Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Epopt recusal 2 Railroad? 3 Protection removed by MONGO on September 11, 2001 attacks 4 BusterD's proposed remedies

[edit] Epopt recusal

Nuclear, I apprerciate your interest but I can not wrap my mind around your comments.

I have already stated 3 times that I feel he is telling the truth

the truth of the matter is its not a verifiable claim.

As it stands noone can verify this and the situation becomes tainted

verify that an anon did in fact make those comments and not The Epopt

The Epopt insists on remaining on this particular hearing it also begs the question of why. Not only have they possibly posted evidence on their own behalf

That is essentially one statement that you believe the epopt and 4 implied accusations of falsity. I can read those comments no other way. (By the way, he is a he.) Further, had the message been received by Arbcom-L, there would be no way to prove that one of the arbitrators hadn't sent it from an alternate e-mail account. Getting really conspiratorial, you could have submitted the e-mail as a false flag operation. Even if the evidence was posted here directly by an IP or brand new account, there would be no way to prove who it was or wasn't submitted by, except by checkuser, which can be trivially defeated if you know how.

No, the bottom line is that unless all anonymous evidence (including IPs and single purpose accounts) is banned, you will have to trust in the process, among other things that the arbitrators are honest and don't have conflicts of interest when they say they don't. Thatcher131 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not find this in process. Transparency is most important here considering the situation. Your trust in someone is fine and well, but its not more important then transparency and a fully accountable system. You keep taking this personal, what I personally feel about his truthworthiness (word?) is not more important then the accountable and transparent system. I have no axe to grind so again, please do not take this as personal, its really an issue of magic evidence being presented by an Arbitrator with only their word as proof. Sure we can get super conspiratorial and claim the world is fake and Wikipedia took over everything, however arguing the slippery slope is a pointless and silly when we have a situation here and now. --NuclearZer0 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to drop my request per something on the main page. Please read, let me know if this is satisfactory as it would confirm the statement of the user posting. Thank you =). Boomer vet, thats actually pretty cool. --NuclearZer0 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want transparency then you are seeking the wrong remedy. The Epopt's recusal would still leave the statement in evidence. What you seem to want is a motion to exclude the evidence. Thatcher131 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No I am asking for two arbcom members to confirm recieving that email. I am not sure if you read my reply to Fred, but its not about the anon, its about transparency. Oddly I feel as though I am starting to be like a parrot as I have stated that simple sentence repeatedly. --NuclearZer0 00:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railroad?

I am trying to understand something about how Arbcom works. It is put forth that an artbitrator may be bias toward someone involved in an arbcom hearing. People ask that Arbitrator to remove themselves ... now if this arbitrator was really bias, why would they recuse themselves? There seems to be a flaw here, epecially when Fred gives all over 11 minutes to deciding if he was going to. Now the proposed decision page oddly enough has Fred voting for Seahbcan to lose admin rights but not Mongo. We further go through this workshop page and see Fred making calls before people have finished ading evidence, and before Seabhcan has even responded to the situation. Fred further goes on to state that Seabhcan has added sources that fail WP:RS and mischaracterized them, but when asked to present evidence, points to a section that does not relate to that accusation. We also have on the proposed decision page a sectino dealing with Seahbcan being uncivil, however none dealing with Mongo being uncivil, even though the most evidence is given against Mongo, are we to believe that noone found a case of incivility in all of that? Also why is Travb's evidence the only evidence discussed on the workshop page, as though Travb was the only one to give dif's of what is alleged to be Mongo's incivility? There is obviously something wrong here, am I the only one that feels this? --NuclearZer0 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we do need to address MONGO's behavior. Simply saying stuff is "nonsense" is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks that way to me too. Even if Fred doesn't recuse, it would be nice to get the opinion of other Arb members. It seems only Fred has posted anything.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear, stay off the proposed decision page, please. If you look at {{ArbComOpenTasks}} or the main RFAR page, you will see that Fred has moved the case back into the evidence phase as he feels it is not ready for voting. On the proposed decision page you will see that the proposals were made and voted on by Dmcdevit, who also moved the case initially into voting. Thatcher131 15:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but that does not address anything noted above. Unless the proposed decision page is wiped, there are still votes on it that do not consider evidence by one side of the dispute at all, and findings of fact that follow that same pattern. If we are on the evidence stage then we should be blanking the Proposed Decision page since its all founded on only one side right? Also this doesnt cover why there is no "Mongo is uncivil" section as noted, why Fred has moved on to Proposed Decision before Seabhcan got back, or why the Workshop page only contained Travb's claims and noone elses. I had a problem with transparency and unless there is lots of talk off wiki, there seems to be a rushing of this case for no reason. My noting Fred voted for Seabhcan to lose his rights but not Mongo is also odd, dont you think? Then finalyl the issue of Fred accusing Seabhcan of adding bad WP:RS sources and not willing to point out where, he points to a section that doesnt contain any proof of that. Do you know why courts work? because there is an ethics committee that monitors the judges, you can bring a complaint against them that gets reviewed by an outside group, who reviews ArbCom? --NuclearZer0 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed decision is not done at this point. Fred Bauder 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I can explain some things.

