯’ 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion from someone else

Hello DangerousPanda. I stumbled across this recent activity which, at the very least, indicates that some users want to interact with you directly, and specifically, to discuss perceptions of your conduct. I even see you address a concern here or there., but nothing sufficiently tangible so as to suggest that you value the feedback, or understand why some editors feel so compelled at this time to give theirs. I think it would be in keeping with your stronger attributes to voluntarily opened an administrative review in your name. What do you think of this suggestion?—John Cline (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Popped home to grab a change of clothes and was surprised to see this User:John Cline. What, in any of my above words (that are clearly trying to address the situation as a whole, the feelings of those who decided it was time to take some form of action, and even those who have been extremely supportive of me) are you finding that I am failing to "value the feedback" or "understand why some editors feel so compelled...to give theirs"?? I'm absolutely nothing but accepting, valuing, and supporting of the feedback I have seen, and am trying to engage the feelings, concerns and desires of everyone involved. Please do not question my sincerity and concern when the written proof is quite the opposite! the panda ₯’ 14:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my poorly constructed comment. I was trying to convey something very different than what has come of it. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is very encouraging! So, dp, what do you think of Jehochman's three suggestions above? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: The first two are exceptionally doable, and I'll certainly begin doing so immediately (especially the first). The third might take a little longer, and without reading I cannot comment on its efficacy the panda ₯’ 23:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

I [...] have also worked my butt off to get the apology from another admin that you're dying to have ... [...] the panda ₯’ 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC) It's perpetual dishonesty from you, Panda. (If what you say were true, then reasonably, you would have gone to/followed up at the admin-in-question's Talk. You didn't. Bullshit posturing. Your norm.) I suggest that you learn to close your mouth Panda -- whatever you say is usually not in your best interest. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I posted again and again on ANI about it, and emailed him twice. Not sure what "bullshit posturing" or "dishonesty" that is, but thanks for coming by and showing your appreciation - I will indeed take the above as a thank you, as painful as it was for you to say the panda ₯’ 02:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You know damn well that wasn't a thank you. But you'd rather snark (again), and lie (again). Go blow, DanderousPanda. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello DangerousPanda. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Political advice from a political animal

I personally don't have a problem with you continuing to hold tools, I really don't. You, like I, seem to have a hot temper when set off (something not ideal for an administrator with a functioning block button, obviously) but I haven't noticed a spate of problems in the last year and have heard from someone off wiki that you are making a good faith effort to mellow things out. Credit for that, and I mean that most seriously. At this point, however, it looks like ArbCom is going to take the case. I suggest that it would be best to avoid a Six Week Hate, in which every enemy you have ever had dredges up diffs for every mistake you have ever made and with malicious glee stabs you with them. It makes political sense to me to simply resign tools "under a cloud" (as the expression goes) and to live a happy life as a Wikipedian without the tool box. (It is actually quite liberating not to be an administrator and not to have any aspirations of becoming an administrator, frankly). This is much better than the other strategy, fighting it out and maybe keeping tools, maybe not, but being mauled by an ugly lynch mob in the process and poisoned towards the project. Its a hard step, I know, but in the long run I think you will be much happier (and the project will be much stronger for having you as a continued contributor). Then, several years from now, if it's really that important to you to regain buttons (although it should not be, really), just run the RFA gauntlet again. Anyway, that's the way I'd play it if I were in your situation. best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) /// Carrite (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Oddly enough, I've never used tools when "angry" - so maybe that's one thing on my side :-) the panda ₯’ 23:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding you has been opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 3, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Please remember, my in-laws are visiting from halfway around the other side of the planet, and I have limited time on Wikipedia the panda ₯’ 23:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at a few of the accusations, just out of curiosity and to learn how the wiki operates. It seems like in nearly every case I reviewed, you're only in attack-mode after you've been attacked. Have you considered some form of wiki-representation to help you respond? (Is that even wiki-permitted?) Djcheburashka (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrators are expected not to respond in kind to hostility. I think that Dangerous Panda should make a serious commitment to that principle, or if he does not want to, he may choose to contribute to Wikipedia in some other capacity, rather than serving as an administrator. On Wikipedia each user is expected to represent themselves; we don't have lawyers or agents here. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I have already expressed my sincere commitment to that principle to you directly, and repeatedly elsewhere. the panda ₯’ 11:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Panda. I've been looking over the evidence and see that the first two points from Kurtis' evidence were discussions in 2012 between you and I. I'd honestly forgotten both of them. I don't believe I have any need to recuse from the case, but I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. I'm happy to leave it to the other arbitrators depending on your opinion. Worm^TT(talk) 09:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Dave, my in-laws leave this week end, I'll be able to review and comment upon what's been said early next week. I'm honestly not even sure what I'm supposed to do in an Arb case! Thanks for your patience. the panda ₯’ 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Ok, I'm back ... I'll take a bit of time to get familiar with the case before I head to work the panda ₯’ 10:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for DangerousPanda arbitration case

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the proposed decision DangerousPanda arbitration case has been posted. Relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I left a country where in absentia trials were the norm. My family left there for a good reason. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia file upload wizard is horrivle!

this page is so difficult to upload photos - it took me twnety minutes jsut to upload one photo!

wikipedia file upload wizard is horrivle!

this page is so difficult to upload photos - it took me twnety minutes jsut to upload one photo!