Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Blnguyen (talk · contribs · email)
2. Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · email)
3. FloNight (talk · contribs · email)
4. FT2 (talk · contribs · email)
5. Jdforrester (talk · contribs · email)
6. Jpgordon (talk · contribs · email)
7. Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · email)
8. Morven (talk · contribs · email)
9. Paul August (talk · contribs · email)
10. Thebainer (talk · contribs · email)
11. UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs · email)

Away or inactive:

1. Deskana (talk · contribs · email)
2. FayssalF (talk · contribs · email)

Recused:

1. Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · email)

Comments on proposed decision

Having recused myself in this case, I comment as an uninvolved editor on the proposed decision posted by Thebainer. I find its analysis thoughtful and well-written, but consider the proposed sanctions against Tango too severe. An admonition calling for Tango to abide more carefully by the blocking policy, especially in the case of established contributors or in matters where he has some involvement in the dispute, and to seek input from other administrators before blocking in complex cases, should in my view be sufficient. Suspension of an active administrator from all blocking, including even in routine vandalism cases, is counterproductive.

I would also ideally like to see an acknowledgement that MONGO has done some important work in the area of keeping the September 11-related articles within policy, and an urging that he return to regular editing, perhaps coupled with other suggestions as to how the value of his participation could be maximized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - it would only be "counterproductive" if there was an apparent shortage of active administrators. Tweaking it to allow blocks only on routine vandalism cases may cause problems too, particularly given the way he interpreted how sanctions from the 9/11 ArbCom case are to be applied.

As this case was not based on the block of MONGO alone, I don't think this is the place. I am sure he will be more willing to return to regular editing once this case is over, with a decision that he favours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree with NYB. the remedies are a bit harsh, though maybe something like "no administrative action with out ON WIKI consultation"? a bunch of "we discussed it on irc" comments for 'contentious' blocks doesn't help bring Tango into the realm of a great admin. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principles

For proposal 8) Know Yourself, I modified it slightly at the workshop - "It is therefore important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their capabilities, agendas, feelings, passions, and overall state of mind. Administrators are expected to deal with them appropriately; avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions." I think one also needs to be aware of their capabilities and overall state of mind before using their administrative tools at Wikipedia. Perhaps it's worth adding to the list. It may also be worthwhile adding "Responsibility" as a proposed principle here - again in my proposals at the workshop.

I think proposal 5 here will pose problems in the future by the ArbCom stating "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking". I'm a bit lost as to why this must be included, but I do feel a stronger caution (including the wording of FloNight) is needed in the second paragraph and this may avoid such problems:

"Before a block is imposed, efforts must be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable.

Even if a user has been warned or blocked before, an effort needs to be made to look for less severe ways to remedy the situation before a block is done, particularly if there has been a significant span of time between the previous block, or cautions have usually been effective in other instances. Users should be given a reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have had such an opportunity may not require further warning, before blocking."

Other than that, I agree with the remainder. I think Tango being suspended from the use of the blocking tool for at least six months, is a well-thought out remedy on the part of the ArbCom. It is his poor use of this blocking tool over an extended period of time that has led to this case being accepted in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed FoF 3.2.2

May I express my strong distaste for the above proposal. Firstly, it appears to indicate disapproval of editing through protection in articles that are severe problems; this is something that the community has noted recently is not always problematic in the case of articles subject to consistent attack by tendentious editors, as in Guy's actions at Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States and in the Liancourt Rocks solution; and secondly because it ignores the fact that the person he was reverting was the sock of an editor banned for precisely the sort of behaviour he was reverting and ignoring. The first means that ArbCom would be, in effect, ignoring or stifling a developing community consensus; the second, that ArbCom is once again acting in a manner that, as a byproduct, empowers tendentious editors to say "hey, they looked at us again, and they ignored us again. We did nothing wrong." --Relata refero (disp.) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He reverted User:Rumpelstiltskin223 who was sock of banned User:Hkelkar. User:Bharatveer was reverting as a proxy of a banned user. 3RR or accusation of edit warring against Tango is absolutely inappropriate in this case. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that editing through protection (or protecting one's own edits) is not always inappropriate; for example in cleaning up obvious vandalism, or dealing with BLP issues. However, that was not what happened here: there was a garden variety content dispute which Tango used protection to "win". Your second point is irrelevant, as Rumpelstiltskin223 was only blocked as a sockpuppet in February 2007, well after the relevant incident occurred. The principle that edits made by banned users while banned may be reverted does not provide an ex post facto justification. --bainer (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that RSS223 was being as disruptive as a banned editor because he was, well, a banned editor. A simple look at the beginning of the discussion reveals the entire cast of characters of three arbitration cases for POV-pushing and meatpuppetry. That article had a history of 100 reverts in a week, or something; Tango clearly had no opinion on the underlying dispute. You also have ignored the point I have made about community consensus: what is the difference between this and JzG on State terrorism? Nothing. What is Tango arguing in that linked discussion that is not being agreed on in similar conditions right now in similarly problematic arguments? Nothing. This is why I am mystified by the vacuum in which this ArbCom is seems to be operating. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If Tango had protected the article and then edited through protection, would that have been better? What's the difference? Sigh. I know you're all doing your best, and everyone on WP covers collective asses by saying we don't believe in precedents or otherstuffexists, but a modicum of consistency is expected, people. Buck up. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong there. How can I possibly "win" a content dispute I don't have a view on (I've never even read the entire article - I was working mainly with the diffs and know almost nothing about the subject matter)? My edits were purely administrative. It may not have been perfect judgement (20/20 hindsight's all well and good), but I was most certainly not in a content dispute. This seems to have been a point people weren't capable of understanding at the time, either. I've given my reasons for my actions and I no point did I mention any opinions about content. By saying I was in a content dispute you are calling me a liar, and I take offence at that. --Tango (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No it would not have been better. It makes no difference whether one protects and then reverts to a favoured version, or reverts and then protects, it's still always inappropriate, in the absence of any extraordinary extenuating circumstances (like copyvio material, or problematic BLP material in the article).

Tango lost his claim to impartiality in the content dispute when he reverted to one of the two versions in dispute. It is, and always has been, that simple. --bainer (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a partial answer. You are out of step with the community on that, per the discussion at AN/I about State terrorism and the United States. As I say, nothing that Tango seems to be arguing in that linked discussion is not being agreed on in similar conditions right now in similarly problematic articles. (I address the second point I make in my original post below.)

However, if you intend to enforce that principle, please consider that you should enforce it impartially, regardless of the individual admin involved. I don't want to see a later inconsistency being explained by saying "ah, but in Tango's case it was part of an established pattern" when the pattern is being established by the particular instance that causes the inconsistency. That's circular, and it would lead to an additional weakening of ArbCom's tottering moral authority. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly which discussion you're referring to, but at any rate I do not think a single ANI discussion is capable of overturning years of established policy. On your last point, the relevance of any pattern is in answering the only significant question in this case, namely whether Tango has learned from his past mistakes. --bainer (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-admin

Arbiters, be advised: If any rulings are passed that will leave me with a sysop bit but restrict my rights to use it (either the technical tools [eg. blocking] or other authorities granted to admins [eg. enforcing ArbCom rulings]), I will stand down as an admin for the duration of restriction. I do not think it is in the interests of the project to have different levels of admin, even if there is only one person at one of the levels. It would lead to unnecessary confusion. Please either desysop me, or don't - half-measures will help no-one. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It would suffice if you'd recognize what was faulty about your blocking practice and explain how you'd correct your approach. We certainly prefer self-policing, but one would think that this issue wouldn't have come this far if you'd been able to do that in the first place. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is most worrying to me is that Tango still shows no signs that he acklowledges that he might have acted wrongly. Looking at his troubled history, especially with the blocking tools, some stronger kind of message must be sent to Tango. If he gives up the Bit in addition to that, he is entitled to do so; maybe he will find a new perspective. (I assume in good faith here that he does not attempt some kind of double-or-nothing gambit - I don't think arbitrators would allow themselves to be pressured against levying a limited admin restriction just the admin involved threatens to resign if they do) CharonX/talk 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I stand by my block of MONGO, so I don't think there is anything overall wrong with my practice of issuing blocks. The only reasonable comments I've seen have been about the length of my blocks. I do seem to sometimes block for longer than the community norms. When deciding how long to block for I do so based on a combination of my perception of community norms and my own judgement, and I think that's the right approach. I will, however, commit to this: I will significantly increase the weight I give to my perception of community norms compared to my own judgement. This will most likely result in issuing shorter blocks (I'll still issue the same blocks, though). Someone said I don't issue warnings enough before blocking - this I disagree with. It's possible I've failed to warn people on occasion as a simple oversight (I'm human, I make mistakes), but generally I do issue warnings. One thing that might have caused this misunderstanding is that I often issue group warnings, rather than warnings on individual user talk pages (if I'm confident everyone is watching the article talk page, say, then I'll just issue a general warning on that page rather than repeating myself). I can change that practice if people feel strongly about it, it's just a matter of efficiency, really. Someone also said that while I ask for reviews, I don't listen to the criticism - that's simply not the case. In the AN/I discussion about the MONGO block, for instance, I specifically said that I intended to reduce the length of the block (Orderinchaos beat me to it while I was allowing a little most discussion - I didn't see any hurry as long as the block was reduced before the new block was intended to expire). I stand by my assertion that there was no consensus that the block was in error, just that the length of it was excessive (something I don't personally agree with, but will respect the community decision). --Tango (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please issue warnings on individual talk pages. I'm not sure why you'd issue blocks that are longer than community norms, as we are dealing with people/contributors - not article (content) standards, where we need to constantly push above norms to keep them high. Greater care needs to be taken in enforcing blocks as it always should only be used as a last resort. I think a 3 month suspension (even if it's self-imposed) will be effective here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give reasons when requesting something - why should I issue a warning in multiple places? (I'm willing to do so, but I'm not going to without a reason.) I don't understand your comparison to content standards - we're not talking about high standards and low standards (where clearly, high standards are better). We're talking about strict standards and lenient standards, where one isn't clearly better than the other. The length of blocks has always been a matter of admin discretion, I don't think there are any policies on them and very few guidelines. We leave it up to the admin to decide what length of block is likely to be most effective. It seems that my judgement of what length of block will be most effective is sometimes longer than community consensus position - that's to be expected, it's a judgement call so some admins are going to be stricter than average and some more lenient, I happen to be on the stricter side. What I'm saying is that I'm willing to issue shorter blocks if that's what I think the community would want rather than the longer block I personally think would be more effective. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, warnings are taken more seriously when they are individual. When things get heated, often, a group warning isn't so effective. But if an individual, or group, then responds with a personal attack, then _____________________. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll do that in future, then. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. Just realised that the ___ may have sounded vague - so just in case: that was a fill in the blank to consider, based on what you've learned from this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, several admins, including me, already function as "semi-admins" as you use that term. We voluntarily recuse ourselves from taking certain actions for whatever reasons. I have personally more or less committed to not blocking individuals in most cases, given my occasionally hot temper, and in fact explicitly said much the same thing when I requested admin status. And, in all honesty, there's enough admin work out there that we can probably use having a few people concentrate on other factors. I don't see it as being an indictment of any admin to indicate to them that, even if they were to lose one or more functions for a period of time, that there isn't enough left over for them to merit continuing having the mop. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but you could block people if you wanted. There are admin actions I never use as well - for example, I don't think I've deleted an image, all the copyright rules are just too confusing and I don't see the point in learning them, so just stay away from the whole area. However, if there are admins with certain restrictions imposed on them people won't be able to just trust that admins are authorised to do what they do and will end up having to check old ArbCom cases constantly - it's unnecessary confusion. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If Tango wishes to recuse himself from admin actions, that's certainly allowable. Arbcom isn't removing his bit, just telling him to refrain from certain actions. This is no different than other behavioral restrictions such as 1RR restrictions. Even the community 3RR restriction is imposed as a restriction even though the ability is still there. I think it would be kind of strange if the 1RR proposals that Arbcom occasionally makes were met with a threat of "be advised: if you restrict my reversions to 1RR I will stop doing ALL reversions." An admin being restricted to no blocks is the same as a 1RR restriction to editors. --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can propose a different one if you want the same effect: Tango is restricted from blocking editors for more than 15 minutes. That would give him time to post it on ANI and see if anyone else will bite. --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Question to Blnguyen

