Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Protection removed by MONGO on September 11, 2001 attacks

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but the article talk page had moved into discussion regarding specifics from outright edit warring. A main source for the edit warring, User:Cplot, has been found to be using sockpuppets, was blocked, with the block noted on WP:ANI for review. More recently, people have been discussing on the talk page if/how to mention the Iraq War and War on Terrorism in this article, whether or not to include a particular link, and other specifics. I had tried semi-protection back on November 29th, and another admin quickly came in and gave it full protection. I think semi-protection is fine, as it protects from sockpuppets and blatant vandals while allowing other folks to edit. MONGO didn't explicitly ask on the talk page if it was time to unprotect it, but could sense that it was time (from seeing the talk page discussions) to allow folks to edit the page. I have been gradually working to source the article better, and am glad to be able to work on it again. --Aude (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

From workshop talkpage

Looks like a lynching, not a just settlement...I was never seeking a desyopping of Seabhcan and all I wanted was a NPA and civility settlement. I would be more than happy to have the same applied to me. Three of the "reason" I am supposedly have abused my sysop tools are ridiculous:

As I mentioned in my evidence, I did this to PREVENT Cplot from going over 3RR...I protected the page on a version I didn't even like! There was an edit war that I was not currently involved in...I thoiught at that time Cplot was just a edit warrior...not the abusive troll he turned out to be...if I had known earlier, I wouldn't have protected the page on HIS version and just let him instead violate 3RR. The material being argued about between Cplot and others wasn't even things I was involved in...the diffs demostrating I had edit warred are from six weeks PRIOR to my protecting the article.
I removed the FULL protection and instead changed it to semi-protection since the persons who had been edit warring had either been blocked or had moved on...it's that simple. There is no abuse here...what on earth are they talking about? I haven't even edited the article since I reduced the full protection to semi...[5]
  • On November 13, MONGO unprotected Operation Gladio [6], which was protected during an edit war involving Seabhcan, with whom MONGO was in a dispute.
This wasn't done maliciously! I didn't do this to adversely impact Seabhcan and I don't think I have edited that article much at all...not once that I can see in the last 500 edits[7]...going back to the beginning of 2006!--MONGO 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned clearly in my evidence that there was an Rfc regarding my 48 hour block on Pokispksy76. I agreed with most of those that stated I shouldn't block anyone I could be seen to be in a content dispute with...I agreed with the majority of persons who stated this...I didn't sit there and blatently disagree with them. I also stated in evidence that my threat to block Salvnaut was a poor judgement...and after seeing the commentary at AN/I...I didn't block him. Had CBD and others been unsatisfied with that Rfc, they could have brought it to arbcom then, not six months later.--MONGO 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Dmcdevit seems to have much lower tolerance than other arbitrators for admins who (in his view) misuse their authority

I simply think you are not suited to be an administrator. Please don't take this personally, it is an opinion reached after an evaluation of the facts. It is clear that you unblocked yourself in a dispute, misusing your blocking tools, that you protected to your preferred version in a dispute in which you were involved, misusing your protection tools, that you repeatedly used rollback in a content dispute, misusing your rollback button, that you were even edit warring in the first place, causing doubt as to your administrative judgment, and that you have yet to recognize that any of these behaviors were wrong.[8]

and has proposed desysopping in other cases. Usually he is outvoted by the other arbitrators and some form of warning or caution is voted instead. Since Fred has withdrawn the case from voting, presumably he intends to add additional proposals setting up a foundation for his split vote on the dual desysopping and/or adding some additional remedies like civility parole or probation. The remaining arbitrators will vote on everything, and may even make their own alternate proposals. Thatcher131 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not accusing Dmcdevit of anything, only asking he reexamine his evidence of desysopping based on protecting pages. In the three instances I see there that list that, not once is there evidence I have violated the policy...I have commented on this above and on the evidence page.--MONGO 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can remember (and there have been a lot of cases) I have only supported two failed desysopping proposals (recently, Bucketsofg and back in April, MarkSweep). (Your quote is about the passed desysopping of Fys.) Statements like "Usually he is outvoted by the other arbitrators and some form of warning or caution is voted instead" tend to distract from arguments about the actual merit of the proposal. I don't disagree that I'm generally more proactive about administrative misconduct than others on the current arbcom, but I think it does us good, and I also wouldn't have proposed these if I didn't think they had a high chance of passing. (And just to note, I will comment on MONGO's response as well.) Dmcdevit·t 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have done thousands of admin actions, so in my case, we are talking about a "screw-up" ratio of less than a few tenths of a percent. Out of 430 something blocks, I get not even 5 "wrong"...so a better average than 99% right is grounds for desysopping? In those extremely few times when I blocked someone and another admin overturned it, not once did I wheel war with them, not once.--MONGO 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
After seeing partisans in this case go after each other with the long knives (although not necessarily MONGO and Seabhcan themselves), I wasn't at all surprised to see your proposals to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan. I was trying to offer some historical context for those who do not follow arbitration cases extensively and may have been shocked by your proposal. I think your comments about not having confidence in someone as an admin are useful and instructive, and give insight into your proposal here, which I why I brought them up for the parties. I suppose I mentioned the fact that previous proposals have not passed to in some way reassure the parties, but of course, each case and each proposal should be decided on its own merits, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the desysopping proposal was in any way out of bounds. I apologize if I overstepped in any way. Thatcher131 12:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
From my vantage point, Arbitrator McDevit is desysop-obsessed. In my case he proposed desysopping immediately and on the basis of actions which were not the subject of the case. Nor did I ever 'wheel war' (an overused phrase). In other words, he was perfectly happy to form conclusions without ever asking about the circumstances. Does it "do us good"? No it bloody well doesn't. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Cplo ... Airline ... whoever