• The workshop page may be edited by anyone. Any of the parties is free to suggest a principle, finding, or remedy that they wish the arbitrators to consider. You could propose Seabhcan is a purple mongoose if you wanted. If you could link to a representative diff or two or a section of the evidence page presenting relevant evidence, even better. Others are free to comment. The arbitrators may or may not comment, but they do read the proposals. Some proposals will end up being discarded by the arbitrators, others accepted as true but not germain to the case, some may be moved directly to the proposed decision page. Arbitrators may also write their own proposals, and they may place them on the workshop or bypass the workshop and go directly to the proposed decision page.
• The case seems to have developed into MONGO/Seabhcan is a POV-pushing uncivil admin, and there is plenty of evidence on both sides of that argument, even with Seabhcan getting a late start. There is 230KB of evidence in this case already, which is more than any other case (except one) since I became a clerk.
• If you feel that significant findings of fact have not been addressed, or that important pieces of evidence have not been considered, you are free to write the proposals yourself on the workshop page, for comment by others. In some cases the parties are quite active on the workshop page. By now I expected to see MONGO has edit warred, Seabhcan has edit warred, MONGO has been uncivil, Seabhcan misuses his admin tools to gain advantage in content disputes, or even Travb is a purple mongoose (assuming someone thought it was relevant). Assuming that there will now be a sudden flood of proposals from the parties, please be civil in commenting on others' proposals, and bear in mind that the arbitrators are free to pick and choose based on their understanding of the case, or to ignore them entirely and write their own.
• Dmcdevit proposed desyopping both MONGO and Seabhcan and moved the case into the voting phase. Fred opposed desysopping MONGO and moved the case back into evidence. I guess that he will be working on a set of findings of fact that will support his votes, and maybe some additional content-based remedies. Any new proposals will eventually be moved to the proposed decision page and the case placed back in voting. The proposed decision page will not be blanked, as the remaining arbitrators will consider all the proposals offered by their colleagues. Arbitrators may change their votes, make conditional votes, or even propose alternatives after the voting has begun. You can get a flavor of the process at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision or for an extreme version, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision. Thatcher131 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you response, its similar to what you posted on your talk page, and as noted there completely sidestepping the issues presented. How can we have proposed decisions without the evidence having been fully examined? That makes little sense and no matter how many large paragraphs you post, it will still remain a problem, of course along with the one sided voting of Fred and his refusal to recuse himself and noted kid gloves against Mongo in the last RfA. --NuclearZer0 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what evidence hasn't been considered? Thatcher131 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcans, the Proposed Decision page went up before he posted his evidence. I am sure you can see this as a problem. --NuclearZer0 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a gross mischaracterization of the arbitration process to say that Fred was previously lenient on MONGO. Fred may have written the proposed decision, but it was approved by a 5-0 vote, and you really won't have to look to hard to find other cases where one or more of Fred's proposals have been defeated by a 1-5 vote against. The other arbitrators are not shy about disagreeing with Fred when it suits them. Regarding Seabhcan's evidence, you are certainly entitled to ask Dmcdevit, who proposed the dual desysopping, to reconsider his position. However, unless he withdraws it himself, it will remain on the page for the other arbitrators to consider, along with any new proposals that may be made. We certainly should asssume that the other 7 arbitrators will read all the evidence before voting. Thatcher131 17:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So you dont see a problem with the proposed Decision page going up befoer Seabhcan was able to present their evidence? --NuclearZer0 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit hasty; that's why I move it back to /Evidence. Fred Bauder 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• If Dmcdevit is proposing desysopping for either Seabhcan or myself, then he needs to recuse. I do not see that either party has abused their admin tools in a manner in which a desyopping is an appropriate remedy. I listed Seabhcan's admin actions solely to demonstrate a pattern of poor judgement on his part. My goals have always been moderate here and have been nothing more than an effort to get the results that we failed to achieve in the Seabhcan Rfc...to get him be more civil and to stop personally attacking others. I am sure every person that has worked on this case would feel the same. Had he agreed to do these things on his Rfc, then we wouldn't be here at all. I ask the arbcom committee to act like adults, not executioners in this matter. Seabhcan and myself probably loathe each other, but that is besides the point. The point is we are both adults and we can both behave as adults if we are treated that way. Going around slapping ridiculous penalties on people isn't a proper settlement, it's punitive and absurd.--MONGO 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, once you involve `the authorities' someone is going to get burned. Thats how the system works. As for the incivility, I have great difficulty believing that this is just about your hurt feelings. You have been persistently incivil and irrational yourself. I'd like you to engage in rational discussion on the issues, rather that call people names such as `moron' and even 'conspiracy theorist'. I'd like Morty not to mislead the community about the quality of sources if he hasn't read them. I'd like Tbeatty not to remove sources, such as L'Humanité (This is a respected newspaper. If he thinks they may not be unbiased on a particular issue, a note in the article would be preferable to censorship). I'd like TDS not to libel academics such as Ganser with baseless allegations of anti-semitism. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Even now you mislead. User:Morton_devonshire did not mislead the community. He cited a journal that was critical of the quality of a source. The fact that you believe the criticised source or even read it, does not trump sourced and valid criticism. It is completely irrelevant whether you or Morton have read it. Second, the L'Humanite was deceptively called "Le Monde" in the reference tag name and the reference was an article that was created when the newspaper was funded by the Soviet Union and was known for it's anti-West propaganda. It was used to support propagandist statements as fact. The paragraph was entirely unnecessary as the propanda had been previously repeated in the Article. Third, accusing editors of crimes such as libel is almost as bad as insulting academics with the inclusion of Ganser. --Tbeatty 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why I stated that I do not believe in ArbCom, they are not here to remedy the situation, just to cuff and execute. The real resolution to this issue would have occured in a mutual agreement on editing rules for controversial articles, like I proposed, requiring sources before adding information and further considerable sources refuting the installed oncs to remove information. But instead it came here and now both Mongo and Seabhcan end up on the possible receiving end of something more harsh then needed. The truth of the matter is that many of these ArbCom people do not edit articles and do not deal with editors to need to resolve disputes, they just review some stuff and get ready for punishment. Oddly this is with the RfC not even have been a real attempt at dispute resolution, which I thought was a precursor to ArbCom, this really should have never gotten here. But now both of you face the death penalty for your misdemeanors. The worst part is, there is no oversight, so no appeals, no reviews, you cant even get an admin to recuse themselves after 3 people tell them its probably best, or that they are possibly bias. --NuclearZer0 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like a lynching, not a just settlement...I was never seeking a desyopping of you 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:
• On November 27, he protected [1] Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing [2][3].