Blnguyen, you've just voted to desysop me for a month for something that took place well over a year ago - could you please explain how that can be interpreted as anything other than punitive? --Tango (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That incident, and, as far as I can tell, your lack of recognition that any of your actions may have been less than perfect, speaks to your present judgement as an administrator. The rational behind a temporary desysop by the Arbitration Committee, is that it might moderate your actions going forward. Paul August ☎ 14:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Less than perfect? That's certainly true - the resulting drama was clearly worse than the danger from leaving the article alone. My mistake was, in short, failing to take into account the negative affects of drama when deciding on what action to take - I'd chalk that one up to experience. It was a long time ago - I don't see what the committee expects me to learn in the next month that I haven't learnt in the last 16. --Tango (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Paul August. I think this is a reasonable standard for the committee to use, although I think Tango has recognized in several places that he will moderate the length of blocks in the future. Will the same standard - recognition of less-than-perfect behavior - be applied to MONGO? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not just the length of the blocks that is at issue. MONGO's behavior is a separate matter. Paul August ☎ 22:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since MONGO's edits are at the heart of this case (along with Tango's), this decision gives the committee the opportunity to address both editors. I think it would be unfortunate for the decision to focus on Tango's reaction without mentioning the edits to which he reacted, as if the block occurred in a vacuum. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I echo what Paul August has said - MONGO's behavior is a separate matter here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see in what relevant sense it is "separate". Certainly MONGO and Tango are different people, so their actions are independent. But without MONGO's edits there would not have been the block by Tango that is being discussed. Each editors had a lapse in judgment, and addressing one without the other will not go far in resolving the dispute between them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If there was no locking problem, then the blocking remedy would have sufficed. The ensuing argument was rather eye opening. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. That doesn't seem to be an answer to my question... --Tango (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if they are separate or seemingly different incidents, there is a pattern from then to today. Paul August's initial reply to your question sums it up - reading it a few times, coupled with Blnguyen's reply and some of the principles in the proposed decision, may help make the answer somewhat clearer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen didn't say it was for a pattern of behaviour, he said it was for that one specific act. An act that took place over a year ago. What am I really likely to learn in a month that I haven't learnt in the past year? --Tango (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is true, I must say again that I cannot understand why the committee, in judging that act retrospectively, is ignoring the context which I have clearly pointed out above. If there is a long-standing pattern of misbehaviour, please find an example of such misbehaviour that is not likely to be viewed as support of their actions by long-standing POV trolls. This divorce of punitive sanctions from the actual effect on content is precisely what I thought the Committee was supposed to be trying to avoid these days. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you review past arbitrations involving alleged misuse of administrative tools, you'll see that the Committee's approach has consistently been to recognise that admins are humans and make mistakes, but also that admins are expected to learn from their mistakes. What is relevant about the Goa Inquisition incident is Tango's reaction to criticism of his actions: an inability to recognise that he was not impartial to the dispute, hostility to criticism of his actions from his peers and a reluctance to acknowledge that the use of the tools was inappropriate. That the very same reactions came in the wake of the block that precipitated this arbitration demonstrates that Tango has not learned from his mistakes. --bainer (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I observe that the "peer" in question was User:Nearly Headless Nick. What we had here was an admin with no position on the underlying issues ("uninvolved" before that jargon became common here) discovering he was being lectured to by a peer whom it is common knowledge does indeed have a stand on these issues. Is that a reasonable situation for ArbCom to consider? "Not impartial to the dispute:" I don't see any evidence at all that he had a special animus to these POV-pushers. Is Moreschi not "impartial" to random Balkan and Greek editors? What is the difference? Are we merely presuming that because he tried to enforce basic policy, he is "involved"? Has evidence been provided that he has elsewhere pursued a campaign against these particular editors or against mentions of the iniquities of the Catholic Church through history? If not, I submit you're gravely misusing the word "involved".

Again: if there is a long-running pattern of misbehaviour, why can ArbCom not find an example that will not reinforce and enable the trolls? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This argumentem ad pestem is not useful. The best way for administrators to not "reinforce and enable the trolls" is to not misuse their administrative tools. --bainer (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, a pun.

No. What is not useful - and more relevant to the point I was making - is when ArbCom takes a view so blazingly divorced from reality that they do not realise that a pattern of behaviour in which trolls who are nominally part of a dispute are not ruled on in order to keep a case narrowly focused is empowering said trolls. I rather think you know that your answer up there was a bit glib, so I won't press you on that. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If the "reality" is that some administrators are habitually ignoring the most basic and long-established tenets of good administratin', then I would submit that that is what ought to change. I was serious about my remark there: it's extremely irritating to see bad sysoppery be constantly justified by reference to the awful trolls that it was being employed against. --bainer (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just said it above and I'll repeat it here: I was not in a content dispute. I was 100% impartial. I explained that. Yes, I completely disregarded most of the criticism - that's the correct way to deal with people spouting nonsense and not listening to what they're being told by the only person that actually knows why I did what I did (ie. me). If you think I'm lying, come out and say it, but you'd better have some evidence to back it up. --Tango (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You became involved in the content dispute, and lost all claim to impartiality, when you reverted to one of the two versions in dispute. --bainer (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Again: to all who are stating this principle above firmly in this case: recall that you are accepting a case in which JzG and WMC did exactly the same thing. Please remember that consistency will be what is expected of you by everyone - though I would also like you to remember that ArbCom does not now nor does it ever have the remit to re-interpret community consensus on how these issues are approached.

That being said, if you do go ahead and apply this principle - if the finding of fact about Tango's behaviour last year is used as the basis for some form of censure, please be absolutely clear about the fact that it will be used in future at AN/I and elsewhere. It will sway administrators participating in discussions about whether or not someone is "involved". If you persist in pretending that (a) you don't set precedents and (b) nobody in the community would act in that manner - or, worse, claiming that a precedent in this case "would not affect the definition of involvement" - then you need to get your heads out of the sand.

Given that it will be used in the future, pretending that it will not have a terribly deleterious effect on those who involve themselves as mediators and administrators in these areas, or on those considering involvement, and on the areas themselves, would be additionally short-sighted. What I and others see when we see this being used is "Admin makes error in editing through protection/ reverting then protecting; admin attacked at AN/I by co-ordinated group of POV-pushers and one admin who has definitely expressed real-world opinions on the subject; admin defends himself as impartial and uninvolved; ArbCom says 'well, you reverted', and goes to town with the desysopping." That is absolutely unacceptable: because the consequence is that admins will continue to try and administer complicated articles in difficult areas blind to even egregious problems of content which is precisely what we the community is trying to avoid them doing as a rule.

Once again: if there is a pattern of behaviour, it should be trivial to find an example that does not have enormously negative implications. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is not a case where there are, as you've expressed, such "enormously negative implications". Quite contrary, I think this will have been one of the most sound decisions that has been made by the ArbCom to date, if the proposed decision is anything to go by. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt any reasonable onlooker would be more reassured by that if you actually explained why my concerns are groundless, rather than asserting them. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think this is some kind of new idea, but the principle that admins must not use their tools to affect the outcome of a content dispute is just about the oldest rule in the book. Of course, there are certain limited exceptions, as I have said: if an article contains copyvio material, for example, or problematic BLP material, it's perfectly acceptable to protect the article in order to clean it up. But that wasn't the case here; this was a common or garden content dispute.

For those struggling with a definition here, it's pretty simple: you may wear either your admin hat or your editor hat at the one time, not both. If you become involved in an editorial capacity to help resolve the dispute, then that's great, but you put the mop away while you do so. Similarly if you become involved in an administrative capacity to help facilitate the editors reaching a solution, that's also great, but you put the pencil and eraser away while you do so. --bainer (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, you're missing the point here quite comprehensively. Of course its the oldest rule in the book. The thing is that ArbCom should at least have the minimum awareness to know that it is being breached with community support fairly regularly now. Also, what does ArbCom expect adminstrators in "articles under probation" to do but to effectively judge administrative actions based to a degree on content as well as user conduct? Really.

At least your point is clear, even if you're all fighting 2006's battles. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If admins are breaching the most basic rules of adminning, then they ought to change their behaviour. By all means, if you feel that community dispute resolution methods have failed to deal with this then bring some more requests for arbitration. --bainer (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've read the reasons I gave at the time. If you have, then you should know that what you are saying is simply not true. My reasons for reverting were not content related - it was intended as a temporary measure while a consensus was reached by those involved in the content dispute. Whether you think that was a good idea or not, you are simply wrong to call it being involved in the content dispute. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you yourself said in those reasons you gave for reverting, "When I reviewed the case, I decided it wasn't obvious vandalism and was actually a content dispute". By reverting to a particular version, after blocking two editors and protecting the page, you decided which version in the dispute would prevail. --bainer (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even read what I've said is this discussion, have you? It was a temporary measure. How can I possibly prevail without having a viewpoint? I had a view on which version was better to have visible during the discussion (ie. the one without the possibly false accusations), but I had no view on which would actually make for a better article. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what bainer said earlier? "It makes no difference whether one protects and then reverts to a favoured version, or reverts and then protects, it's still always inappropriate, in the absence of any extraordinary extenuating circumstances (like copyvio material, or problematic BLP material in the article). Tango lost his claim to impartiality in the content dispute when he reverted to one of the two versions in dispute. It is, and always has been, that simple...I do not think a single ANI discussion is capable of overturning years of established policy." Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, and it's complete nonsense and fails to take any account of what I've said. --Tango (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The problem is that productive talk page discussion often can not happen if some of the editors feel that one side has an advantage over the other. Freezing the article in the wrong version is key to helping editors believe that the system is not biased against them and that talk page discussion consensus will be based on a fair interpretation of policy. If it is absolutely necessary (such as to remove a copy right violation or BLP vio) to adjust article content simultaneous to the time that the page is protected, then it needs to be done in a manner that will not heighten concerns about bias. Tango's approach raises legitimate concerns because the involved editors would see bias as they always do in these situations. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. I've accepted that my judgement may not have been perfect. There is a big different between saying I made a mistake and saying I acted abusively (which is what it would have been if I'd been involved in the content dispute). Bainer is saying I acted abusively and I take offence at that. --Tango (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But once that you revert to a preferred version then you no longer can say that you are uninvolved. It has no credibility. This is a basic Wikipedia philosophy that administrators needs to understand. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I was involved, but I was involved in an administrative capacity, nothing more. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've got the point. Maybe something more is needed? I don't think mentoring will be effective here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DefendEachOther

Could someone show me where this "DefendEachOther" principle is described on Wikipedia (as opposed to an unrelated wiki)? If there is such a policy, then I've simply made a mistake and can learn from it, but I've yet to see anyone actually show me this policy. The policies I know talk about content disputes, which clearly isn't relevant here, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's (at minimum) an unwritten norm that administrators are generally expected to follow. That's why I guess it's been specified as a principle here.

