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)
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:
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)
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]
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirlineToHeaven ( talk • contribs)
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
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)
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)
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)
Mongo seems to have quit Wikipedia [10] [11]. 67.117.130.181 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
One other comment. It seems odd that this RFAr has devolved into a referendum on how MONGO has dealt with ED trolling and harassment. It seems that MONGO's involvement in any RFAr makes him a target from certain groups. Travb wasn't originally part of the RFAr. NEither was Miltopia. This is a terrible precedent to set. It seems that in a fit of mud slinging, Travb, CPlot and Miltopia became relevant in proceeding that didn't involve them. If this is sucessful, I feel sorry for anyone they dislike who brings an ArbCom action as it will devolve into a referendum on them. -- Tbeatty 07:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It is apparent that the decisions to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan are going to go through. Both proposed remedies have 6-0 support, with the passage bar being simple majority. There is a motion to close now, with two supports to close with four needed to close. The RfAr is about to close in favor of desysopping.
Discussion related to this straw poll should be elsewhere on this page, and not on the poll itself. Please add any comments to the "Comments" section and limit your additions to the agree/disagree sections to your signature.
Two questions are asked (and presume the decision will be instituted):
This poll is of course not binding, but intended to gauge community support for the decision.
Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop MONGO?
Agree
Disagree
Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Seabhcan?
Agree
Disagree
Comments
(moved comment) Adamantly disagree. Questions of the lack of specific policy violations, the lack of consideration of parole (especially given Tony Sidaway), in addition to weighing against Mongo's absolutely tremendous and stellar contributions to the project. Arbcom needs to tread carefully in this matter in order to avoid setting such a dangerous precedent. -- kizzle 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO has indicated that he is not interested in being re-nominated, so my proposal above is moot. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
(moved comment) I agree that MONGO has taken some admin actions that are inappropriate, but don't agree that all of the actions identified by Arb Comm are clear violations, and think that some cautionary instruction/probation is preferable to desysopping a largely productive admin, particularly where at least one of MONGO's bad acts was successfully resolved through dispute resolution. TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
(moved comment) Don't see anything so egregious to warrant desysopping. -- Aude ( talk) 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think straw polls second-guessing the ArbCom on the ArbCom's own pages are rather absurd, so I shall not participate in it. -- Cyde Weys 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not the place for a straw poll. However, both Seabhcan and MONGO are good admins and good editors. I'll support future RFA's for both, should they be needed. It's unfortunate that this arbitration is taking down constructive editors while leaving the warrior likes of Morton Devonshire, who essentially created the Gladio conflict, untouched. An opportunity has been missed to address the wolfpack behavior of the Devonshire gang, which is the underlying cause of so much of the conflict. Derex 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Too many issues in too short a time. However, Mongo should be free to submit himself for adminship again and the community can decide if he is still a suitable candidate for the post. Gamaliel 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO has shown that he is a controversial admin that has made too many major mistakes. Ral315 ( talk) 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Tentative agreement. It would be enough to ban MONGO from editing or administering those pages where he demonstrates an inability to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Those are pages that nearly always deal with political issues. His presence as an editor on less volatile pages is generally well regarded. If, however, such an arrangement is impossible, then i support eliminating his administrator privileges. Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Looking through the evidence, one is clearly left with the feeling that Mongo has made many controversial admin actions in a short time and has frequently been uncivil. He may have been provoked, but two wrongs do not make a right and Mongo's behaviour is contributing to an unfortunate atmosphere on wikipedia. As an admin, he is part of the public face of Wikipedia and this should not be acceptable. We are finally starting to act on reigning in admins who behave in this way, and should continue to do so. (No comment on other remedies from me - I spent 10 mins looking this over since so contentious but am now again logging out.) Martinp 13:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Per [15], which confirms what my gut reaction told me. MONGO has done things for which he might justly be criticised, but these are not the things on which this remedy is founded. Guy ( Help!) 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidence and arguments, not straw polls, should sway arbitrators. But the evidence and arguments against the proposed decision are strong, and the straw poll is here, so I add my name. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