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.

• On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks [4], which was protected after a dispute he was involved in.

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)

The best part is complaints will just fall on deaf ears. In my Arbcom case I had proven that I didnt do one of the items, the person stated a new reason, I proved that wrong, they gave me a new reason, proved that wrong and they gave me a new reason, then finally they just stated I violated the spirit, when I proposed how I was not doing that, they simply ignored me. Kind of how Fred just started ignoring Seabhcan when he was proven wrong on his talk page regarding the WP:RS accusation he made against Seabhcan. The power of being on ArbCom means you don't have to discuss. --NuclearZer0 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya. This sucks, but what do we do now? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see how you might think this is out of hand. I'll see if I can't craft some remedies that are less punishing. Fred Bauder 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I do not believe there is oversight for ArbCom. My guess is everyone can agree to drop it possibly and annouce its resolved, but I do not think that forces it closed, perhaps Thatcher131 can chime in. --NuclearZer0 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The other two items mentioned as reasons for my desysopping are pretty slim as well...that block on Pokispky76 was back in June, almost six months ago...there was an Rfc and I agreed with most of those that stated that I shouldn't block anyone I might be seen to be in an editing dispute with (basically concurred with those that brought the Rfc, even though if anyone bothered to look at that Rfc, they will see, as in the case of Seabhcan's Rfc, I had many who took my side). If CBD and others weren't satisfied by the Rfc, they could have taken it to arbcom then...and the threat to block Salvnaut never materialized...I regret making the threat, and even stated that it was a bad in my evidence statement...what on earth. The purpose of abritration is to settle matters that couldn't be resolved in an Rfc...this is part of the dispute resolution process...if arbcom was set up to kill off contributors on Wikipedia, it has ceased to be a proper channel for the dispute resolution process.--MONGO 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• There in lies the misunderstanding, its like hunting turtles with apache helicopters, I know there is a simpler saying for overkill but that gave me a cool image in my head. ArbCom really doesnt seem to want to resolve the dispute, if it was there would be mediation of some sort, discussion even. Its job is to punish to force you into a position to do as they say or not edit at all.