In reply to The Uninvited Co's comment on this - I think the principle is perfect as it is. Trying to allow blocks for legitimate reasons right after a personal attack has been made against the admin will not change the problem of bureaucracy and bad policing, but make it more difficult to spot. If there are legitimate reasons for a block (because the behaviour continues after the warning/initial incivil reaction), then an uninvolved admin can block the editor, or it can be considered by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a converse problem that sometimes bad users try to game the system. They get administrators who are aware of their history to become "involved" in such a way that disqualifies them from issuing blocks. Allowing them to do this with a simple personal attack makes the system too easy to game. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see what you're saying now, but even so, I don't think the wording needs to be changed here. As it is, it will be most effective for analyzing any future cases that involve this matter - the principle can be repeated as is, but the wording is broad enough to allow for exceptions and the like (to be specified in the findings of fact) of a particular case, if they apply, or not.

This case was straight-forward (and not exceptional) in this matter, I think, so I too don't understand FloNight's oppose to the principle in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MeatBall is hardly an unrelated wiki. It predates Wikipedia, and its principles shaped the core values and policies of Wikipedia in significant ways, both by direct borrowing and because MeatBall codified in one place the previously unwritten rules of wiki behavior dating back to the first public wikis in the late 1990s. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "DefendEachOther" is outlined as polciy, so much as it's more an element of conflict resolution that ties in to the base Administrator's policy that Admins are expected to act as role models to the community and follow certain standards. Something I, personally, see as an underlying theme in this arbitration is that many of your administrative actions are perceived as "in poor judgement" not because they directly violate policy, but because the overall affect has been generally negative. You've already acknowledged many of your blocks may have been longer than community norms, but it's more than that. It's how those actions reflect on you, as an administrator. How they reflect on the editors who are on the receiving end. How they affect other disputes or conflicts elsewhere on wiki. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of this. DefendEachOther is just common sense. It's a basic social skill. It's important even when there isn't a power disparity, and when there is, it's vital. When there is a power disparity, and you respond with power to a personal attack, the lesson the attacker takes away is that you prevailed because you were powerful. If you let others respond on your behalf, the lesson the attacker takes away is that you prevailed because you were right (I'm simplifying, in reality any lesson is more of a continuum, besides, some people are obtuse and don't get it no matter what you do).

I see these sorts of fundamental errors of interpersonal interaction all too often. This sort of thing is the root of much that is wrong with Wikipedia's community. There is also the closely related Principle of Constant Respect, which we ought to have a page or article on somewhere. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes a certain amount of sense. I believe that I am capable of being impartial even when I am the target of the offence, and I would like it if people trusted me to be so (I passed RFA, that ought to suggest that people trust me...). The issue regarding perception, as opposed to the actual situation, is a relevant one, though. Being trustworthy isn't enough, you do actually have to be trusted. --Tango (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you passed (past tense) RFA - there are certainly some who won't be able to trust you for some time, and though that may be frustrating for you, you will have an opportunity (at the very least, of a month) to gradually gain it back. If you were entirely incapable of being impartial, then letting you remain as an admin would be entirely out of the question, I think.

I do think that 'capabilities' is something that needs to be added to the list in proposed principle 8 - know yourself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying - I do know myself and I know I'm capable of making impartial decisions. What (non-circular) reason do people have to not trust me on that? --Tango (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The extension of good faith is not the same as an extension of trust. Some do not extend trust automatically, even to admins, arbiters, bureaucrats or stewards. And on the other side, the concept of "impartial decision" is very difficult to nail down. Partiality ties in to motives, and everyone here evaluates motives differently. In fact, I think far too much time is spent on guessing at motives instead of simply evaluating the act and moving on. Which brings us neatly back to 'DefendEachOther'. By taking the action out of the hands of the aggrieved, and relying on others to defend them, the question of motive/partiality is removed from the equation.

At least, in theory. In practice, the question simply transfers to the other admin who must prove their impartiality. The idea of AN/I, that anyone (admins too) can find an impartial admin willing to investigate and act when needed, has it's own quagmire: that often admins are accused of not investigating well enough before acting, thus rendering the 'wrong' judgment (blocking the wrong person, protecting the wrong version of an article, etc.). All of it makes being an admin a very tricky, and intensive job. Makes me glad I'm a civilian. --InkSplotch (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

The time-out should be used to reflect on this, and hopefully you will come to a self-realisation about it. Hint: merely being capable is not enough, and ideally, for each and every edit or admin action you make, you are expected to know yourself well enough. Eg; Am I a little too sleepy to have sound judgement (that I'm capable of having)? Your role is important, and you need to take a great deal of care to know yourself for each edit and action you make. As the principle states; if you show consistently or egregoriously poor judgement, then.... Anyway, good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As a long term admin I am a little surprised that there is a place called "Meatball" that contains philosophies we are expected to follow. Looking through all the admin policies on Wikipedia I see no reference to the idea that admins should not react to violations of the civility policy directed at them.

What is more, when the idea has come up in discussion there has been a lack of consensus with one party saying that the person receiving the insult has too much of a conflict of interest, and the other side claiming that this allows someone to simply insult an admin to bypass action from that admin. It is certainly not a cut and dry case of best community practices documented or otherwise.

Perhaps this finding is only meant to apply to this one situation, and not meant to represent policy, I don't know. What I do know is that as an admin I had no reasonable way of knowing this rule, nor does the rule seem to be "common sense" to me. The very fact that there is disagreement as to the efficacy of such a rule demonstrates it is not "common" sense.

I have always assumed the practices I am expected to follow come from consensus and are documented on Wikipedia in a clear fashion. I find myself wondering if there are other rules on Meatball I should be following but do not know about. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, having this enshrined in a FoF is a bit unnerving, because it's not on Wikipedia. While I disagree with Until's statement that it is not common sense (I feel that it is), using another wiki's policies to support a FoF in an arbitration case here is (AFAIK) a first. Perhaps it should be jettisoned in this case, and imported into Wikipedia as a guideline relating to our block policy, but to use it ex post facto on Tango is a bit harsh. Horologium (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a key Wikipeia ethos, or at least it was. As we have gotten larger, many of the unstated but understood ways of thinking about issues are not being transmitted to newer editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I sure hope I can avoid getting sanctioned due to a failure to abide by the ethos. I am sorry if I am coming off as a smartass, but I really do have concerns about sanctions based on rules admins have no way of knowing about. I am near certain that Tango would not have made the block if it was clear that admins should not act on personal attacks against themselves, he didn't know about this and I didn't know about this. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia the idea that policy flows from actual practice and custom is a strong ethos in and of itself. :-) Originally, few detailed written policies because that sent the message that policy is what is written not what is done. As the Community grew larger there was a greater need for more written policy, and it has been written down. But it is not always easy to translate custom and practice in to policy. So there is a disconnect. Policy needs to be explained as the Fof does. And the goal is not to apply punitive sanctions, ever!! Instead, apply sanctions as needed to help Wikipedia be a better place for volunteers to collaborate. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that disconnect needs to be taken into account when applying sanctions. I am sure we have a lot of common ground in this area, but I cannot dismiss the fact the people need to know the rules to follow them in good faith, and to violate a rule that there was no real way of knowing existed should not be actionable. If the goal is purely preventative then simply informing the admin of the rule should be enough as we would any user who did not know of a rule. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Users do not get sanctioned for breaking a rule. They get sanctioned because there is a strong sense that after having the policies explained the user will not follow them with out a behavior modifying sanction to prevent future problems. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one think that now Tango is aware of the rule he will follow it. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been here a long time, and have never heard of it. It can't be all that key... As Until says, I would never have made the block had I known about such a rule. I specifically thought about it before blocking: "Is there a rule against me blocking for incivility when I'm the target?" and to the best of my knowledge, there was and is no such rule. The idea that policy pages are descriptive is seriously outdated. It's a lovely philosophy, but it doesn't work on a project this size. The whole principle requires true consensus, and you can't get true consensus in a group this size. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you think that it is not key? It is well known policy the admin do not take action when they are involved. Can you not see how this policy originated with this idea? These ideas mesh together. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this principle is merely the philosophical underpinning of the well-known and well-established policy that involved administrators don't act. --bainer (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What is clear is that we should never allow a content dispute to guide our admin actions, and that we should not block punitively. It has never been made clear that an admin is not expected to be able to remain objective in a situation such as being called a name. I would trust most of our admins to be able to dismiss any hurt feelings caused by incivility and consider the action in light of policy objectively.

The center of our disagreement seems to be what constitutes being "involved". I don't see how someone else's actions can make a person involved. If I went and called someone a name, does that really make them involved? Does this mean that admins cannot control what they are involved in? Surely the repercussions of this idea are clear, it is a very game-able idea. Anyone who does not want to worry about a specific admin blocking them need only say something nasty. There are two sides to this idea, and there is no demonstration of consensus either way.

While I am willing accept that this principle may have merit it is certainly is not a well-known or well-established policy, if it was I would be aware of it as I take an effort to remain updated in such areas. Please be as willing to accept that this is not obvious. I certainly have never seen another example of where a user can decide to take an action that makes an admin "involved", involvement traditionally comes from the actions of the one said to be involved.

Tango has made it clear that he would not have made the block if he had known of the rule and I believe him. Now that he knows about it I think it very likely he will follow it. I just can't see the preventative value of sanctions. I know this is not a matter of consensus but please consider the points I have made. _(1 == 2)^Until 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is very disturbing. It is odd that I would know of such a principle, and you didn't when it is most relevant to you than me. But for argument's sake, let's assume for 1 second that it is not well-established or well known - even then, it would be a matter of common-sense.

Administrators were not given their tools as a means of furthering their positions in a dispute. They were certainly not to be used as a means of retaliation against personal attacks or incivility - where such attacks come as a response of disagreement with the warning given by the admin. Tango's poor judgement, failure to comply with blocking policy, failure to truely understand the seriousness of his actions, and so on, are just some of the factors that are considered in imposing such sanctions. They are a preventative measure to avoid a repeat of any of these problems, to ensure Tango has a break from his duties as an administrator to think about (and actually understand) it, and later forcing him re-gain the community's trust again. There may be more than that, but that's just a basic explanation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing that furthering one's position or retaliation with admin tools is acceptable, nobody is arguing that. What I am arguing is that simply being the recipient to of incivility does not make subsequent admin actions automatically retaliation or the furthering of one's position. Not without a large assumption of bad faith. The blocking policy as it is written now does not make such a connection. All Tango needs to avoid breaking the rules is to know they exist. _(1 == 2)^Until 03:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would agree that 'knowing they exist' (plus actually understanding what they are) is enough. But based on the discussion found on this very talk page, it is clear to me that it is not enough and such sanctions are absolutely necessary as a preventative measure. I'm not saying blocks imposed by an admin (who was a recipient to incivility) automatically equals retaliating to further one's position. But, I was talking in relation to this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that. You are speaking in relation to this case, I am responding more generally to the wording of the finding of fact that says "An administrator that is the target of a personal attack should not themselves block the user responsible for said attack." _(1 == 2)^Until 04:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And that is a sound general principle. You worry that people will game the system and attack administrators to make them "involved", but those administrators only become involved if they respond to the personal attack. If you ignore the personal attack and reply with "you will be blocked if you continue XYZ behaviour" (eg. personal attacks on others, incivility, edit warring, and so on), then you are still uninvolved. Once an admin responds to a personal attack with an "I feel offended by what you said", or "please retract that and apologise", then it is that response by the admin that has made them involved. Avoid that step, ignore the personal attack (which is nothing more than an attempt to change the topic of the disucssion), and focus on what the original discussion was about. It really is as simple as that. The difficulty is restraining yourself to not respond directly to a personal attack. If you do find yourself being unable to avoided be baited in this way, or you are greatly offended (and yes, great offence does affect people's judgment, and they need to try and be self-aware enough to recognise when that point is reached), then it is best to state that and withdraw. If you only do this ocassionally, in moments of great stress, you will find others quicker to defend you, than if you respond aggressively to every real or perceived insult. It's not easy, but then no-one said that editing or administrating Wikipedia was a simple set of rules that could be automatically followed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I will wait for this case to be settled then seek consensus on the relevant policy pages. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've thought about trying to get consensus for blocking policy to be changed as well, especially following the MatthewHoffman arbitration case, but never got round to it. One final thought I just had is that much of this may comes from people seeing admin roles in different ways. Some see admins as janitors with mops (and most of the time they are), other see them as "police" (and police can indeed arrest people who attack them, but in reality they do try and keep the peace and keep things under control up to a certain point), and others see admins as experienced editors who can act as mediators. No mediator worth their salt would allow themselves to be baited and become involved in a situation. Part of the skill of mediating is precisely remaining uninvolved and guiding both sides towards a compromise that they (not you) can agree on. If you have a view on what the compromise should be, you have become too involved. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the "involved admins shouldn't use their admin tools" idea follows from NPOV and CONSENSUS - you can't have a neutral article built using consensus if one party is using admin tools to enforce their POV. That's all to do with content. Incivility is not a matter of content. I can enforce policy just as well when I'm the target as when I'm not, and I take the assertion that I am not as a personal insult. If you want to impose this new rule, you need to actually get consensus for it on a policy talk page - that's how policy works these days, whether you like it or not. --Tango (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