While I generally avoid polls, I feel strongly enough about this to list my name here; desysopping MONGO harms the project. We need admins like him. Anyone here read, or even better seen, Coriolanus? Pay close attention: it even includes an "RFA". Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In a word NO, and if anything, if this bullshit monkey show goes through, there should be an immediate RfAdmin to make Mongo an admin again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Like Newyorkbrad said, this should be decided on arguments and evidence, but since the poll is here. Samir धर्म 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Same as for MONGO - IMHO, Seabchan crossed the line, but desysopping is overkill, assuming that he's otherwise been a productive admin. TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Per my comments above, though [Seabchan is] a closer call than MONGO. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
To give them both a second chance here. Antandrus (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very fond of Seabhcan's approach to editing Wikipedia. He has a great sense of humour and accurately points out bias in other editors. Because some editors have no sense of humour and can't look at themselves from different POV than their own, it doesn't mean that Seabhcan should be desysoped. SalvNaut 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Seabhcan has become the target of a malicious cabal of editors who consider his political observations and opinions to be "anti-american". On this basis, they have spent many months provoking him towards incriminating acts. Despite this considerable time and effort, the evidence they have accumulated is scanty and weak, resulting in the fabrication of evidence through purposeful distortion and inuendo. Upon factoring in the environment in which Seabhcan has been working, i consider his conduct more laudable than condemnable. Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the case for abuse of admin powers is convincingly made for either. However, there is little doubt that both have engaged in incivility, sillyness, and various other activities that I a least consider "conduct unbecoming an admin" (if you like...sounds a but haughty I know...). If either were editors asking for the mop today, then their respective actions detailed in this case would surely kill their RfAs stone-dead outright. On that basis, if nothing else, I reluctantly agree with the original arbcom decision to desysop them both (judging from a quick scan, they may have changed their minds about this sanction anyway, I'm only adding my opinion). Adminship is (nominally....) no big deal. Provided both are free to stand again at some stage in the future, I see no reason not to remove them from the admin ranks for now and let the community decide in the normal way later (although I think it's very clear that at least one and perhaps both have forever scuppered their chances of re-promotion due to some very rash use of language which a large number of editors are likely to find offensive...). I certainly don't think a lesser sanction (e.g. admin parole or similar) is appropriate- one either has the decorum, calmness and common sense to be an admin, or one doesn't. There is no middle ground. Whatever happens however, I feel the evidence of both abuse of privilege and incivility is equally strong against both parties here. I certainly would not support unequally weighted sanctions- if one goes, they both go, and if one stays they both should stay. Badgerpatrol 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, this entire subject is fraught with very high emotion for everyone. I have Notepad open where I'm making a copy of all the uncivil, NPAviolating things I've almost typed in and stopped myself from doing. (See, Firsfron, progress!)
That being said, I wish to make a point that may or may not matter, but that isn't readily shown by the discussion heretofor.
I admire several members of the ArbCom, in particular Fred who puts up with entirely too much crap, and SimonP. I think the ArbCom usually does an admirable job of finding a solution to a horrific set of problems that is hurled at them ,and they are almost never thanked for such service.
However, I also think that in this particular case the ArbCom is making a mistake. If I, alone, a relatively new editor with a history of incivility and known dislike of ED, 9/11 truthers, and trolls, was making this assertion, it would be (rightfully) discounted as screed. But I'm not alone, there are a LOT of people upset about this here, on MONGO's talk page, on the mailing list, in email, offwiki sites, and in various talk pages. They are more than upset, they are angry.
I'm not happy at desysopping for MONGO or Seabhcan, and I cannot remember why I used to believe Wikipedia process meant something, or that the fact that Wikipedia wasn't a bureaucracy was comforting. This is not a calm, considered decision based on the needs of the community. This is not even a good attempt at railroading. This is, to me, a message being sent to other admins.
Behave, or you'll lose your bit.