Mongo, does not have even the rudimentary skills to understand that everything here on Wikipedia is archived for everyone to see. Therefore it is clear to anyone who wants to check the record that everything Mongo says is a lie. Just as an examplee, look into the edit warring with Cplot. Cplot was blocked for violating the 3rr rule after only 3 reverts. The second violation was for maintaining an POV tamplate on the September 11 2001 attacks article and nothing else. Clearly it was a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia policies to join in a tag-team to edit war with Cplot to stop a POV template from being placed there. Finally, the claim that Mongo protected the Steven E. Jones article to prevent Cplot from violating the 3rr is nonsense since Cplot was edit warring to keep defamatory material out of the article which is not subject to the 3rr. Mongo and his chorot are simply a menace to Wikipedia. They should all be permanently banned. I can think of no other suitable solution to these problems plaguing Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AirlineToHeaven (talk • contribs).

Protection of cplot ... "cohorts" ... fan of Steven E. Jones ... extreme view ... I wonder who this is. How is it you even bumped into MONGo if you only made this one edit? There is also the tell tale tripple capital. --NuclearZer0 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about the history of dispute resolution

I have a few questions about where this is going.

Premise: To me, the most important distinction between MONGO and Seabhcan is dispute resolution - both editors have had some problems, but when an RFC was initiated for MONGO, he listened to the comments, agreed to try to be more civil, and, as far as I can tell, was in fact more civil. In response to his RFC, Seabhcan was only willing to agree to be more civil or to avoid misusing admin privileges as part of a global settlement with other editors. (This seems obvious to me from the existing evidence page, but if anyone wants me to add diffs here, let me know).

Given that premise, I have the following questions/suggestions

  1. What is the scope of review of the Arb Comm proceeding? The conclusion regarding MONGO's misuse of his admin tools rests in part on his treatment of PokiPsy76, an issue that was successfully resolved through dispute resolution. The Workshop also contains proposals relating to MONGO's dispute with Miltopia, which is, as far as I can tell, a leftover ED dispute that has never been through DR. I know that ArbComm scrutinizes the behaviour of all parties to a dispute, but is it really beneficial to sanction someone for behavior already resolved through DR, or never taken to DR?
  2. Desysopping: Assuming that Seabhcan and MONGO are otherwise productive admins, it seems to me that a more narrowly tailored remedy might be preferable - is it possible to put both editors on probation against using their admin tools on any 9/11 related articles? There's a little slack in the "current conflict" policy that allows both editors to argue that at least some of their admin actions were not related to a "current conflict." Without pointing fingers, they're both closely enough identified with the general subject that a general subject limitation would probably remove some of the drama. Thanks, TheronJ 16:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you, Seabhcan asked for a larger group to be involved in the dispute resolution, the problem was not based on issues involving 1-on-1 confrontations, hence 1-on-1 solutions make little sense. It should also be noted that the person who brought forth Seabhcan's RfC as noted in my evidence section, did not want to engage Seabhcan to find a solution, the RfC was brought so Seabhcan would stop doing XYZ, not so everyone actions can be evaluated or that a resolution can be worked out. For example I proposed a middle ground a set of rules everyone can work by and Tom simpyl dismissed them out right without wanting to hear it, basically stating that Seabhcan had to stop doing XYZ, no interest in counter arguement or hearing what others were doing etc. I have already written, this should have never gotten to this step because the RfC was fake, its not that it was a failure, its that it was never an attempt to resolve anything. --NuclearZer0 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are not credible. Ganser is a by no means unique case of a once respected academic who has embraced the fringe. The extent to which Wikipedia lends credence to his, and similar, ideas brings descredit on those of us who edit here. I think that is the consensus of Wikipedia editors, most of whom are like me and have no desire to become embroiled in the conflict over the content of those articles. MONGO has endeavored to maintain some balance in these articles and, as such, has been the target of savage and sustained attacks. I'm concerned that the result of this arbitration may be to encourage those determined to impose their fringe beliefs on Wikipedia to provoke those in opposition until the arbcom rules against them. The result may be an increased level of incivility and conflict and a degradation of article quality.
I think that the desysoping remedies are disproportionate, especially with regard to MONGO. They could have a chilling effect on administrators who might choose not to bring their concerns to arbcom, if they thought that a likely outcome was desysoping. I encourage the committee to consider more narrowly tailored remedies as TheronJ suggests above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I came to my position regarding MONGO reluctantly. Put simply, he has consistently reacted immaturely. This is not acceptable behavior from an administrator who regularly attempts to grapple with controversial matters. He was never alone in his struggle. We simply cannot accept poorly sourced information. If we do, there will be more nice little articles in the New York Times like this one. And they won't be quaint criticisms about the Chinese Wikipedia; they will seriously attack us as an unreliable source. If those who he struggled with are encouraged, they are quite mistaken if they think the road is open for poorly sourced information. Fred Bauder 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I pointed out that Miltopia was stalking my edits to the admins who overturned my block without asking me first why I had blocked him. My indefinite block was severe...but indefinite, as a number of admins have pointed out, is not the same as permanent...had the other admins stepped back and said, gee, maybe we should just reduce the block to 24 hours, then I would have had no problem with that. Instead, when faced with the evidence I provided deonstrating his stalking, they decided I was incorrect. Miltopia repeatedly told me to not stalk him and I never once was doing this...he was. Subsequent to my block of him, he has also shown up on a few other things I worked on, including to cast an oppose vote on a Rfa for one of my nominees...he never voted on an admin nominee before and the only way he would he would be doing so that I can see is if he was stalking my edits. I did thousands of admin actions and got several wrong...my ratio of something like 99.7 percent decent actions is rewarded with a desysopping because I wasn't always nice when people refused to help me defeat harassment and trolling. As far as maturity...well, I can proudly state that I never once made a comment as you did here.--MONGO 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, but see some more: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Comment_by_uninvolved_party_Pavel_Vozenilek. Fred Bauder 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Seabhcan doesnt add poorly sourced information just because you do not agree with it. You have been asked to prove that accusation and instead ignored Seabhcan after pointing him to an irrelevant location. --NuclearZer0 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not, but a lot of noise in that direction. Done now anyway. Fred Bauder 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of apologizing you make excuses, very nice. Sounds like someone I would want writing proposals in my ArbCom hearing, someone who fails to apologize or admit being wrong. --NuclearZer0 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed decision - Mongo desysopped