These types of statements are somewhat disturbing. The AN/I disucssion certainly found problems with your actions. Arbcom seems to have found problems with your actions. Yet you continue to maintain that you a) acted properly in all cases and b) indicate that you would take the same actions and c)use the same methods to determine your course of action. The wikilawyering is becoming somewhat tedious. Your request for all these written policies that will address every situation is not necessary. Most admins that use the tools have a basic "I know it when I see it" social cognizance of their actions. You seem to be lacking this sense of understanding that underlies a rather clear social contract. Secondly, your statement that you consider the assertion that you cannot "enforce policy just as well when I'm the target as when I'm not" as a personal insult is even more disturbing since you block people for personal insults (that's ostensibly why we're here). It's not a personal insult to question your ability to separate yourself from policy enforcement when you lack the basic understanding of the rules. --DHeyward (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion found problems with the length of the block. There was nothing even close to consensus on anything else. --Tango (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain when this comes to the policy talk page to seek consensus that it will be found that the communities opinion on this matter is less clear cut than it is being made to seem here. Tango, all I can say to you is "This sucks man, hang in there". _(1 == 2)^Until 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies do not work in isolation. Our core polices need to be read together to fully understand them. They build on each other. Admin get attacked because they are seen as having a pov. When you block after a personal attack it reinforces the idea that you do have a pov. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean perception vs intent? _(1 == 2)^Until 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango, I agree that some people can remain objective when insulted, but I am talking in general here and not about your specific case (I was responding directly to Until 1==2's "I am responding more generally" comment). The point here is that, though you know you can remain objective, others, and in particular the person attacking you, don't know this, and they might assume the worst. To avoid the appearance of involvement, it is sometimes necessary to ignore attacks on yourself or let others deal with them. Insisting that you should have the right to deal with it yourself is really only making an unnecessary point. If you trust your fellow admins, let them deal with attacks on you. If you want to stay on-topic when trying to enforce some particular case, and if you want to not get distracted and baited into focusing on other, unrelated behaviour, then ignore personal attacks directed at you. My view is that if someone else had blocked MONGO for his incivility, all this would have been avoided. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all perfectly reasonable, and I can see why we might have such a rule. That doesn't change the fact that we don't have such a rule. The fact that I didn't follow the rule shows there is no absolute consensus for it. Unwritten rules only work if everyone knows about then and agrees with them. That isn't the case here, so the rule needs to be written down. --Tango (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess too many people thought it was common sense, and yours (and others) view of how things can work instead crept into use without people actually noticing. It should be obvious that those with the most forthright way of blocking and enforcing policy will be the most visible and their methods will end up in widespread use by default. Those who are more circumspect about blocking are less visible (less drama for one thing), and their methods gradually get over-ridden by the more assertive crowd of admins. That sort of thing happens on Wikipedia. As I've said, policy pages don't always describe best practice, and what current happens out there is not always best practice either. In my view, although they don't determine policy, resolving this type of philosophical thing can be sone with guidance from the arbitration committee. People talk about the committee being out-of-step with the community, but the community changes over time and is not always "right". Sometimes the community needs to be guided back towards different ways of doing things, though that is not always easy. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with common sense - people assume everyone's idea of it is the same, and that's rarely the case. Something needs to be done to make sure we're all reading from the same page - I think a community discussion would be preferable to a ruling by ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFAR ruling is fine, as their appears to be a wide disconnect here between one admin and what appears to be overwhelming accepted community norms, compiled by a lack of any humility by an admin that made a mistake. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Compiled? I think you mean compounded. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. The total lack of empathy or humility shown by Tango in regards to this entire operation, challenging with technicalities any sorts of issues and concerns brought to his attention in good-faith by users and arbiters shows that this is not a person that has a need of the admin tools. People that are more concerned with defending their status than doing the right thing shouldn't even be on this website editing, let alone being entrusted with even the piddling "power" that admins get. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's indefinitely ban me. That's not drama for drama's sake at all... --Tango (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's my personal take, which in "black and white" senses I will admit I tend to be more up and down in my views than most people here. My simple point, Tango, is that you've displayed no empathy or humility to what has happened, which is not helping your case. You're trying to win a political fight, which cannot be won, and is part of the problem on this site. It's a right and wrong question, and a perception question. Even showing fake empathy (which I do NOT advocate) would probably have gone a long way for you. It's more important to do the right thing than to prove you were right, which has zero value. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your idea of showing empathy and humility seems to be simply agreeing with what other people say. Given that definition, no, I haven't shown it and don't intend to unless people actually give good reasons for their assertions, which people haven't been doing (although things have improved on that front over the last day or so - we seem to be having a much better discussion now than we were before). --Tango (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is overwhelming. There are multiple people here, and there were multiple people in the AN/I discussion that agreed that I was allowed to make the block (although most disagreed with the length of it). I think a proper discussion is required before we can determine whether or not there is a consensus for this rule. --Tango (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any overwhelming acceptance. I don't even see any discussion on which one could base the idea that it is widely accepted. I also don't think that not knowing a rule existed because it was not document anywhere is a technicality. I also think that for something to be common sense that it needs to be a sense that is common to the parties involved, which is not the case here. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that principle around a fair bit... but I wouldnt word it quite like that if I had the choice. "Defend each other" feels too cliquey to me, too lacking in justice.

I'd say simply, that it is hurtful for most people, to be attacked, and nobody else tries to help sort it out, when you yourself would do so for others. In general, it's also best if one is attacked, that others will help handle it quickly, because their actions may be seen as neutral more readily, and hence less inflammatory.

That said if attacked, one may deal with the user concerned in the same way as a neutral admin would. But you should make more sure it's visibly neutral and blatantly appropriate since being the target, the reaction will receive more scrutiny. For that reason it's still often best to let others hanbdle it (or ask them to review it) if you can. The other reason is to prevent gaming - "if I attack and insult and provoke every admin then nobody will be able to judtify dealing with me". Some users try that one quite hard, to the point of abuse. It's not good to let them do so, and so the community has never said you can't deal with it directly if its an attack or the like. The norm seems to be more, that you need to be sure it'd be seen as reasonable/appropriate by others, if you do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So, in short, an admin may block for incivility when they are the target, it's just inadvisable? I can go with that. --Tango (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a core principle, and 9.2 is not it. As if it isn't glaringly obvious from this talk page itself how Tango has responded ("I was right"), all this is doing is changing the core principle, allowing some admins an opportunity to (and giving them the impression that they can) game the system, as some already clearly do - a concern already expressed here. Admins who have a genuine concern about the conduct of an editor they are potentially involved with (even if the editor is gaming the system), can much easily have an uninvolved admin take any necessary action. Otherwise, if 9.2 is accepted as a change of a core principle, it'll be nothing but a contradiction of the last line in the 4.1 principle. Please do not forget what precipitated this case in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The main argument in favour of this principle seems to be that everyone knows that's how it's always been. Seeing as we now have an arbitrator who apparently wasn't aware of any such rule either, I see no option but to get rid of the principle. Your argument is manifestly incorrect. --Tango (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The above statement by Tango is a clear example why remedy 1.3 is needed in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? Give reasons for your assertions. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The current discussion taking place on the project page regarding this principle seems to be a discussion about what policy should be, rather than what policy is. ArbCom do not have the authority to decide policy, only to determine it. If you think there should be a policy against admins taking action in response to personal attacks against them, then you propose it the same way anyone else would. --Tango (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain how you can possibly enforce an unwritten rule which not even all arbitrators know about? Proposing a rule that only exists on a complete unrelated project is bad enough, but that fact that you didn't all immeadiately change your votes when FT2 said he wasn't aware of this rule is completely shocking. --Tango (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

I notice there has been no mention of SlimVirgin's actions yet. Could the committee please rule on that? Can you see the claimed consensus to unblock (rather than just a lack of consensus to block, which is not the requirement)? --Tango (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This does beg the question: if there was a lack of consensus to block, why did you block? I think a lot of people are still waiting for a clear answer from you on that. You could just say "I thought it was the right thing to do. It later became clear that there was no consensus to block. I apologise for blocking MONGO. I won't do it again." (with whatever caveats you felt were needed). Then we could all go home. Carcharoth (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't ordinarily establish consensus before blocking; we lift the block if there is consensus it was wrong. In this case, the lifting of the block brought discussion about it to a halt, so that no agreement could be reached. This motivated one of my proposals on the workshop. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a consensus before blocking, there is a requirement for a consensus before unblocking. If there is no consensus either way, we just accept the judgement of the first admin on the scene and leave it at that. That's how it's always been. --Tango (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? Then why does WP:BLOCK say "If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community." That implies that a single administrator can unblock against consensus. If this is not the case, then that sentence in the blocking policy makes no sense. But that has been there for a very long time as well. I think you are wrong here to say "That's how it's always been.", so now the onus shifts back to you to demonstrate that this is "how it's always been". Just saying that doesn't make it so. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That quote is talking about bans, we're talking about blocks - there is a big difference. --Tango (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually talking about indefinite blocks becoming de facto bans, but yes, you are right, there is a difference. I still maintain that admins can and do unblock when there is reasonable doubt, not just when there is consensus. Otherwise too much power is given to the "prime mover", the first admin to take an action. That admin can then stonewall others and insist that their action not be overturned. This happens all the time, and when admins disagree, it is well within the remit of the arbitration committee to step in and resolve things, particularly if there is an actual or threatened wheel war. I'm not saying that was the case here, but admins are clearly disagreeing on fundamental aspect of the blocking policy. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom stepping in is, indeed, the correct response to a lack of consensus on what to do. However, the block should stand until ArbCom have made their ruling (there is precedent for blocks being removed to allow the accused to take part in the ArbCom case, though). The way the WP:WHEEL page is worded is a little ambiguous - it could be interpreted as saying a single undoing is acceptable, but that's not the interpretation I've always understood. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So should ArbCom's view on what a wheel-war is be the official one (as they are the ones that will be desysopping or otherwise sanctioning for said actions), or should the community tell arbcom what a wheel-war is? Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The community should tell ArbCom what a wheel war is - ArbCom do not make policy. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant part here seems to be: "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." There is nothing there saying whether such discussions have to have consensus, or what should be done if there is clearly no consensus. Sometimes it is impractical to wait until consensus emerges, in other cases it is best to wait. But then we have a new thing to argue about - whether to wait or not. The point is that no single administrator should be able to take an action, and then insist that the action is not overturned merely because of "lack of consensus to overturn". It seems we have another unwritten rule here... Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your point - my point is that my understanding of the consensus consensus on wheel warring is the opposite of yours, which would suggest that actually is no consensus. In that case, we have another matter than requires some serious discussion in order to reach a consensus. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus of the community at AN/I was that block was not justified. It was lifted twice. No one started an RFC or ArbCom over SlimVirgin's action, though you are welcome to start one if you feel so inclined. ArbCom, as has the community since there is nothing in Workshop, has obviously decided her actions were appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please give a justification for that assertion. The first time the block was lifted, it was put back by the same admin because they realised there wasn't a consensus for the unblock - nothing changed between then and SlimVirgin's unblock. I don't see any reason to start a separate ArbCom case against SlimVirgin - one case for the entire incident should suffice. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

