Jump to content

User talk:DangerousPanda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unscintillating (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 30 July 2014 (move edit conflicted questions to new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations
AWAYThis user is non-permanently away from Wikipedia as of August 4, 2014. This is because I'm away in Europe on business. Don't worry, this page is being occasionally monitored by my friendly talkpage stalkers
Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.




UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. the panda ₯’

Vident Financial page

Re: notability. As is noted in the entry, IBD called VIDI "by far the most successful ETF launch this year," and the CEO was invited to ring the NASDAQ's closing bell. But more relevant is that there have been numerous articles about the launch of this fund (I've cited several) focused around the fund's criteria for investment, which is fundamentally different from others in the field (ditto for the ownership structure).

I'm perfectly happy to cite even more articles to establish this, but it'd be nice to get some guidance on how many are necessary, rather than add one or two more, wait, and then find out that apparently it still doesn't satisfy the criteria. Especially when one reviewer tells me it's just about acceptable, and another says it has "zero importance." TWTCommish (talk)TWTCommish

Taio Cruz

I am not going to have another try at changing the TC page as I can see that you are an experienced editor. However, the page has apparently been used as PR for the artist in the past and the same thing seems to be happening again. Holly har (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been used for PR - hence the removal of their website as a source. Keep your eye on it, and still keep working at it the panda ₯’ 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender template

That {{they|DangerousPanda}} is handy, thanks for the tip! Hmm... it shows "they" for Bishonen but "she" for the dainty Bishzilla. Which is just as it should be. Or, hmmm... maybe I should change the "identifies as" thing in my prefs after all. I assume that's what does it. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Bish, it is useful ... I think there's an easier one somewhere, but that one's useful in mid-sentence. I think there is a possessive version too. It does read your gender pref...which for dainty monsters would be a challenge. After all, many monsters have genetic relationships to dino's and some amphibians that can change gender if needed :-) the panda ₯’ 16:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the sweet little twins, Bishapod's socks, long ago identified their genders very properly in their prefs, so {{they|Darwinbish}} and {{they|Darwinfish}} will show who's who. That's besides the fact that they constantly refer to each other as "my gormless brother" and "my evil sister". And still people will tend to assume that the bitey, evil Darwinbish is the boy and the harmless Darwinfish is the girl! That's what I call sexism! Bishonen | talk 17:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Link, please

Hi, DP. Re: this comment,[1] could you please provide a link to the ArbCom that decided this? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look up Eric Corbett or his previous username. Heck, look up "cunt" - it was all over the ArbCom case the panda ₯’ 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is the ArbCom case that you're referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, I see no statement that says "'Cunt' is not blockable." The word isn't even on the Main case page or in the Proposed decision. It appears frequently on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but I see nothing that says the word isn't blockable. What the findings say is that although Malleus Fatuorum has a "history of making valuable editorial contributions to the project," he also "has also personalized disputes to the point of making personal attacks, and has made provocative and/or uncivil comments." (Only a handful of "numerous" examples given.) It also says that MF "has been blocked 13 times for incivility and disruption." (This was as of February 2012.)
This only strengthens the argument that EC (AKA Malleus Fatuorum) was making a personal attack when he said, "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one," in a discussion about civility that, up until that point, was quite civil.
If you want to present evidence to the contrary, I'll read it, but I'm not going to do your work for you. It's your position to prove, not mine. Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that ArbCom refused to take specific action, even though Eric used "cunt" is unfortunately proof that it's not blockable, depending how it's used. The policy WP:NPA is clear: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors" (emphasis mine). The words "directed against" are vital. If I randomly say "cunt", am I directing it at anyone? If I say "User:XQTYXYZ is a cunt", then yes I am. the panda ₯’ 20:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that ArbCom refused to take specific action...." MF was topic-banned and admonished. Those are specific actions. I think this bickering has gone on long enough. I have other things to do, don't you? I certainly don't wish to talk any further about a two-and-one-half year old action against an editor who has since changed his username, if not his habits. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He changed his name to his real name. The point remains that is isn't the specific words we use, it is how we use them that matters. That is the very core of how admin react to any behavioral situation, attacks really aren't tolerated, and we don't discriminate or favor anyone because of race, religion, culture or gender. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (again)

Thanks (I pressed the 'thanks' button but I felt it was not enough). I went through sheer hell on my own RfA, and as you know, I led that ill fated RfA reform project some years ago. I do my best - but I can't guarantee it all the time ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for [2] — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate

Just as at ANI, AN, and every other place that this specific set of incidents have been discussed, there are basically 2 polar opposite camps. For some, I'm a hero (which I'm not, thank you), for others I'm the biggest asshole on the planet (which I'm also not). I am not nor have I ever been an enabler of incivility or personal attacks. I've written essays on the importance of civility, and it remains one of my cornerstones. I would put $100 that Eric is extremely surprised that I, of all people, was the person who unblocked. Indeed, I'm as surprised as anyone else. But the entire incident taken in context is what led to the unblock - there was indeed no consensus to keep him blocked; period. There's no consensus below to have kept him blocked. Simple as that. Now, I have an early morning flight on an ugly grey airplane, will be in Rumania for a couple of days, and expect to be back in a few, God willing. Be nice to each other the panda ₯’ 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find it fascinating that you have such a fluid interpretation of WP:NPA that you could consider "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" not to be a personal attack, but would consider "I noted that discussion is open for other editors and I would like to objectively discuss with anyone who is rational and reasonable." a personal attack.

You should not have unblocked Eric Corbett, and claiming consensus for doing so is absurd. The drama would have dissipated by simply closing the discussion. Why you chose to use your admin tools to further inflame the drama is beyond my comprehension.- MrX 17:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a poor move. The block was valid under the NPA policy which enjoys consensus. While you may have certain opinions about our NPA policies the use of admin tools should be based off of consensus. NPA enjoys wide consensus and while there are a small group of people who disagree with it they have no influenced the consensus at this policy. I left my trout at home so no fish for you today. Chillum 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BWilkins, your claim of "consensus" for your actions in that discussion is absolutely untenable, and if you have any sense of responsibility at all, you should reverse the administrator action you've taken there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add my voice asking you to reverse this, or to ask another administrator to do it for you if you'd like to disengage. This is an editor who was being deliberately provocative by saying "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" in a discussion that was already, in part, about his repeated problems with incivility. In the discussion that ensued there is nothing that I see to justify your unblock summary saying "it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA". I see no one who has claimed that that insult, clearly directed at a particular editor, was not in fact a personal attack per the terms of policy. Some people did say he should be given a pass because he's a good content contributor, etc. but I don't see anyone claiming that wasn't a personal attack. Your unblock was mistaken and I hope you will reverse it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I might add my voice, I believe the people above me (including Jimbo) are wrong, and appear to be quite seriously ignorant of the passive-aggressive incivility that Eric has been subjected to by a significant number of people in these latest exchanges - he was accused of sexist abuse which he was utterly innocent of (and if Jimbo can't see that, then my respect for him is diminished), and it all spiraled from there. I strongly support your unblock, Panda, and I would urge you not to give in to dictatorship. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt that Eric has been on the receiving end of personal attacks including passive aggressiveness, but that in no way excuses his own personal attacks. It just doesn't work that way. Also, to refer to anything here as a "dictatorship" is hyperbolic and completely undermines any valid points you might have.- MrX 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^FWIW I'd call Eric's comment an exasperated and glib comment and pretty well leave it at that. Glad someone unblocked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - Eric was being dragged through the mud with accusations of sexism that he was entirely innocent of (and I don't care if Churchill would not, with my grammar, put up) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocks are preventative and deterrent. From the policy: "Blocks should be used to... encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition." I imagine that part of the reason it has little deterrent effect with this user is because the blocks are usually lifted prematurely.- MrX 20:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Its a breakdown of language, see User:Monty845/Sanctions against editors are punishment for a breakdown of how we mangled the language leading to endless confusion. Monty845 21:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric's enablers win again. Disappointing and terribly sad, but alas, completely expected. Resolute 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's bollocks. Eric and I have seen eye to eye not once (probably) yet this is entirely undeserved and a drama-fest based in some kind of overt and odd correctness crusade. Asking if someone was behind a door when brains were being handed out is barely even a joke (sorry Eric) let alone a personal attack. Move on, or are we all now SO SENSITIVE that we can't express exasperation in a reasonably elegant way? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The block should never have been placed in the first place - not that my opinion matters but I applaud DangerousPanda's unblocking. Anyone who has had the privilege of properly working with Eric, which I have, will emphatically tell you he is one of the greatest editors to work with AND does far more for editor retention than he receives credit for. What really amazes me is that most of those who wish to decry him seem incapable of actually producing quality work themselves - which is surely what should be the aim? Also, if the benchmark for blocks is now that (female) editors think they may have been subjected to personal attacks - well, I thought Scottywong was rude/abusive/incivil to me on the 3RR board, so obviously s/he should immediately be blocked as well. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the absolute ironic part of this discussion is that I'm supposedly well-known across the interweb for having one of the strictest interpretation of WP:NPA and for making supposedly atrocious civility-based blocks. I'm most certainly not considered to be a "fan" of Eric, nor he of me ... and I believe my name is in his block log at least once prior to this. Nevertheless, this unblock is based on NOTHING related to my personal disdain for incivility - it's based on consensus on the discussion, and nothing else. So, put your emotions and past dealings with the editor in question away, and think to yourself "if the asshole who blocks people for civility issues actually unblocked in this case...what the hell am I missing?" With the risk of sounding sexist, put that in your proverbial pipe and smoke it the panda ₯’ 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appalling. Bwilkins, have you not learned anything from your previous mistakes? Why are you so eager to repeat them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you assumed there was consensus, but there was no consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've realized your opinion already - no need to re-state it the panda ₯’ 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"No consensus to keep him blocked"