  • • Hot news, you did not mediate the dispute. Fred Bauder 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  This is why its silly. I do not think they even realize that if Seabhcan puts in something that is WP:RS and which according to his complaint, 3 or so editors will just remove it any, he is just forever stuck to have his contributions removed regardless of their merits. Part of the arguement he is making is that legit sources are being removed, how do you resolve such a situation? How do you resolve their feelings? Surely be taking away their admin rights and limiting their reversions ... what sense does that make when they are already complaining they are out gunned by "like minded people". Sorry guys but I would have thought you, Mongo, at least having been through one of these would have known how off base somethings are and how over the top remedies can be. --NuclearZer0 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  I just see what should be an amicable resolution being turned into a manner to ensure one or more people leave this website. What should be a remedy that permits a restoration civility and elimination of NPA's by the use of progressive blocks, has instead been altered to be one of extreme measures designed as a statement to myself and Seabhcan that we are not welcome here. Had Seabhcan not sent me emails in the midsts of that Salvnaut incident, when we were already engaged in disagreements on two different talk pages, I wouldn't have felt it was time to take the Seabhcan Rfc to arbcom. That was the straw that broke this camels back.--MONGO 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good luck guys, I think its overkill and I hope you guys have much faith in those left to vote on your fates, like Epopt, who may or may not have added evidence against you, considering no ArbCom member confirmed receiving that email yet. --NuclearZer0 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  I sent copy and pasted versions of the emails Seahbcan sent to me to Fred Bauder via email...Seabhcan admitted here that he had sent the emails.--MONGO 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, but the best resolution is more important to me than the one the parties want or initially expected. In this case at least, the two are at odds. I took in all the evdence and came to the conclusion that I did. Now, what's the issue here? I can assure you that I don't mind that the case has been bumped back to evidence (though I considered it and moved it because others had offered evidence in lieu of Seabhcan, and Seabhcan had commented on the workshop before I got started) and of course Seabhcan's, and all evidence will be considered. Dmcdevit·t 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  The issue is the mischaracterization of pages I either protected ort unprotected as being some misue of the policies based on protecting pages. I wasn't involved directly in any of those situations and my protections or unprotections were never done to be malicious or to get MY version in place. I have never even edited the Gladio article that I can see. I protected the Steven Jones article on an edit I didn't even want...and I did this to protect Cplot...who at that time, I thought was just an edit warrior and he had already been blocked twice that week for 3RR...he was on his third revert, and likely would have gone over 3rr had I not protected the page...this is what I get for protecting someone I didn't even approve of? The 9/11 attacks article, as mentioned by Aude below, no longer needed to be fully protected since the issues seemed to be resolved...I haven't edited it since. That previous Rfc I signed those that comments that stated I shouldn't block anyone I could be seen to be in an editing conflict with...I agreed with those that stated this...the more recent Salvnaut issue was, as I stated here already and on the evidence page, a miscue on my part...the community thought I would be in gross error to block him, so I didn't.--MONGO 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  The issue is the proposed decision as noted as being overkill by both parties and some of the people listed as "other parties", and with proposed decisions even appearing before Seabhcan was able to introduce evidence. Other smaller issues I have are with Fred not recusing themselves though neutrality seems odd, voting for Seabhcan to lose priv's but not Mongo, similar to as they did in a previous ArbCom ruling. The Epopt presenting evidence as stated on an anon's behalf, though no ArbCom member has verified the story by confirming receipt of an email from that anon for some reason. The workshop page not being a proper place to work into the proposed decision as it seems Fred only looks over Travb's evidence or only considers it. There are possibly more, they are highlited here and on the Workshop page. I appreciate you commenting and hope you can clear some fo those up or offer your opinion on them, or even your confirmation on one. Thanks. --NuclearZer0 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous arbcom situation...you mean where I had to defend myself from the encyclopedia dramatica people? I was supposed to be penalized for becoming a target from the ED harassers? That makes zero sense to me.