DNFT. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering this whole case started because of a false accusation of trolling, it would seem wise to avoid such further accusations... --Tango (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: the whole case started because of your pattern of poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way, you shouldn't be throwing accusations of trolling around during a ArbCom case about a civility block, seems rather ironic to me... --Tango (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing that really forces me to suppress knee-jerk reactions is that you STILL insist that you did nothing wrong. You not even consider the chance that you might have erred. CharonX/talk 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider it and reject it based on the fact that no-one has supplied an evidence to support their assertions. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what do we have this page for? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have that page for people to put evidence on. It would be nice if somebody did that... There's plenty of evidence about the facts of various events, but those aren't in dispute. What's in dispute is interpretation and existence of policy and my reasons for acting. I haven't seen any evidence about those. --Tango (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And this? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have said I haven't seen any evidence about those that wasn't completely nonsensical. The suggestion that being familiar with MONGO contradicts my claim to be uninvolved is particular astounding... --Tango (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there was an entire section devoted to your non-admin involvement with MONGO including you calling him a fool and trying to convince at least 3 other editors not to support his RfA, I didn't find it necessary to expand on "familiar" in every section. Also, you asked clarifying questions in workshop. But perhaps a trip here (def 2) will provide some sense. It's rather [obtuse (again def #2)] of you to require clarification again by claiming ignorance of your involvement with him. Your efforts to derail his RfA, calling him a fool, your belief that MONGO has disrupted the project more than helped, your use of an ArbCom article sanction to block him for a week for incivility on his own talk page, you comments about MONGO here, etc, etc, all point to being "involved" with a very clear agenda that you tried to implement unilaterally. --DHeyward (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I blocked him makes me too involved to block him? Wondering reasoning there... you're just getting better and better... --Tango (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the fact that it was an over-the-top horrendous block with an extraordinary length with no justification leads uninvolved, neutral observers to see that you harbor some animosity towards MONGO that you let cloud your judgement. Claiming that other editors harbor animosity is not the definition of uninvolved. In the 4th week of this ArbCom it should be obvious that your block was improper on a number of levels including being involved. If you don't think you are involved, would you block MONGO again if a similar circumstance happened again? If MONGO were blocked by another admin, would respond to MONGO's unblock? Are you 'involved' now? --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If something similar happened now, I wouldn't do anything, because of this ongoing ArbCom case. If it happened after the ArbCom case is finished, it would depend on what the final decision is. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked the committee a direct question, anyone feel like answering it? --Tango (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango Desysopped

I think now the ArbCom is compelled to reconsider this remedy given the discussion on this very talk page. If not, would suggest a much more extensive suspension. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is depressing really. There may be other cases, but I can recall at least four cases I followed (or was going to follow) where admin actions came under intense scrutiny: the Matthew Hoffman case, the case where Durova resigned her adminship, the one where Psychim62 resigned on the point of being desysopped (I think, wasn't following that one very closely), and this one. In all cases, where admins stuck to their guns and tried to stand by their principles (even if misguided) the result was not good. The exception was Durova, who resigned and has continued doing good work. Sometimes admins being sanctioned or reprimanded by the arbitration committee should just accept things and not turn themselves into a cause celebre. Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why "should" anyone not try to stand by their principles? If the project is the one to decide their principles are not compatible with their work on the project, shouldn't the project be the one to "accept things" and take the proper action? Sorry, this sounds to me like encouraging dishonest or unprincipled admins; I hope none of us want to. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango can stand by his principles all he wants; however, this does not mean his principles are congruent with being an admin on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What you say is very true. And I am sure that many people (including me) are looking for more signs of self-reflection in Tango's comments. However, I hope the committee will consider that a significant number of editors did support the block, and one admin who lifted it decided there was no consensus against it and reinstated it. It's easy to think of situations that would be much less grey than this one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Our sanctions (or opening the case) was not due to a single admin action. Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern of problems. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Find me a pattern, please, other than the Goa Inquisition example. Please. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the finding on Tango's blocks shows an infrequent but established record of blocks that range from iffy to bad. The block of MONGO, however, has a very different character than the previous ones listed in that finding. The blocks that involve articles Tango was actively editing are much more significant, I think, but are also several months in the past. I don't know whether Tango has commented on those? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Tango resigning over suspension

Tango has stated that if he is restricted in the use of his admin tools that he will not serve as an admin for the duration of the suspension, and will resign. As this appears to be a classic example of an admin resigning in controversial circumstances or under a cloud, I assume he will be required to rerun an RFA to regain the use of his tools then? It would seem that a resignation in protest of an Arbitration sanction would preclude any Steward or Beurocrat re-tooling him as out of bounds, and it seems the Arbitration Committee doesn't have the authority or mandate from the community to summarily re-appoint someone as a sysop. Is this a correct assessment? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to wait for the final decision to see what the remedies are. But it seems to me that Tango's motivation (stated above) in 'standing down' is to prevent confusion about what admin actions he is permitted to perform. In that scenario, I don't see why he would be required to run again, if the committe decides not to remove his administrator access. I am confident that if the committee believes that he should not have administrator access they will pass a remedy to that effect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate clarification from the committee if the situation does occur, but my understanding is that if ArbCom rule on the case and do not decide to desysop me, then there is no cloud. By not desysoping me they are implicitly saying that I'm entitled to have the sysop bit. If I choose to surrender it anyway, that's my choice and I would be able to reclaim it at any time, per standard practice. I'm sure the committee will tell me if this understanding is incorrect. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to both CBM & Tango) Durova, however, resigned before it was obvious she would lose the bit, as have other admins, and some have resigned, haven't they, under negative storms in RFARs, that fall "under a cloud"? Tony Sidaway, for example. The AC needs to clarify this, for this case. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Resigning before the ArbCom ruling is another matter entirely. By doing so, you are removing the option for ArbCom to desysop you, so unless they explicitly say otherwise, you have to assume they would have done so, and therefore you must go through RfA. If you give ArbCom a chance to desysop you and they choose not to, then I see no reason for there to be a cloud. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Paul August ☎ 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, resigning to avoid a possible desysop by the Committee triggers the "under a cloud" status by custom. The Committee acknowledges this practice in our ruling for the sake of clarity. Resigning in reaction to a ruling would not trigger "under a cloud" in the same manner. Of course, the 'crats are free to come to their own decision about how to handle a desysop or resysop per other considerations. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to voluntarily not do any admin actions at all? The only restriction remedy I see on the table is the blocking one. You could just edit normally for that six months. I realise you might find it tidier to not have the tools available, so you could asked to be desysopped for six months as a sabbatical, on top of the blocking restriction anyway. But as others have said, such discussion should theoretically wait until the case is finished. Has there ever been a previous case where a "partial" restriction passed? Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think someone having the bit, whether they use it or not, while not being fully allowed to use it is an unnecessary confusion. I don't see voluntarily surrendering it for the duration of the restriction to be particularly complicated, so see no reason to seek a simpler solution. I also don't see any need for discussion on the matter - it's my choice, and mine alone (I welcome people's input, but there's not really much to say). I informed ArbCom of my intentions since I didn't see any reason not to, and generally I prefer openness over secrecy (as do most Wikipedians, I would imagine). I don't know of any case where such a restriction has been passed (or even proposed), but I'm far from an expert on past ArbCom cases - someone else may know of a case I haven't seen. --Tango (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Combatting the MONGO effect

While the sanctions against Tango may well be justified for past problems, I think this RFArb is sending the wrong message. It may be true that MONGO is retired, but it is questionable if this is permanent. That not one thing is being done about his bad behavior is proof enough that there is a double standard at play. Established editors know exactly what I mean, but for those who don't, it is basically an unstated rule that "it's ok" because "it's just MONGO." Why won't ArbCom end the double standard once and for all by, at the very least, stating that protecting MONGO from sanctions because he is considered "too important" is not acceptable? That was partially what caused so much drama around this block, that his supporters insisted on his righteousness and piled on Tango with one of them unilaterally deciding that it was time to undo the block. Contrary to popular belief, folks like MONGO, Guy, and WMC are replaceable. Part of the reason that these people feel free to behave badly is that they think they aren't replaceable. I think much too much emphasis is placed on the importance of a select group of editors simply because they go out of their way to "score" morale points for the good guys. This has a very toxic effect on the project as it causes balkanization between groups of editors and can lead to disastrous problems like those encountered in Durova's RFArb. We have plenty of well-behaved editors and administrators who work in highly contentious areas without resorting to being hostile and uncivil. Perhaps the fact that they don't show up on the radar is a testament to their ability to create a positive editing environment, even with the most difficult of editors. Taxman said it best at MONGO's second RFA:

“ Despite popular opinion, it is actually possible to work on controversial articles and still behave yourself. It's not easy, but working on controversial articles is not an acceptable reason to behave badly. ”

So why do we tolerate those who continue to enable this bad behavior? And what is ArbCom going to do about it? This is a festering problem that only grows worse with the passage of time. --130.127.3.249 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No simple solutions, unfortunately, only a pressing need to get the balance right between defending the right sort of actions, and getting people talking about and improving articles, not fighting each other. I think what might help is if both sides acknowledge that the other is partially right. There are times when heads need to be banged together and strict measures taken to enforce a calming period (though this can still be done in a firm but polite manner). There are also times when that is the worst possible thing that can be done, and a far more delicate and diplomatic and civil approach is needed. Making the right judgment for a particular situation is difficult. I would be far more likely to get involved in particular situations if I could be sure that others wouldn't wade in later and undo the work done so far. There is a reason why mediations invariably take place in a separate venue. I noticed the other day that the arbitration policy specifically mentions mediation as a step in the dispute resolution process. Is it me or is there less mediation going on these days before cases reach arbcom? Maybe more mediation from those who can work diplomatically is needed. One of the problems is that often one side or other will refuse to enter a mediation process. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree absolutely that no-one is irreplaceable. I can name many people off the top of my head who seemed central to things when they were here, but where Wikipedia has moved on since they left or reduced their activity. No-one is active at a high level constantly. What is irreplaceable is the influx of new editors. If that dries up or is choked off by the wrong sort of culture on Wikipedia, we are in trouble. People should be analysing things to try and track trends and spot possible warning signs. Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the alleged transgressions happened in article space. MONGO was entirely civil when he was working on the controversial article. He felt he was being trolled on his talk page and all the complaints and whining were about MONGO reverting editors' comments on his talk page. If it weren't MONGO who had done the reverts but a different editor, there wouldn't have been a warning. There wouldn't have been an ANI, etc, etc. So in essence, the "MOGNO effect" is that the bar is substantially higher for MONGO than any other editor because there are simply editors/admins who believe he should be banned under any pretext they can muster. --DHeyward (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when people are allowed to ignore the same policy the rest of us are expected to follow, there is a tendency for the rest of the people to want that policy to be enforced. It is not that the masses are out for blood, it is that people are sick of "special" users being able to ignore policy with impunity. It is more about people wanting the rules applied fairly than asking for special treatment for any one special person.