I would like to urge ArbCom to reject the proposed decision to desysop Mongo. The evidence page has a lot of diffs that claim to show a large amount of abuse, but much of it is refuted there (and on this page [9]) and some of the evidence is quite old. In addition, as you can see from his talk page he still has substantial community support and more over there does not seem to be a great deal of general support for this remedy. I understand that Arbcom doesn't need the communities consent for it's decisions but I don't believe that the evidence rises to the level needed for this desysopping. In fact, there's has been little in the way of actual admin abuse on his part.

It also seems to me that because (imo) there isn't a watertight case for it, Mongo's willingness to admit fault and take criticism should show Arbcom members that desysopping is too strong of a measure and see that it borders on punishment. Mongo does a lot of heavy lifting here, and has suffered a lot of abuse. That does not excuse his (self-admitted) mistakes, but his willingness to (slowly but surely) learn from them makes this proposed decision much too severe at this point and threatens to drive an editor away that has considerable community support. Probabtions if you must, but not this punishing desysopping. Rx StrangeLove 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like administrative parole became an option as I was writing this. Rx StrangeLove 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it did. ;) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Except, it's being defeated an ArbCom is now 6-0 in favor of desysopping. I strongly concur with Rx StrangeLove. This "remedy" isn't a remedy. It's a beating based on flimsy evidence. --Durin 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dmcdevit's position on administrative patrol

I don't follow the argument that administrative patrol amounts to punative blocking. The point of the blocks seems to be to be to stop disruptive behavior in the form of bad administrative actions. How is this different than any other block for disruptive behavior? I would think that admins are already subject to being blocked for disruptive admin actions, and this administrative patrol remedy is inline with the other types of remedies commonly proposed in arbitration cases. —Doug Bell talk 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive admin actions tend to result in desysoppings in the past, actually, if my memory serves me right. If adminship is no big deal, then it should be no big deal to take it away if it is determined than a sysop is using their tools in an improper manner. Cowman109Talk 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That entirely fails to address my question. My question is why it would result in punative blocks in the case of administrative patrol but not in the case of blocks for say civility patrol. There is a logical disconnect here in the reasoning. —Doug Bell talk 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Think of it this way: blocks for administrative activities are punitive because they prevent administrators from editing, when editing has not caused a problem, and they could still do useful editing. That is punishment. The proper preventive measure would be a 24 hour desysopping rather than a 24 hour block, but that is not technically possible. Civility blocks are fundamentally different because it is edits that are in violation, and edits that are blocked. Dmcdevit·t 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Temporary desysopping is something I'm sure could be added to the software if supported by a suitable policy discussion. 67.117.130.181 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand that reasoning. However, there is precedent for admins being blocked because of their admin actions. Are you saying that those were punative blocks? Also, can you explain why a bureaucrat could not desysop and resysop someone to facilitate a temporary desysoping as a remedy? Seems like what you are arguing is that because the automatic resysoping is not implemented as a feature of the software that there is no middle ground for remedies relating to misuse of administrative abilities. —Doug Bell talk 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Bureaucrats cannot remove the sysop flag - only stewards can, actually, if memory serves me right once more. Cowman109Talk 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, blocking an administrator for an administrative action strikes me as inevitably punitive. I think we've only made a remedy like that once before (and it wasn't my first chice, but compromise was necessary). I don't think there is much room for middle ground in adminship. Neither administrators nor bureaucrats can desysop, only stewards, global users not involved in this project, could enforce, which is unworkable. Consider the effect of probation or parole or article ban measures for editorial concerns: the disruptive behavior like personal attacks or edit warring is already prohibited for everyone, but the remedy is a way of ArbCom giving it's authority to administrators to enforce the prohibitions against habitual violators with blocks or bans that might normally be against policy. That approach is impossible with administrators: true, admin miscunduct is already prohibited for all admins, and the only viable solution for habitual misusers is desysopping. Dmcdevit·t 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the logic. Disruption is disruption whether it's an admin in a wheel war or an editor inserting nonsense or 3 reverts in 24 hours. Why is the parole approach impossible? Already adminsitrators have the ability to overturn their blocks for editing and wheel war if they so chose but it doesn't happen frequently because it is on their honor not to do this. We don't need stewards to desysop admins while they are blocked. Admins are the most respectful of the rules. I suspect that if you simply left a note on their talk page that they are prohibited from admin actions for 24 hours, it would have the same effect as actually desysopping them. I find this lack of trust in an honor system is not supported by the facts and actions of the overwhelming number of admins. --Tbeatty 05:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way to adress Mcdevit's example: civility violations rarely happen in edits to articles. They are on talk pages and user talk pages and Wikipedia space. Yet we block for civlity violations because of the damage civility violations causes to community. It is not considered extra-punitive because it prevents an editor from editing articles. I personally think a warning on an admin's talk page to not use admin tools for 24 hours would be sufficient. Disregarding that warning would be followed by a block. Yes, a blcok prevents an admin from editing just as incivlity on a talk page prevents an editor from editing article space. --Tbeatty 05:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO gone