--MONGO 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not about guilt of innocence, someone asked Fred to recuse because he seemed biased, and his vote seems biased as well now in the proposed decision section. The problem is ArbCom does what they want with no oversight what so ever. Fred gave all of 12 minutes to the request to recuse. I guess there doesnt need to be an image of cleanliness when there is no oversight ... --NuclearZer0 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers creepers, Nuclear, if you don't like Travs' proposals, write your own. Thatcher131 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. Fred only examinse Travb's evidence, such as section "Accusations that MONGO has been uncivil". This is not about who created Workshop items. I would really like Dmcdevit to chime in if he got that email the anon is talking about, that woudl confirm The Epopt didnt add evidence and would allow the closing of a section. --NuclearZer0 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Last week when I saw Fred working on the workshop, I informed him that Seabhcan was going to be out for a week. He replied that he was only working on Travis' accusations for the time being. I expect that is why he pulled the case back into the evidence/workshop phase, because he wasn't finished analyzing the rest of the case. Thatcher131 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the case was moved out of voting phase, so "proposed decisions even appearing before Seabhcan was able to introduce evidence" is moot. Though I've now looked at Seabhcan's evidence and find nothing novel or compelling there. I can't account for Fred's voting patterns, and I think that the calls for Sean to recuse are unfounded. If someone had asked me to simply convey evidence, I would have done the same. And I, of course, trust him if he says that's what happened. As you can probably tell, I don't think the proposals were overkill, though. They are supported by the findings and evidence, as proposed, and that's the best defense of them I can give. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem, you believe your buddy. Can you confirm receiving the email from the anon? He stated he sent it to everyone. --NuclearZer0 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How is moot anyway that you proposed decisions withuot hearing the other side of the story? I am sure its moot that someone faces losing admin privs because you didnt care to hear their point or side. --NuclearZer0 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the remedies proposed in this case are excessive. The arbitrators who have not yet considered the case will presumably review the evidence and arguments and come to their own conclusions. Comments about non-issues such as the continuing insinuation that an arbitrator is lying about the origin of an e-mail are unproductive and potentially distracting. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you wouldnt mind a judge presenting evidence against you based solely on his word that it came from some anon that noone can verify for some reason? Give me a break, sure its distracting, so is asking a ArbCom member to recuse, I mean Sean doesn't lie right? Don't you find it odd that even though the anon said they sent it to everyone, noone can verify it? --NuclearZer0 21:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh I give up, what did I expect other then my buddy Sean is probably telling the truth and of course the great one, I can propose stuff without seeing evidence or both sides ... Sounds real great, I feel bad for you Mongo and Seabhcan. --NuclearZer0 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no acquaintanceship with The Epopt (Sean). I believe I've posted to his userpage twice: once to urge him to vote on a pending proposal in a case unrelated to this one (he ignored me) and once to ask if he was running for reelection to ArbCom (he said no). As for your question (asked previously and repeated now) about how I'd feel if a judge presented evidence from an anonymous source, of course in the real world that would be unacceptable, but so too would a judge accepting evidence posted on an internet site under a pseudonym: I'm as strong a proponent of fairness and transparency in the arbitration process as just about anyone, but this is one of those areas where Wikipedia isn't the real world, and can't try to be. And in any case, the evidence will be judged on the quality of the evidence, not its source.