Just a quick note: While it is my opinion that the recent civility block on Eric Corbett was unnecessary (but not inappropriate), I'd like to comment on Panda's closing statement here. Panda, you say that "there was no consensus to keep him blocked." Perhaps I'm just being overly semantic, but since when do blocks require consensus in order to remain in effect? In general, blocks remain in effect unless there is a consensus to overturn them. It's a subtle distinction, but "no consensus to keep him blocked" is different than "consensus to overturn the block". That's as if you closed an AfD that had not come to a consensus as "no consensus to keep, so I'm going to delete it". If there is no consensus one way or the other, the block should remain, or the discussion should continue until there is a clear consensus. I could be wrong, but this is my opinion. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 01:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I see it. The policies and guidelines allow admins to make blocks without consensus in areas such as edit warring, personal attacks, vanadlism etc... Once this block is made the blocking policy/admin guide make it clear that you need the agreement of the blocking admin or a clear consensus to reverse that block.
When an admin breaks that rule the tend to get their way because if the block is placed back by another admin it becomes wheel warring. Failing to get consensus for an unblock does not get an admin in much trouble, wheel warring does. It works a bit like a loophole. Chillum 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RAAA requires an action be discussed, but does not require there be a consensus to reverse it. Monty845 02:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve heard that called the second mover advantage.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP:Blocking policy:
Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.
If you are going to use the block/unblock tool then this is the policy you need to know. Chillum 02:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend is not a hard and fast rule. It doesn't say you must, but that it is probably a good idea. If we want it to be a strict requirement, then we can always just say that. Now granted, if someone is regularly ignoring policy recommendations, they are probably going to run in to trouble, but again not a hard rule. Monty845 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that nowhere in the blocking policy does it say anything along the lines of "A discussion must be had, and if there is no consensus to keep the user blocked, they must be unblocked." This seems to be how Panda explained his reasoning when he closed the discussion above. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 02:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom went further:

In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. [3] Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A bad block is a bad block and I respect any admin that is "man" enough to stand up and say it was wrong. Dear lord I couldn't find any better phrase for that so pun was intended. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for that HiaB...I don't think I ever called it a "bad block" - I fully understand and respect BHG's decision to block. There is, however, no consensus to keep him blocked. Not sure I deserve an award for it the panda ₯’ 00:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more

When I saw this, I assumed I screwed up in some way, so I went back and looked through what I said ... and I don't get it. We really don't have enough closers for the big RfCs these days, and I don't want to do anything that's going to put you off. Whatever the problem is, there will probably be another PC2 RfC along before too long, so it's easily fixed ... if you're willing to let me know what looked wrong, and come back on board. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm gone, and you're BBQ'ing me/burning me in effigy

Colleagues/fellow human beings. For those who have forgotten, don't forget to re-read this - it's something I passionately believe in. Ruminate on that. Cheers the panda ₯’ 00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, screw you, Panda, eating, shooting, and then leaving. Thanks for the unblock. Why anyone would be blocked for the equivalent of "you're stupid" is beyond me, as is the astonishing lack of AGF in "enabling admins". Drmies (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

  • Question  Do you agree that viewpoints that are not based on policy should have the weight of the argument reduced?  By your words in the closing on this page, you recognize the presence of incivility enabling on Wikipedia...did your analysis of consensus remove the non-policy based influence of incivility enabling?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question  Your unblock reads, "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA".  Should a decision that has the potential to disrupt Wikipedia be made to a higher standard than "appears"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question  Your unblock in the block log reads, "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA", with similar comments at [4].  In both edits you opine that the edit summary was uncivil.  The block states, "Personal attacks or harassment: Blatant personal attack in edit summary, and incivility in the substantive comment".  Here BHG partially blocks for incivility.  WP:CIVIL is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.  How do you explain agreeing that there was a policy violation for incivility and also overturning the block?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&oldid=619068636"