Mongo seems to have quit Wikipedia [10] [11]. 67.117.130.181 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We know. Hopefully he has only temporarily lost heart. Thatcher131 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desysopping

I have noticed in other desyopping cases, those that were desyopped were allowed to reapply at a later date, yet I see no provisions as such here. Is there a way to get rid of the current arbitrators? If there is , I would like to know how this is accomplished...does one complain to the foundation or Jimbo Wales directly?--MONGO 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You may apply again at any time. Arbitrators serve at the pleasure of Jimbo and may be removed at any time. I suppose the Foundation could overrule Jimbo should he decline to remove one or all of us. I would start with Jimbo, the Foundation is a very long shot. Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just asked the same question on Arbcom-L. I have a thought or two about this, but not being an arbitrator, should probably let them speak for themselves. Thatcher131 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Mongo, Seeing that your policy of 'applying to a higher authority' as gotten you into this much trouble already, don't you think its time to stop digging? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This much trouble? What is this kindergarden? What "trouble" am I in? I see a number of arbitrators who apparently fail to see the merit of enforcing even recent past decisions they have made, ie: "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves" [12].--MONGO 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't care about such things, the phrase "What is this kindergarden?" might be seen as being 'incivil' by those ultra-sensitive editors who hang around this place. Just a bit of advice for when/if you are put on 'probation' of some kind. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps I neglected to apply that principle. I'll take a look at it again. Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, look, I know your jobs are thankless...much of the time, being an admin is as well...but the point is, I brought this case here to resolve via higher authority issues that were unresolvable in the Seabhcan Rfc. Where does it state that admins are to be perfect? I do thousands of admin actions and I am to be desyopped because I argued with other admins rather than wheel war with them? I want someone to show me an admin of recent that has been in the trenches dealing with the vandalism and harassment on a level I have and let's see if they too are perfect. I make a couple mistakes and am desyopped?...Seabhcan has been an admin for a year and a half, makes a couple mistakes and is deadminned? Where is the justice here. I am not put on probabtion for incivility, yet I am to be desyopped for partly the same reasons?--MONGO 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering about that as well. An explicit arbcom ruling that administrators may use their powers in combatting harassment, followed by a recommended desysopping of an admin who did just that is bizarre. I have, from time to time, used my admin powers to deal with harassment aimed against me and some of my wiki-friends — when a newly-created account would post links to sites that gave personal information about us, I'd block the account and would carry out a deletion and selective restoration of the page. Sometimes I've used page protection. When I have reported such incidents at admin noticeboards, I've always been supported. I've also sometimes reported such incidents to arbcom members and to Jimbo.

If the arbitrators didn't actually mean what they said in the previous ruling, or if they worded it so that it could be open to too liberal an interpretation, then surely they should go back to that case and issue a clarification, rather than punish someone who followed it. (Oh, and please don't say that desysopping isn't punitive.)

As for judgments about admins who deal badly with harassment being unsuited to adminship, are the arbitrators sure that any administrator is suited in that case? Where are all the administrators who have been harassed at the same level as MONGO and have dealt with it in the "right" way? If I think of administrators who have suffered severe harassment, I see some who left, like Katefan0, some who got angry and resorted to bad language, like Jtdirl, and one who was given an overwhelming amount of support from fellow admins and users — myself.