I still think some of the remedies that have been proposed in this case are too harsh. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some people are suffering from the delusion that adminhip is a big deal. This is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit, and non-adins are equal members of the community. I repeat, it's an encyclopedia; taking away the helpful buttons in no way inhibits participation in and contribution to the encyclopedia. If someone demonstrates unsound judgment repeatedly in their use of those buttons, being liberal in taking them away when there are a thousand more users to take their place is the wisest decision for the encyclopedia and the community. Also, taking away those buttons is in no way passing judgment on their performance as an editor: people who become administrators but are not particularly suited to the role are still almost always prized editors, and would do the community good serving only that role. Dmcdevit·t 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You should tell that to your ArbCom members who wont recuse themselves from this case. Its easy to pass judgement when you have no oversight isn't it. --NuclearZer0 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I request again you reexamine the evidence that you feel supports my desysopping which I have also know added to the evidence page in my section. The comments about my protecting or unprotecting pages as being evidence that I have misused admin tools is without merit. That Rfc was from almost six months ago and I agreed with most persons who commented that I shouldn't block anyone I have been in an editing conflict with. My comment to Salvnaut about an indefinite block was admitted in my evidence to be a miscue...the community completely disgareed with me, and I stated there that I would not be blocking him...in accordance with what was an obvious mistaken threat on my part.--MONGO 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like an appropriate remedy might be to find that Seabhcan has made personal attacks and has been uncivil to the point of disruption. He could then agree to not make personal attacks in the future, maybe in conjunction with a civility parole. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine if Mongo, Morty Tbeatty, etc. also agree not to disrupt wikipedia, remove sourced material, mislead the community, etc. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you continue to abuse User:Morton_devonshires name. Why? Also, we are particpants here because you nave used your admin tools to disrupt wikipedia, keep unsourced material and mislead the community. In addition, you are uncivil in your actions. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, not push esoteric versions of history that are neither factual, supportable nor prominent. --Tbeatty 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people call him Morty! I think you are oversensitive. (I'll ignore the other baseless allegations. If I had really done these things you would have posted evidence) ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 10:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And that attitude, in a nutshell, is why we are here. --Tbeatty 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As for desysopping, I don't think it's appropriate. Adminship is no big deal. And I would go so far as to say ArbCom membership is no big deal, yet I do not see any of them rushing to recuse themself. This is of course entirely appropriate because recusal and desysopping, while the expedient answer, is not the correct answer. Shirking a responsibility is not the answer. MONGO uses, and continues to use, his tools to the betterment of the community. Seabhcan does the same when he is not using it to thwart consensus. Even with this dispute, they have never Wheel Warred which is more than I can say for a number of Admins who continue to wield the tools. And further, the Arbitration process is supposed to 'Arbitrate' a dispute. As far as I can tell, desysopping does not settle any of the disputes, but will only turn it from Admins disputing over content and civility to editors disputing over content and civility. If admins disputing has more importance than editors disputing, then 'Adminship is no big deal' is a facade. --Tbeatty 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I've mentioned this on the proposed decision talk page, but also want to say this here regarding "On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks ". 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. With Cplot no longer involved in edit warring on the 9/11 attacks page, the situation has settled down substantially into discussion about specifics, such as if/how to mention the Iraq War and War on Terrorism in this article, whether or not to include a particular link, etc. 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. Pretty much everyone else involved on the page (both sites) has been fairly reasonable to work with. 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 and consensus was there for what MONGO did. I have been gradually working to source the article better, and am glad to be able to work on it again. --Aude (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BusterD's proposed remedies

I disagree with these proposed remedies because, again, there is no evidence that such behavior occurred. I specifically object to failure to relate appropriately with some administrators, as this puts admins into a special class of protected user, which I don't feel we are. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the /Proposed Decision talk page, the decision contains no findings that MONGO "fail[ed] to relate appropriately to some administrators." This is just assumed out of nowhere in the remedies paragraph, and it is not clear what specific evidence or incident is relied upon to support it. Newyorkbrad 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but that might refer to me in a cryptic way - I'm an admin too. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I think you were acting as an editor with respect to that page rather than an administrator. See my comments on /Proposed Decision. In any case, it would be better if we didn't need to speculate. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that that might be the case, Seabhcan, but again, the wording makes it sound as if admins are special. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)