The "Mongo effect" is mostly people pissed off that Mongo is allowed to ignore policy when the rest of use are expected to follow it.

I must say that this "double standard" is not a myth or exaggeration, users like Mongo do get special treatment when it comes to violating the civility policy. This is not like the hundreds of cries of corruption that people complain about every day, this one actually has basis, this is a real double standard that is used to protect policy violators every day.

If you don't believe me just check how many time Giano has violated the civlity or AGF policy since his arbcom requirement him to follow those policies. Look what happens to the admins who attempt to enforce such "special restrictions"(if following civlity and AGF are really considered special restrictions), they get accused of abuse and overruled, horseshit(uncivil, but called for). If Giano was really expected to follow AGF he would have been blocked long ago, it is not the same standard. Same goes for Mongo.

Even when arbcom does state a requirement of following the rules everyone else follows, enforcing such requirements are more likely to get you desysoped than leading to others following the policies. Any attempt to enforce the same policy everyone else must follow is essentially impotent for these special users.

Let me make this very clear: The current state of enforcement has left the civility policy impotent in regards to certain users. This will end badly if not addressed properly. 24.68.249.114 (talk) (Admin for 3 years that seeks to be anonymous because anyone who takes a stand against this type of policy violation is labeled as taking a side against Mongo(or something equally sacred).) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because we all know you only have to be civil in the article space and can say whatever you like elsewhere... MONGO always feels like he's being trolled - it's called paranoia and is not an excuse to violate policy. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a lot said about "apparent" misconduct. Well if we are worrying about the appearance of misconduct and not just misconduct itself, then I should point out that it "appears" that Tango is being punished(yes punished, not prevented) for daring to require a "special user" follow the same policy as everyone else.

Now I am not a fool, I know that just because it appears that Tango is being punished for enforcing policy there is probably more complex reasons. The problem is that these more complex reasons seem to be based more on the appearance of misconduct than on real misconduct. This seems a bit contradictory, if not ironic.

A good hint that something is seriously wrong is when more than one honest user feels the need to be anonymous to speak honestly. 24.68.249.114 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Checkuser me if you want, but respect my privacy.

Y'know, we could remove all mention of MONGO from the case and it wouldn't make a difference in the result other than reducing the number of problematic blocks by one. That block might have been the trigger, but the case wasn't going to be accepted at all until further investigation unearthed a pattern of these blocks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove all mention of MONGO and that of banned trolls, then what do we have left...? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you go through those other problematic blocks and explain why you think they are still relevant? They were some time ago. The Goa block/protection I've accepted was a mistake - the reason I argue with people it is because they claim it was abusive, while I think it was just an innocent mistake by an inexperienced admin who's learnt their lesson. There is a big difference between an uninvolved admin showing poor judgement and an involved admin being abusive - this was an example of the former, yet people continue to claim it was the latter and don't even try and address my arguments against that assertion. The other blocks are generally just a matter of excessive length and I've already committed to giving more thought to what the community would see as an appropriate length of time to block for rather than relying so much on my own judgement (which doesn't seem to be in line with the average admin). What do you expect to be gained by taking away my mop for a time? --Tango (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MONGO made an uncivil remark, and was blocked for 16 hours. In drafting the decision, I regarded the matter as settled, and as such there was no need to address it further. --bainer (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any need to take any further action against MONGO at this point. I'm not sure that was really the point behind this discussion, though. The issue is the inevitable response whenever any admin tries to take action against the infallible deity called MONGO. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MONGO was desysopped for less than what is presented here against Tango

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO_misuses_his_admin_tools These findings appear to be quite a bit less than the abuses attributed to Tango. Some are similiar, except MONGO only threatened to block inappropriately as opposed to actually doing so. This, I believe, is the real MONGO effect. His profile puts him under greater scrutiny than others. --DHeyward (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MONGO was actually involved in content disputes, I wasn't. I was only ever involved in the matters in question in an administrative capacity. People seem to have a problem grasping that... Just because I edited the article doesn't mean I was involved in the dispute - life isn't that simple. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't you block him for his activities related to the articles and the editors of the articles, rather than his activities towards you? You let the situation turn from focussing on MONGO's behaviour on the articles and MONGO's behaviour towards other editors of the articles (in this case calling Basboll a troll), to focussing on his general behaviour, including his behaviour towards you (his "get lost" and other comments). A classic bait and switch. You got sidetracked. If you can acknowledge that, that might go a long way to resolving this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for the first blockable offence I saw - I didn't see any need to go around collecting up a long list of offence when I had one right in front of me. If you consider issuing a warning in accordance with an ArbCom ruling to be baiting, then take it up with ArbCom - their the ones that made it a requirement for taking enforcement action. --Tango (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But you don't see that two arbitrators are saying "For example, "backtalking" is not a legitimate reason for a block" and "I agree in that backtalking towards an administrator after a warning probably is not a good reason for a block by another administrator either. It concerns [me] that another administrator would block for heated reply to a warning that was removed, not just that that admin would block. I think it is likely an over reaction in both instances." - is it not possible, not whether you were wrong to block or not, but whether it is just possible that your block of MONGO was an over-reaction? At the moment, your "I blocked him for the first blockable offence I saw" makes it sound like you had made up your mind, and were just waiting for an excuse to block him - that is never the right attitude to take to even the most incivil or rude of our established editors. Keep talking and making the warnings more and more stern and wait until the last moment before blocking, rather than taking the first opportunity to block. This is, of course, a separate issue from that of getting distracted from the behaviour on the pages, but to get back to that, if MONGO had been incivil to someone on, say, the Japan article's talk page, would you have blocked him for that? In other words, did you interpret the ArbCom ruling to be general sanction for civility anywhere, or just civility related to the 9/11 articles? Where would you have drawn the line, if anywhere? Carcharoth (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If it was a single act, blocking would have been an over-reaction, but MONGO has a long history of incivility and that has to be taken into account. I see why you might mistake what I said for saying I'd already made up my mind and was just looking for an excuse, but that's not how I meant it. Since I'd issued him a warning, I was, of course, monitoring him to see if he heeded it. Once I'd seen one case of him not heeded it, I blocked him, and stopped monitoring him so never examined his other actions during that time period - there would have been no point, he was already blocked. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. How would you feel if someone did that to you? This is the "can you empathise with others" moment, or the "can you see things from MONGO's point of view" moment. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a meaningless question - I don't have a history of incivility and if I did, I wouldn't be the same person as I am. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that you're incapable of empathising with others, whomever they may be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "How does MONGO feel?" and "How would I feel in his place?" The former is easy - he's made it perfectly clear how he feels. The latter is impossible because if I were in his place, I wouldn't be me, so how can I possible know how I'd feel? --Tango (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope we have an article on empathy. Carcharoth (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not a meaningless question. Per edit, you are way more incivil than MONGO. Here's an example from 18 months ago. Now imagine you called someone a fool once per month for 18 months as you did there. That puts you about where MONGO is in terms of edits. His history of incivility isn't any worse than your own. I get the distinct impression that you don't understand how MONGO feels or you wouldn't have even warned him. No administrator with any knowledge of the history between User:Thomas Basboll and MONGO would have warned him (let alone blocked him) for removing Basboll's comment on his talk page. Not because he's MONGO but because of the nature of the dispute. Nor would anyone have warned Basboll for trolling. In the end, and not surprisingly and also predictably, Basboll is topic banned on the article. This was obvious to most admins that understood the issue. they understood MONGO's frustration with the article and certain editors there. Your lack of empathy and desire to "get MONGO" led you to make certain poor choices that led us here.--DHeyward (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a cultural difference here, but where I come from "You're making a fool out of yourself" constitutes friendly advice, not incivility (the advice isn't always appreciated, of course). And I didn't warn or block MONGO for removing the notification, everyone knows you are free to remove things from your your talk page. The warning was for the incivility in the edit summary. --Tango (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hostile conduct directed at administrators

If I may quote what FT2 has said: "A notable exception is that a user who is acting in a purely administrative capacity may continue to do so if attacked by the users concerned, and may warn and block them. This is precisely because their role involves dealing with hostile users, and to require otherwise would be easily gamed for disruption." - this probably arises from a misunderstanding of what a "purely administrative capacity" is. When you are warning and blocking users as an admin, you have to be crystal clear what you are blocking for. To be clear, blocking users for hostile conduct against other users (ie. not against yourself) is fine. There should be no need to block for hostile conduct against yourself. Stop and think about it for a minute. If you are uninvolved, why should an attack against you have any relevance to the dispute you are trying to resolve? An attack against you is widening the scope of the dispute, but you (as an admin) shouldn't let that happen. The attack against you is merely a distraction, an irrelevance. Ignore it and concentrate on getting the editors working on the content again. I think the root of the misunderstanding is some see the role of admins as "dealing with hostile users" (and then everything will be fine again), while others see the role of admins as more than that, as more of experienced users able to calm things down and guide things the right way, while still remaining uninvolved. Just blocking the hostile users doesn't always work, and sometimes makes things worse. Focusing on the behaviour that brought you to an article, rather than the behaviour directed against you when you arrive, is so much better. Don't get distracted by other issues, that is the key, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't block to punish people for past bad acts, we block because past bad acts suggest a significant risk of future bad acts. It makes no difference who the personal attack is aimed at, it still shows the same risk of future personal attacks, and that's why we block. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a little bit tangential to this case. The only hostile response in this whole case was the block and the subsequent reactions of the admin responsible for the block (i.e. permanent civility warning, "request denied" comment, and previous actions such as the block extension for a civil request for unblock). As a matter of principle, the only time an admin needs to immediately block is to stop disruption. Kneejerk blocks should be avoided especially when the project is not being harmed in the interim. Hostile to the admin AND disrupting the project is immediate block. hostile to the admin and NOT disrupting the project is an ANI report or a civility report or just ignore it. MONGO's contributions show that he does not disrupt the project so there was no excuse for the block and hostile response by Tango. --DHeyward (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Get lost" is a hostile response. It may not be particularly hostile, but it is hostile. And MONGO's contributions show that he is one of the most disruptive users we've ever had - has anyone had more ArbCom cases and AN/I reports about them? --Tango (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The comments above, and proposed findings so far, seem to indicate the committee is not going to review this particular block, or MONGO's actions, to any significant degree. So there is probably little benefit in debating whether it was worthwhile here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On what metric do you base "one of the most disruptive users we've ever had"? MONGO has over 40,000 edits, including 17,000 article edits and 1 Arbcom with sanctions directed at him. You have only 4750 edit and only 1260 article edits and are facing the same sanctions. Do the math and discover how much more disruptive it is to have to deal with your indescretions with the tools vs. MONGO. MONGO has more than 10 times your contributions and I dare say significantly less than 10 times the amount of conflict. Even his contributions as an admin dwarf yours including ratio stats such as unblocked to blocked user ratio (i.e. MONGO was twice as likely to unblock than you). I'd expect to see MONGO on AN/I and ArbCom at least 15 times as much as I'd expect to see you. In fact, I'd expect to see him more because apparently there are editors who have a perception that MONGO is disruptive and chomp at the bit to sanction him as you have. --DHeyward (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm basing it (roughly) on the number of complaints about him. I wasn't talking about net contribution, I was talking about level of disruption, so the extent of his useful contributions are irrelevant. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's a bogus metric. He could divide his accounts up into 10 different ones to have the same level of contributions and each account would have 1/10th the amount of complaints and he'd still have more contributions per account than you. You cannot divorce the level of contributions when talking about number of complaints. All other things being equal, complaints are proportional to contributions. For example, as an admin, MONGO has blocked over 300 accounts. He's deleted over 3000 articles. That's going to generate complaints. Using your metric, only those with the least contributions would be here and the rest would be driven off as "disruptive". Your metric is without merit and I believe the whole basis of your block is your own ludicrous metric and belief that MONGO is disruptive. Let's put it this way, if we extrapolate your admin actions to MONGOs in just sheer number (i.e. the way you want to measure it), this would have been about your 20th questionable block and 10th arbcom where you were facing sanctions. The reality is that per contribution, MONGO has been quite a bit less disruptive than you and that's all that should matter. --DHeyward (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept it's a difficult thing to the measure and simply counting complaints doesn't work particularly well. It's really a subjective thing, but I'm not the only person to see MONGO as very disruptive, those that think he's God are just more vocal. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you still seem to be manisfesting this desire to "get MONGO." As for vocal, it seems there are quite a few (present company accepted) editors that jump on the "history of incivility" bandwagon and chime in every time MONGO is mentioned on ANI regardless of the facts of the present case. I hope you learn from this and put the amount of complaints in perspective with the amount of edits. Case in point, MONGO has edited rarely since the block and his complaints are way down. I don't think MONGO changed his personality. Oh, and in addition, his mainspace articlve contributions are down as well. Another metric: Blocking MONGO for a week has the same effect to the project as blocking you for over three months. --DHeyward (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