As one who probably knows more about harassment than any of the arbitrators, I strongly urge the committee to think again. AnnH ♫ 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, and my comments are less important than AnnH's) I do not support the proposed remedy against MONGO (which is not, of course, to say that I agree with every word he has every written or every action he has ever taken). However, in response to his questions above and consistent with Fred Bauder's response above, I understand that a desysopped administrator is generally free to file a new RfA at any time. (The best timing for such a request is another story.) As for replacement of arbitrators, we know that four incumbents will be leaving the Arbitration Committee and at least six new arbitrators selected within the next few weeks. I would estimate the odds of having any of the remaining ArbCom members removed as minimal to non-existent, especially if the only basis for the request were disagreement with the merits of a decision or series of decisions. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Having followed the case from the beginning, it is worth noting that Fred originally opposed desysopping MONGO for the reasons originally proposed by Dmcdevit. After further reviewing the case, he reversed his vote, citing this and this, and adding this finding of fact. The problem is not that MONGO blocked trolls who were harassing him, it is the comments he made to other users and admins who questioned his judgement. Reinforcing the principle that admins may ban trolls who harass them will not change this aspect of the case. Thatcher131 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If the problem is not that MONGO blocked trolls who were harassing him (use of admin tools) but the comments he made to other users and admins who questioned his judgement (CIVIL, NPA), then why would he not be sanctioned under CIVIL and NPA, and given the appropriate block. If he did not abuse the admin tools, he should not be desysopped. If MONGO had not been an admin, what would the punishment have been for the comments that he made? - Crockspot 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
See my response below. It appears that Dmcdevit and Fred Bauder have different reasons for supporting desysopping. The other arbitrators who have voted have either commented or not. Thatcher131 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
the other admins were not interested in doing anything other than reverting my block of Miltopia...they should have reduced it, not reverted it. Not once did they ask me why I had blocked him. Concerns for my ability to edit the website without being trolled were ignored. My reaction was to NOT wheel war, yet my strong objections to their efforts to not support me when I was being stalked are questioned.--MONGO 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Musical Linguist's comment - please bear in mind this is from someone who lists drafting a section supporting Kelly Martin in my userpage as trolling, as well as making an edit to my userpage saying I've "found an article to edit" trolling. Give me a break... Milto LOL pia 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Kelly Martin, you're more than welcome to support her. There are editors I highly respect who support her. Posting that she "kicks ass" is not, to my mind, the politest way of supporting someone. It's not an expression I've ever come across, and in fact, I wasn't even sure that it really was a support. I certainly don't count support for Kelly as trolling. Tom harrison supports her. Nowhere do I suggest that saying that you've "found an article" is trolling. My point is that a new user turns up, gets into dispute with someone who is being harassed by the website the new user comes from, announces that he is finding articles by "checking out the contribs of a few editors", starts turning up at articles edited by the user he's in dispute with, and then denies that he's stalking. AnnH ♫ 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Tony Sidaway was placed on admin 1RR in the arbcom case naming him[13]. Why is that a suitable remedy for him and myself and Seabhcan are desysopped for no worse offense than he did?--MONGO 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That question deserves an answer I think...Rx StrangeLove 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by SalvNut

Excuse me but I don't know where should I make comments to this so I make it here. Please move it to a proper place, thanks.

I feel very very sorrow because of this part: "...with Seabhcan and a number of other editors advancing conspiracy theories from an anti-American viewpoint". I've never taken, and never will take, anti-whatever-nation stance. I'm here for what I consider to be truth and and I always be. I think that I'm helping American people. I know many excellent people from USA, I work with them. This is very upsetting to hear things like that, and I think that many other editors mentioned think this way too. Consider me "lunatic" or whatever, truth will come out anyway, but do not slander with such accusations. All the same applies to Seabhcan edits, I can assure that because I've read most of them. He is sarcastic and often tells harsh words but that does not make him in any way anti-American.
When I see such statements I don't know what to say. Is it me who sees things in distorted fashion, or some people from America can't just look at things in neutral fashion? And how would this support the discussed statement??? The making of the statement seems to confirm what Seabhcan said. Can't you just acknowledge that some people have different knowledge and different belives on what has happened on 9/11? And that it has nothing to do with nationalities, etc? I know many bad people in my country's and others goverments, too. I feel very sorry for USA because I feel that some of 9/11 conspiracy theories are true.
Trying to find out what the truth is about the most important event to the whole world of the last decade cannot be considered anti-American. SalvNaut 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In a nutshell: The United States is low hanging fruit for world-wide criticism. I believe my country is the most generous, not just with $$$, but with human lives in the form of our military. We defend nations such as Kuwait, liberate others (Saddam Hussein is sentenced to die by his people). And yet people insult the lives of those who were killed on 9/11 by writing cruft crap such as "(I’m paraphrasing here) The planes were holograms and it was missiles from the American gov’t that took down the towers. Those people in the planes are actually gov’t employees working in a conspiracy organization" Tell that to someone who lost a loved one on 9/11. Keep on adding crap like that to this encyclopedia. It is disrespectful to the American victims. And yet so many users want to fill our pages with this crap to make the US look bad. My country is not perfect, but then again, what country is??? This encyclopedia is loosing respect as we speak. because of the crap and the nature of this project. And BTW, people keep telling me we are not in the truth business. Very good- I guess we are not. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Many of those who lost a loved one on 9/11 question 9/11 official account. Just watch 9/11 Press for truth, they feel that US goverment failed them in many ways (with investigating and explaining what happened exactly, and with being culpable) and I understand it more than very well. And I've never added "crap" to Wikipedia so stop "paraphrasing" and stop using 9/11 victims to support your pov. I think, you should read more about present US international politics. Your country is a great one in many ways, but "it's not perfect", as you said it. So, tell me - what is the rationale to hide this unperfectness? Your views on Wikipedia are different than mine. First step to making yourself better is to acknowledge your flaws. The same applies to countries. US goverment is the most powerfull and yet so untransparent. Instead of great ideals, big money plays terrible role there. SalvNaut 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, you've posted a link to an article. Do you agree with it? It so stupidly simplistic. Wikipedia is not an oracle and never will be. Anyway, what source of knwoledge you would consider to be an oracle? Knowledge lives it's own life, it evolves and changes. What was truth 100 years ago is no longer close to it. As the circulation of information speeds so much these days, previous sentence is much true if you put there 25, 10 or even 5 years. Wikipedia is a great place to start looking for knowledge and it should stay like that. SalvNaut 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed the main point of Kim’s statement. But go ahead and think what you want. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the language used in F of Fact #1 is a mischaracterisation of Seabhcan's edits and position- see e.g. his response here. The edit used as a citation is a bit bizarre also- I don't see this comment as anti-American at all, to be honest. By the same token, his somewhat ill-disciplined language in some other edits, and especially his tendency to (seemingly) over-generalise when making accusatory statements has left him wide-open to this. But- IMHO, it's more a case of lazy syntax (e.g. wrongly conflating phrases like "some American editors" with "American editors", or "the US"/"Americans" with "the US government") than genuine anti-Americanism. He shouldn't do this, but he's not alone- similar examples of wrongly synonymising disparate phrases can be found extensively on and off-Wiki (so widely in fact that I question really whether "anti-Americanism" (i.e. a racial predisposition against American people, as opposed to political opposition to the American government) actually exists anyway). Careful use of language is the key to clear expression. Badgerpatrol 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:Crockspot