MONGO has retired, of course his mainspace edit rate has gone down a little... --Tango (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it concern you that he retired and he is no longer contributing and that it was a direct result of your actions? --DHeyward (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Someone else will take up the slack, they always do, and they will probably do it without violating policy every five seconds. --Tango (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Tango, this disregard for established editors, their contributions and the results of your own actions... I'm speechless... CharonX/talk 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely anyone who cares about our encyclopedia — and administrators especially — should be concerned about the loss of any useful contributions, of which MONGO has made many. Our encyclopedia is worse off without the benefit of those useful contributions. And no, most likely, someone else will not take up the slack. There is absolutely no good reason to believe that other editors will do more to make up for MONGO doing less. Paul August ☎ 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread is just depressing. Anyone who is here for any purpose that is not creation of content, or directly supporting the creation of content/those who create content (sorry, Admins, Arbs, Checkusers, et al are not what made Wikipedia for their backend roles--the article writers did, which may include some of the others!) should just be asked to leave. Tango's tone as indicated by Charon is shocking. Every five seconds, really? MONGO was posting improper edits 30 times per minute? What a joke. The Arbcom should relieve this person of their use of the tools, because I'm floored they even passed RFA with this kind of attitude and bile for content creators, who need the most support of all users here. Without them, Wikipedia stops growing and dies. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"every five seconds" was clearly hyperbole and was not intended to be taken literally. Yes, MONGO has made enormous numbers of useful contributions. He has also caused an enormous amount of time to be wasted dealing with his attitude problems. You then need to account for people who haven't made useful contributions because they didn't want to put up with his mistreatment of them. I am not convinced that his net effect on the project has been positive... --Tango (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, That is an astonishing claim. I cannot believe that you said that. Who do you consider to be a productive editor who was driven off of the project by MONGO? Horologium (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango, there are some cases where editors (who have made useful contributions) deter others from making useful contributions, and consequently, do not have an overall positive net effect on the project. But, for whatever little or great number of contributions they make, you're grossly mistaken in thinking that someone else will pick up the slack. I do not think MONGO is such a case - but, I too am curious about such a claim. Please elaborate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To comment on the first post, no misunderstanding. An admin whose dispute with a user stems from their argument over a content point, shouldn't then act turn round and act as an administrator to that user and block them. The reason for that is mainly, the risk that admin powers might be used to enforce a point of view on a content matter ("You're being tendentious/I don't agree with your stance - block!")

An admin who is dealing with a user where no content matter was involved, is usually allowed to block for seriously problematic conduct, even if the conduct was directed at themselves. (User 1 to admin - "You can suck my ass and f... off and die"; admin - "block"). It's still preferable that others intervene, and best practice that they do so. But it's not historically considered as iron-clad a rule as when its a content dispute. The line is more "is the end result reasonable, whatever process it took". If the matter is clear and obvious, and a reasonable admin would say the action was fair, then that's usually fine. The issue is that otherwise, a user can drag out a dispute by simply "flaming" the administrator concerned... who must then not act but seek someone else to.

We've never really indulged that game. The standard sought has always (as best I know) been that best practice is to let another admin handle it, but if its blatant and obvious, and the handling reasonable, then it's fine to do so oneself.

As for MONGO - we have had many hugely disruptive editors. MONGO's issue was more that his style and approach gave rise to a lot of friction, and drama, and dragged others in. But he's far from the only prolific editor to have that failing. Part of the problem is that a number of others then took up the invitation laid down. That's still a problem, whether the user is this or that person. We still have our "loud and strident" voices to whom responding heatedly is more important than calm consideration. That's much more the problem. Such users make one person or issue into a drama fest. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a reasonably iron-clad rule, at least now. Admins should not block for problematic conduct against themselves, as such blocks will almost always have more of a undesirably damaging effect (whether it is a chilling effect, or one that is inflammatory to cause further damage, in the future) than that desired. We are dealing with people - not bots. The likelihood of the desirable effect is far greater when another admin makes the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And it is possible to be more conservative than this, and to only block for (a) non-content issues, and (b) issues not related to the administrator themselves. That is a higher standard than you are describing, FT2, and if some administrators and arbitrators think it desirable to hold themselves to those higher standards, is there any good reason not to back them up in that? I think the question here is not whether such higher standards are desirable (they obviously are) but whether it is acceptable to hold other admins and arbitrators to those higher standards. One thing that might help is to adopt those standards going forward (after community debate), and to recognise that previous breaches of those higher standards will not be brought up in future (an amnesty of sorts). The main argument against these higher standards seems to be "but it is a waste of time to have to find someone else". Well, not if it saves the time that has been spent on this page, it is not, and in any case, most blocks are not urgent. The block can wait the few minutes it takes to post a notice about the situation, and if other admins don't think a block is needed, then the initial admin may learn something without the drama of a disputed block. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I think people forget is the distinction between good-faith users and bad-faith users. An obviously bad-faith user (blatant vandalism, and I mean blatant) requires less thought about blocking. For a good-faith user, one that the aim should be to get editing normally again, more diplomatic approaches may be needed, and the rules used for vandals and their ilk do not apply. The need to take more care with established users is something that seems to be forgotten sometimes in the strict readings of arbitration remedies and enforcements. I realise that the fact that things reached arbitration is not good in the first place, but the aim should still be to discuss calmly and get the editors working productively again. Let's be honest, has acting like a police force to enact remedies-by-blocks ever had a good effect on productive editors? Surely sending them to remedial classes and continuing to discuss things with them would be better than setting up remedies where any admin can come along and block them if they so much as breathe wrong? Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If things have reach arbitration, it's usually because less severe methods have already failed. Trying to educate users who genuinely want to help the project is obvious preferable to preventing them contributing at all, however we have to be willing to take more drastic action when that education fails. --Tango (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we agree somewhat on this point, however, I doubt you see how this statement applies to you and your conduct, especially on this talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango, I don't believe the arbitration committee ever intended that arbitration remedies should make problematic established editors second-class citizens (though some of the established editors under arbcom sanctions may disagree with this). The point is usually to clear the obvious vandals and trolls away from an article, to correctly identify the socks, and to get the remaining (hopefully good-faith) editors working together. Where editors still can't work together, a topic ban is usually preferred to blocking (or should be preferred). The key point is that any editor can work on an article if they can work productively with others. This involves being civil and assuming good faith. When the editing environment breaks down, identifying what has gone wrong is sometimes difficult, and it is important to avoid making the situation worse. Do you think your actions improved the editing environment at the 9/11 articles? If so, could the same effect have been achieved a different way? Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Obvious vandals and trolls can be blocked by any admin, socks can be identified by any checkuser, ArbCom are here to deal with established editors. I'm not sure I'd agree with the phrase "second-class citizens", but ArbCom certainly intended their remedies to apply to established editors, or there would have no point making them. I don't honestly know if the editing environment has improved, I haven't been monitoring the articles (obviously, it would be completely inappropriate for me to have anything to do with them while this case is ongoing, especially in an administrative capacity). I hope that people are now able to have civil, constructive conversations and reach consensuses which benefit the project - perhaps I'm just overly optimistic. As for achieving it a different way... maybe. I did consider a topic ban but decided against it since the incivility actually took place on his talk page, which I couldn't really ban him from. Perhaps banning him from the 9/11 articles would have indirectly prevented further problems on his talk page as well, I don't know. I did what I thought was best, I've never claimed that my judgement is perfect, but I do think my actions were perfectly justifiable, even if they were sub-optimal. --Tango (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The editing environment on those articles has improved significantly. But not because of anything to do with Mongo, his presence or non-presence is (and was) pretty irrelevant to the editing atmosphere. The reason it's improved so much can be seen here. That's also what makes this exchange so disingenuous, Mongos departure from those articles made very little difference. RxS (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surely not a troll or vandal. You (Tango) have had a prior beef with me and upon seeing my (well, what did you expect) surly response to what I perceived as yet another condescending warning (made as you admitted it, without better educating yourself regarding the long standing dispute between myself and Basboll) you subsequently blocked me for my response to you. I have been looking over the AN/I complaints made about me and interestingly, a lot of them were by Mr. Basboll...more than a third in fact. A number of others were without merit. No doubt I don't like it when others try to misuse this open editing resource to promote fringe theories...they compromise the encyclopedic integrity of this project. Nor do I like it when they feel that I am less receptive to their efforts to compromise our articles and maybe all one can do is be straightforward and not mice words...yes, if they are here to promote conspiracy theories then there is no reason why I can't spell out the obvious. The old adage that when the legend becomes truth, print the legend is an appropriate one for me. An extremely small precentage of my responses and edits have been incivil and the broad brush that folks like Basboll have used to tarnish my reputation has worked well in terms of feeding this ongoing mischaracterization. Banning me from 9/11 articles would not in any way be beneficial to the project...as witnessed after I ceased editing, Basboll and others became emboldened, and the subsequent topic ban that he and other SPA's have encountered has finally permitted some semblence of progress on 9/11 articles. Banning me from 9/11 articles is ridiculous since until folks finally had had enough with the SPA's and others that were here to promote non science and topic banned them...one of the few editors willing to try and put a stop to them was me. Many wanted to but were too personally associated with the events or simply had even less tolerance then I did.--MONGO 14:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not a troll or a vandal. You are a well-meaning contributor with an attitude problem and an unwillingness to learn correct behaviour. Even if Basboll was a troll, describing a standard courtesy notification as "trolling" was at the very least extremely unhelpful. Allowing yourself to be dragged down to the level of the trolls is never a good thing. --Tango (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Which may or may not be true, either way the improved editing environment has very little to do with your block of Mongo. RxS (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is that broad brush that you use that continues to misrepresent my overall commentary on talkpages and edit summaries. The best thing to do if you feel insulted is to ask others if indeed it was an insult and to recognize that editors that have been around a long time might not find condescending warnings on their talkpages made by those that have prior "beefs" with them and have admitted that they made the warning without better educating themselves of the central argument might find the warnings in themselves to be incivil, misplaced and without merit. It is a mute point anyway...yes, Basboll is an SPA who is here to promote conspiracy theories about 9/11 and has been indefinitely topic banned from those articles. That you have repeatly admitted that the reason for the block was due to your perception that I was rude to you in an edit summary I made when removing your condescending warning from my talkpage indicates to me that you misued your tools, and more importantly, your position. Your warning was an implied threat of action...that you retaliated due to my edit summary is an issue.--MONGO 15:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you recognized that the warning was an indication that future incivility would result in a block, why did you answer it incivilly? A more reasonable action would have been to get a discussion going whether a block would be reasonable, especially if you felt it wasn't. If someone says, "you'll be blocked if you do that again", the correct response is never simply to do it again. That can only serve to escalate things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Tango said MONGO would be blocked for further incivility? He never said that. Tango said this was related to September 11th ArbCom which allows "sanctions". Tango never said he would be blocked and any honest reading of the ruling would consider a topic ban, not a block, to be the first sanction imposed. Indeed, the arbcom statement on sanctions is that admins should "balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles." Incivility in a user talk page edit summary that results in a block of an established editor can hardly be justified with that ArbCom remedy or under that warning. The block was egregiously bad. For MONGO to be able to determine that he was about to be blocked for a week from the warning that Tango left would be paramount to trying to guess what random number Tango was thinking about at the time. It's beyond the pale that an arbcom remedy that explicitly states that editors are allowed maximum freedom to edit is used to justify a 1 week ban. --DHeyward (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In his comment just above, MONGO seems to have read the warning as Tango intended it: "Your warning was an implied threat of action." The right response to such can't be to escalate the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"An implied threat of action" which MONGO considered to just be harassment by a person using the color of his authority whom he had a previous dispute. If I believed someone was harassing me, especially someone who had been contentious previously, I'd tell them to get lost. MONGO believed, correctly I might add, that Basboll's complaints on ANI were frivolous and part of his long standing dispute with MONGO. MONGO also believed, correct again, that Tango's threat was empty in terms of being enforceable because of a) the tenuous relationship to the 9/11 arbcom and b) Tango's previous involvement with MONGO made it untenable for him to block MONGO for a mild slight such as "get lost." No reasonable editor would interpret user talk page comments as being related to the 9/11 articles nor would any reasonable editor consider that saying "get lost" on their user talk page in response to a harassing comment would subject them to sanctions under the 9/11 Arbcom ruling. In any event, MONGO's talk page comments have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. He didn't take those comments anywhere else and it wasn't disruptive so people who understand why we are here would never issue a block for user talk page icvility because there are lots of ways to deal with user talk page incivility including locking down the page. It's really, really hard to justify any kind of blcok for user talk page actions because as long as they don't leave the user talk page they don't cause a problem. --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) I strongly disagree that as long as incivil remarks don't leave the talk page, they don't cause a problem. Incivility has the effect of poisoning the well and making it almost impossible to come to a mutually agreeable resolution; the effect is the same if it is on a user talk page, WP:ANI, or an article talk page. This is why we have a policy on civility, and why arbcom has passed findings encouraging editors to be collegial and to foster an atmosphere of camaraderie. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, an editor who only is uncivil on his own user talk page does not disrupt the encyclopedia and can be dealt with in ways that don't include blocking including ignoring it or refactoring it. All of the rules exist so the enccyclopedia can be built. We are not building good faith, social utopias. Even the first rule, WP:IAR exists because the ultimate goal is building the encyclopedia, not following rules. Because user talk pages can be ignored without affecting the encyclopedia, but blocking does affect the encyclopedia, in generally every case a user talk page transgression should not result in a block. This is why user talk pages are pretty much the only place where an editor can delete another editors contributions. --DHeyward (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people are so good at compartmentalizing as you imply. Suppose (this is not what happened here, just a hypothetical) editors A and B are discussing something on an article talk page, and meanwhile editor B starts making disparaging comments about A on B's user talk page, which A notices. We can't realistically expect A will simply ignore the user talk page comments when discussing on the article talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. So the step 1 warn B. Step 2 refactor bad comments. Step 3 lock user talk page for period of time. Step 4 topic ban editor B to stop the dispute. Now editor B would have to really go out of his way to continue this without disrupting the encyclopedia. However, in no case is editor A aloud to bring the dispute to the article talk page from editor B's user talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think MONGO was working in separate compartments at all. He accused me of "POV pushing" at the article and "SPA trolling" on his own talk; he suggested deleting the article because it seemed to be written by a conspiracy theorist at the article and suggested Tango was supporting conspiracy theorists on his talk. In both cases, he was rejecting suggestions to discuss article content in a civil manner.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's important to remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. When we block "for incivility", we're not actually blocking because the person was uncivil, we're blocking because we suspect the person will be uncivil in the future. Just because the incivility was restricted to his user talk page this time doesn't mean it will continue to restricted to there. Being uncivil in response to a civility warning makes it perfectly clear that you do not intend to be civil in future, in that situation, a block seems completely justified to me. (Also, minor point: you can't refactor edit summaries, which is where both pieces of incivility directly relevant to this case took place.) --Tango (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Tango you can delete revisions and hide the edit summary. In fact, if you had just deleted Basbolls and Mongo's revision, there wouldn't have been any problems at all. Please review the admin training material so that you have a firmer command of the options available to you. Secondly, there was absolutely no reason to believe that a revert on MONGO's user talk page would somehow indicate further incivility anywhere in Wikipedia. To stop the incivility, all you had to do was not comment any more on his user talk page. Since 8 hours had passed since the so-called incivil "get lost" comment, it's clear that the block was done because he pissed you off, not because you thought he would continue making incivil comments. In fact, MONGO made edits to 9/11 article talk pages after telling you to "get lost" and they were not incivil. So the reality is that it is very clear that he wasn't continuing any incivility so your contention that the block was "preventative" is nonsense. Thirdly, numerous editors, admins and arbitrators have pointed out both your errors in judgement about issuing the bloack as well as your errors in interpretation of policy. Yet you continue to cling to the belief that the block was a) justified, b) withing policy and c) a net benefit to the encyclopedia. This seems to affirm the belief that given another chance with the identical circumstances, you would repeat this action. --DHeyward (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas, you are currently under a 9/11 topic ban for "POV pushing." MONGO believed that your posting to his talk page was "trolling". Your user page states that you are a SPA. Given all that, the whole thing comes down to an interpretation of whether sayign a comment is "trolling" is the same as calling someone a troll. I think it's clear that "trolling" can occur without the editor being a "troll" therefore it's rather straightforward that reverting an edit as "trolling" is not incivil if the editor legitimately believes that the only intent of the edit is to arouse a response that doesn't build the encyclopedia. I've personally reverted trolling on my talk page and the editor wouldn't fit the definition of a troll and the edit summary was simply there to reflect the reason for the revert. --DHeyward (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could have deleted the incivility, but that's not really refactoring, that's deleting. As far as I know, it's not standard practice to delete revisions to remove simple incivility, it's used for removing personal information, copyright violations, etc. You keep bringing up the 8 hour gap - the block was for a week, what difference does 8 hours make? If I'd blocked for 3 hours after an 8 hour gap, that would have been a seriously flawed block, but blocking for a week after an 8 hour gap is completely different. Yes, numerous people have disagreed with the block, however, numerous people have also agreed with it (although, generally, not to the length of it, which is why I was going to reduce the length, but was beaten to it). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not deleting it as it is visible to admins and can be restored. It is certainly preferable than blocking. The 8 hours is significant because MONGO continued to contribute in that 8 hour span. With no incivility. What incivility would you be preventing if it's clear that it had stopped? By the time you blocked, the revert was old news to him. Now imagine that in addition to saying "get lost" and reverting your edit, he also filed an RfC in that 8 hour span. He certainly felt you had abused your admin tools. Do you think it would have been proper to blcok him for a week if he reverted you with the same comment and in the 8 hours submitted an RfC? I suspect not, but the difference is only that instead of letting the community comment on your warning, he let you reflect on it personally. When time has elapsed like that it's impoortant to consider what an editor did not do as well as what he may do. Check out the anon vandal reports and try to report vandlaism that is 8 hours old. Even if the only contribution ins vandalism, there won't be a block. Hardly seems right to punish an established editor when anons would go scott free. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is behaving a like a troll. If you say someone is trolling you are therefore likely to insult them (unless they actually are trolling in which case they appreciate the attention ... that's the not so funny part). You are certainly rejecting the possibility that the notice was made out of courtesy. Even if you are right that it wasn't, it would be better to ignore it. In this case, like I say, MONGO's "trolling" comment was not an isolated statement about me. So it doesn't come down to anything about it alone. MONGO was disrupting what turned out to be our (yours and mine) efforts to reach a consensus. I rather like the solution we reached. I am an SPA because I happened to start editing in an area that seems to require a disproportionate amount of time to contribute meaningfully to. (No one who looks at my history can doubt that I have devoted many hours to this project. But whether or not I actually push CTs is the subject of my appeal.) I see MONGO's behaviour as an unnecessary and counterproductive part of the process. And I think Tango dealt effectively with it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the notice WAS out of courtesy. MOGNO didn't think so though. I can see how, given your past history with MONGO, he might have thought you were trolling. An email could have corrected it. Posting that on his talk page and then going to ANI over a user talk page revert though seems a bit over the top. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's exactly it: the revert is not why I went to ANI. I went to ANI because of what MONGO was doing on the article talk page (calling me a POV pusher and promising I would be "dealt with") and the revert became part of what he was doing. ArbCom had raised the bar on "decorum" in the 9/11 area; Tango enforced it; the dispute on the article was settled. I don't think it would have been settled if MONGO had continued to play his familiar role in it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, you made two ANI edits. The first was for article talk page comments and discussions. Tango evaluated that and found nothing improper. Your second ANI edit was a complaint about MONGO when he reverted your comment on his talk page with "remove trolling" in the edit summary. This is what Tango warned him for and was the only fault Tango highlighted. There was no warning or reprimand for any article space edits. You may have desired it or felt more action was warranted, but it didn't come about. --DHeyward (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. I don't disagree that everyone has focused on the talk page reverts. I am suggesting that MONGO's actions here (on all the involved pages) are best understood as connected. It is only because MONGO might have had a disruptive influence on article editing that blocking him can have been jusitifed. As Tango says, blocks have to prevent something. When I reported the "get lost" revert I described it as a "rejection" of the warning and provided a diff showing that he was also ignoring it, i.e., continuing the behaviour. See [1]. But you are right to point out that my view (which I simply arguing for here, as my defense of Tango's actions) is not the dominant one.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity: I didn't block because of Thomas' complaint, I blocked because I saw it on my watchlist. I didn't see the complaint until later. --Tango (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

In case anyone here has missed it (apologies if it was mentioned earlier), have a look at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Remedies

1.3 shoudlnt have passed, it is one vote short of a majority - the only rememdy to pass is 1.2... Viridae^Talk 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is correct, a 6 majority is needed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)