It seems that the "violations" that MONGO is being desysoped for were actions that he believed to be proper when he took them, because their justification was based upon a previous (October) ruling of ARBCOM. There was no mens rea to the actions at the time that they were taken, therefore, he should not be punished. If the actions were indeed wrong (which I am a bit confused if they really were, due to the contradiction between the previous and current rulings) he should be warned, and have the violation explained. To desysop him now would be a complete contradiction of the previous ruling, and result in a serious degradation of the reputation and credibility of the ARBCOM in the eyes of the community. What will follow will be an exodus of good editors, and general chaos at WP, as those editors who are keeping a lid on things grow fearful of taking a stand. Sometimes a "chilling effect" is useful to the project, but the type of chill that would spread from this decision would be hazardous to the project's health. We need MORE admins like MONGO, not fewer. - Crockspot 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to look at finding of fact #5 (proposed by Dmcdevit) and #6 (proposed by Fred Bauder). These are the basis for the desysopping proposal. It doesn't have anything to do with blocking trolls, per se, but with other misuse of the admin position (in dmcvedit's view), or with MONGO's treatment of other admins (in Fred's view) (assuming I have read the tea leaves correctly). Thatcher131 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO and Seabhcan's value as admins

Before MONGO or Seabhcan are desysopped, I would recommend that the Arb Comm at least consider whether they are productive admins outside of the areas in dispute.

From what I can see, MONGO and Seabhcan are both guilty of (1) a few relatively minor misuses of their admin tools; (2) a few apparent threats to misuse their admin tools; and (3) a fair amount of incivility as editors. (MONGO also used his admin tools and used incivil language in "self-defense" against the ongoing ED campaign of harassment against him).

I hope I'm not contributing to the drama, but I can't tell if the Arb Comm considered their value as admins - if MONGO and Seabhcan are great admins for 500 admin actions a day, and lousy admins for several admin actions over the past few months, maybe some kind of warning and probation will be more productive for the Encyclopedia than de-sysopping them. On the other hand, if they're solely using their sysop bit to promote their POVs, then I agree that it's no great loss. (MONGO has presented some evidence on this question, and I haven't seen any contrary evidence).

Is that a question that the Arb Comm has considered? If not, should it be? Thanks, TheronJ 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some statistics. MONGO has performed:
  • 435 blocks/unblocks.
  • 151 protects/unprotects
  • 3035 delete/restores
From this, ArbCom has raised five bullet points of admin abuse, four of which have very shaky grounds not supported in policy. Even assuming all five are valid, that's a rate of .14%. I.e., 99.86% of his actions have yet to rise to the level of abuse significant enough to warrant desysopping. No pattern has been shown of abuse of tools. --Durin 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Work

I think it is great editors are flocking to MONGO and Seabhcan in support. I also think the ArbCom Admins have made the correct decisions in this matter. MONGO and Seabhcan have been unchackled from a nasty dispute that really had no resolution. They are free to contribute constructively again, and I see this as a win for the community. Abe Froman 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A few more wins like that and we are screwed. Tom Harrison Talk 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not feel that way. Quite the opposite. Abe Froman 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tom, with friends like these....Rx StrangeLove 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Also agree with Tom. If this is the direction ArbCom really wants to take us in, I shudder at the potential outcomes. I would not want to be an admin under such absurd restrictions as this RfAr warrants; don't use your admin functions on anything you've ever edited before? You can't be serious. --Durin 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I also concur with Tom. --Aude (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO and Seabhcan are excellent contributors to the project. As admins, some of their actions made it clear their strengths are in editing articles, and adding content. I believe this decision is the best for the community. Abe Froman 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This 'remedy' is not only unjust, but inexpedient, since expedience seems to be the only coherent argument. The message it sends speaks more loudly than all the protestations about how it's not punitive and what great guys everyone is. If Mongo doesn't enforce policy on these pages, someone else will have to, and who ever does will be used in that capacity for a while and then discarded. The only good thing I can say is it was done quickly. It's remarkable how fast arbcom can move to desysop (at least when there is no wheel-warring,) and how slow anyone is to do anything about trolling, attacks, and harassment. I guess that's another example of expediency at work. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Considering leaving the project as well

It was suggested that I repeat comments I left on MONGO's talk page here regarding my views on the desysoping of MONGO. Rather than cross-post, I'll just leave a link. It's not my opinion that my view is going to matter since everyone seems to have pretty much made up their minds, so take this for what you will. —Doug Bell talk 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not considering leaving the project, I must say to one and all that this process has not served the Wikipedia community well, in spite of its correctness and precision. I'd like assert that desysoping User:MONGO seems a very disproportionate and impetuous remedy to what has been an enormously long chain of events. User has proved his usefulness and loyalty to the project over and over again, as many users can and have attested. User has NOT been shown to use his tools for any reason other than to protect the community (of which the user himself is a valid part). User has admittedly developed a more harshly reactive tone during and since the ED process (in which User was given the impression of full validation), partially because of the wikistalking and wikirevenges perpetrated on- and off-wiki against him during that time and afterwards to the day (and including this process, IMHO).
I'm not fully conversant with wiki policies but I'd like to assert that User:Dmcdevit is possibly brushing up on violating WP:POINT. User has very clearly stated that admin review process is broken, and that it appears this has provided an opportunity to desysop an admin basically for an occasional harsh tone. User has pretty much acted as prosecutor in this process, by my reading.
I'd like also to point out that this is a pretty drastic action to take at a moment with less than a full slate of arbitrators.
If admins are going to be provided so little support from the process community, it does make one indeed wonder whether the process has failed, and for an ordinary editor like me who has witnessed the daily abuse heaped on User:MONGO, wonder whether being an administrator on this pedia is a worthy aspiration. BusterD 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say "me too", but I fully concur with BusterD's remarks. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection?

First, a disclaimer that I am not involved in these proceedings, nor have I been involved in the disputed articles concerned, nor ever been in conversation with either subject of this case. I have merely been following the evidence presented and the proposed decisions, particularly the disappointment in both subjects at seeing de-sysopping being proposed for the other, and the near-departure of MONGO.

My reason for posting is this: In Proposed findings of fact #5, "MONGO misuses his admin tools", five infractions are listed. Two of these are for unprotecting pages he was involved in, even in a dispute. Concerning admins and edit conflicts, policy says this: "2. Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Is unprotecting a page one is involved in also a violation of this policy?

If so, it certainly ought to be specifically mentioned. I have only had admin tools for about two weeks, and in that time I have found that extreme distaste is often the reaction to many admin actions. In trying to avoid that but yet also be helpful and put the tools to use, I have found it, in some cases, near impossible to decide what is right and what is wrong. This sort of ambiguity should either be removed from policy, or be explicitly unacceptable as evidence of "misuse" of tools.

In addition, and more as a matter of opinion, it doesn't seem to me that unprotecting a page should cause a violation of the same policy (at least when it is not part of a wheel war), since by nature it does not give the acting admin any advantage over editors without the tools (which seems to be the very definition of "abuse"). That this (un)policy is the grounds for two-out-of-five pieces of evidence supporting desysopping of a long-standing member of the community is unacceptable.

Add to this the claim of violation for protecting Steven E. Jones, which evidence lists MONGO as merely having been "active in editing", and this decision has implications for every other admin out there. Are admins to only protect (and even unprotect!) pages they have never visited before, and only block users they have never had problems with before? So much for using watchlists to prevent vandalism, edit wars, or other trouble. The principles in place to avoid admin abuse are one thing; extending those principles to find violations where they didn't exist is a solution looking for a problem. -- Renesis (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of the items evidenced as violating the protection policy, they have no merit. I unprotected one article which I had never edited (Gladio), yet because the person I brought the arbcom case against (Seabhcan) was an active editor, I have somehow, not sure how, violated policy. The Septemeber 11, 2001 attacks article was changed from full protection to semi-protected by me so everyone could resume editing the article...no further major issues were apparent, so I ddn't see what harm it did to change the protection to semi-protection...there was zero opposition to me doing this on the talkpage and I had consensus to do so. I protected the Steven JOnes article on an edit that I didn't approve of, and kept an editor (Cplot) from going over 3RR, which he likely would have. Cplot has been demonstrated to be an abusive account, but I didn't know that at the time. I doubt if I warned him about 3RR he would have listened to me...he had been warned a number of times in the prior week and yet still violated 3RR twice and was blocked. My reward for protecting that editor is to have that protected page be used as evidence that I had somehow done something wrong.--MONGO 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG CONCURRENCE with what Renesis13 said above. I've been conducting my own independent review of this RfAr and reached the same conclusions as Renesis. With this in mind, I have been intending on constructing a detailed breakdown of each of the five points used as evidence against MONGO for "admin abuse". I have not yet concluded this work, but strongly encourage the arbitrators in this case to carefully consider what it is they are doing and why.
  • Desysopping an admin is a serious matter. It has only rarely been used as a corrective measure to protect the interests of the project. Based on this history, to desysop someone should be based on strong evidence of continual administrator misbehavior. There simply isn't such a case here from my reading of the evidence so far. If there is blatant evidence that MONGO abused his administrator abilities, that evidence should be clearly stated in #5. Yet, these five points contain at least four points that are weak at best. If this is the best that ArbCom can come up with to remove sysop functions from MONGO, they have not made their case in my opinion (nor even close). The apparent response from ArbCom is "well we can't trust him because of this error, so rather than attempt to correct the behavior we'll just take way his adminship". Have some courage and address the issues instead of using a howitzer when a fly swatter would do.
  • The arbitrators voting to remove MONGO's status might not like MONGO. They might not like his brusque manner, and easy dispensing of trolls and vandals, they might not like how he handles POV warriors, and how he is quick to label them with pejorative terms. But, these issues are not why he is being desysopped and have no bearing on his desysopping since the basis of his desysopping supposedly has nothing to do with these issues. If this DOES have something to do with these issues, then include it as major points to his desysopping. But, to date, that hasn't been done.
  • This action has implications elsewhere, as Renesis noted above and I also fear. Even though officially ArbCom decisions can not be used as precedent, in reality they affect community behavior and are cited on a regular basis. The ArbCom can not treat this case in isolation. I myself am now fearful of using my admin functions because where I primarily use them is in areas where I have previously edited. If this RfAr is approved, the message that is being sent is clear; don't use your admin functions on anything you've ever edited or you could lose your admin functions.
  • Is losing admin functions itself a big deal? Of course not. You can go right on editing. However, to have them forcibly removed casts an extremely harsh light and public outrage at the admin in question. MONGO will always have this mark upon him. He is justifiably upset that this turn of events has happened, as should any admin in good standing who uses their admin functions in areas they edit. --Durin 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • More to come on this as I conduct more in-depth research. But, this needed to be said to stop the train-wreck that is this RfAr from reaching what appears to be a seriously ill-advised foregone conclusion.


  • I'd also like to note that in at least one location the ArbCom has stated they feel the community has lost faith in MONGO. If the ArbCom feels this is the case, perhaps they'd be amenable to a straw poll to garner the community's opinion regarding his adminship and/or ArbCom's intention to desysop him. Personally, I haven't seen a bunch of people dancing around on graves yipping for joy that MONGO is going to be desysopped. In fact, VERY much the contrary. There are a number of people quite angry about this decision from a number of angles. Taking a straw poll to support/not support this RfAr is (I think) unprecedented, but I think perhaps warranted in this situation. --Durin 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrassment from the "truthers"

I have halted my work on articles in my area of expertise. In order Wikipedia as a whole to be respected and worth my time, articles such as what we have on 9/11 must be a priority. They are consistently among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. [14] The 9/11 articles constantly attract hardcore "truthers" who are extremely persistent, loud, and determined to spread the truth and use Wikipedia as a tool in their efforts. Some of the hardcore truthers hangout on the Loose Change forums. I have even seen Seabhcan over on the Loose Change forum, as fairly involved. If that's what he chooses to do off-wiki, that's okay. But, to bring their tactics and incivility to Wikipedia is unacceptable. The tactics used by the truthers sometimes constitute harrassment, with them even going after 9/11 victims and witnesses, yet alone folks here like MONGO. (See some examples) I'm not specifically accusing Seabhcan of going this far, but his incivility combined with the constant stream of truthers that come on Wikipedia really tests our patience. We try not to, but sometimes we may say or do something that crosses the line. I don't see anything so egregious done by MONGO that is grounds for desysopping. It sends a chill to all admins, making me uncomfortable using my stick to help enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines for reliable sources, WP:V, etc. --Aude (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. If this RfAr goes through with the desysoppings, I think I'll have to stop editing contentious articles for fear of losing my adminship over similar issues. Let the chaos begin; no more standing strong against unreliable sources or unverifiable claims. The descent into gibberish articles... --Durin 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes worse is better. It may be that a new crop of editors needs to be drawn to these pages. Tom Harrison Talk 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on proposed decision

Having reviewed the Proposed Decision in this case, I concur with much of Durin's analysis above regarding its conclusion that MONGO should be desysopped. Several of the cited instances of "misuse of administrative tools" do not rise to the level of misconduct or warrant the Arbitration Committee's attention. In other instances, genuine errors of judgment on MONGO's part have been identified, but while significant, they do not warrant the drastic remedy of desysopping a committed, dedicated, and longstanding editor and admininstrator under all the circumstances of this case.

The paragraph of the Proposed Decision that would desysop MONGO also cites his "failure to relate appropriately with other administrators" as grounds for desysopping. Strikingly, however, the Proposed Decision contains no finding that MONGO failed to interact properly with other admins. It is unclear what evidence could be relied upon to support such a finding. MONGO's disputes with Seabhcan are not alleged to have involved Seabhcan acting as an administrator, rather than as an editor. The only other basis for such a finding could be the "Miltopia incident," in which MONGO used words he should not have, but it is not even clear that this incident is part of this case and the committee has said virtually nothing about it. The fact that one of the two asserted bases for desysopping MONGO is unsupported by the committee's findings represents a further weakness in the Proposed Decision's analysis and conclusion.

With respect to User:Seabhcan, I am not as familiar with his work as an editor or administrator as I am with that of MONGO. On a personal level and as a resident of Manhattan, I am thoroughly familiar with the events of September 11, 2001 and the evidence concerning responsibility for the terrorist attacks on my city. I find many of Seabhcan's views and theories as well as much of his rhetoric to be grossly inconsistent with the truth and frankly upsetting to me. By a narrow margin, however, I believe that the evidence cited in the Proposed Decision supports a remedy short of desysopping with respect to him as well. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Brad is clearly correct here. How can you desysop somebody for a finding that there is no evidence for? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we speaking into a vaccuum?

Now there's a motion to close with a support vote. Apparently nothing on this page is being read by the arbitrators. How do we stop this train wreck? --Durin 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If MONGO is desysopped, I will immediately re-nominate him for adminship (with his permission, of course). User:Zoe|(talk) 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Six arbitrators (one more than needed for a majority) have voted to remove Mongo's sysop status. I'll see if I can ask one to comment here, but I think we're all too caught up in the culture of thinking adminship is a big deal - it's specifically meant not to be a big deal and if one loses their sysop flag then they can still of course edit the encyclopedia, so there seems to be much more overreaction here than there needs to be. He can also run for sysop status in the future unless arbcom says he cannot, so if the community thinks he's fine re-obtaining his sysop status then he will be able to get it back. I'll see if I can get clarification to see if there are any restrictions on being re-nominated. Cowman109Talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Seabhcan_Proposed_decision_3c68.html"