I can fully understand the idea behind such a message, but I disagree with it, strongly. Has Seabhcan messed up? Yes. Guess what? He's got spine, and I'm pretty convinced he's mature enough to face up to any wrongdoing. The same goes for MONGO. Do I like Seabhcan? No. But that doesn't matter. Right now, I like him more than I like the ArbCom, and that saddens me. I used to naively think the ArbCom was some of the Wiki's best, the most fair minded, the most even tempered, who put up with bullshit to fix what wasn't working. I used to sneer at people who suggested ArbCom was broken. Now? Now I don't know.
No one here, least of all me, is attacking the ArbCom or your dedication. But we are confused and hurt and upset and angry because your decision doesn't seem to make any sense or serve any purpose except to send a message. We ask you to reconsider. -- Elar a girl Talk| Count 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have voted to desysop MONGO based on the fact that I personally have doubts about his judgment in future, entirely because of the stress and harassment he has endured. It's understandable, and it excuses his behaviour, but it makes me worry that if nothing is done, he'll be back before the arbcom in short order and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands. A number of times, the arbitration committee has, indeed, let people off with a warning because they are productive editors that we like. A number of times, this has come back to bite us, because our failure to act has let the situation only escalate.
Believe me, I am not blithely voting for this without regard of the consequences. The consequences in both directions trouble me. I fear that there is no good and right answer; I'm left between two bad choices. Desysopping MONGO because of my gut feeling that more trouble will result breaks from the existing way of things, in that we have historically waited for someone to totally burn out and break things before desysopping. On the other hand, we've all seen the chaos that can result from that.
I am most emphatically not speaking for the rest of the arbitration committee here. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
I only became aware of this case last weekend, and didn't plan on getting involved until I saw this nonsense. Unless people are okay with admins running roughshod on them, I really wish a lot of people here - including a number of folks I respect highly and am completely puzzled about - would rethink their position on opposing the proposed remedies. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the ArbCom is removing MONGO due to a history of unrepentant incivility and brusque behavior. Review recent comments by Jimbo, who is -THE- finally authority for all things Wikipedia, and his repeated reemphasis of late for all admins to be respectful and courteous. MONGO is the unfortunate antithesis of this, so this ArbCom decision is in line with Jimbo's will. Also, it sends the correct message: do not be rude, intolerant, or allow your personal beliefs to shine through your admin work. As an admin, any personal beliefs need to take a back seat to the policy beliefs as trickled down from Jimbo. · XP · 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I would think that For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped would show you that the ArbCom is clearly saying that admins have to give other admins deference. Wouldn't this be admitting that admins are somehow superior to run of the mill editors? User:Zoe| (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As I noted above, the proposal to desysop MONGO is expressly based on two things: (1) alleged misuse of administrative tools, and (2) alleged failure to relate properly to other administrators. Durin (above) and Radiant (below), among others, have pointed out that the evidence of the first of these is thin. I (above) have noted that there is no finding as to the second of these and no evidence has been adduced to support it.
I also think it would be a mistake to believe that MONGO, or for that matter Seabhcan, will not be affected by having been through this process. To those who say MONGO was the subject of a prior arbitration case and didn't change, there's a key difference between the subject-matter of that case and (most of) this one, and I don't see the one as having much relevance to the other. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
An analysis of the alleged admin abuse. [16]. ( Radiant) 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to Radiant!'s analysis, which is easier to read than the diff. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This should be required reading. I knew I voted for Radiant for ArbCom for a reason. — Doug Bell talk 02:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
At this point, my username alone may be a magnet. If I fed the trolls by my actions, then I need to adjust my responses. As far as my handling of Camperstrike and Cplot, in light of especially the latter's efforts, which included attacks made from a serious of sock accounts on myself and numerous others, I believe my reaction was very reserved. I don't consider myself "burned-out" or on the edge of going off on some wild spree of policy violating admin actions. I do recognize I have insulted others and for that I do apologize.-- MONGO 06:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway retains adminship despite Wheel Warring and reversing more than a dozen admins. Placed on Admin probbation of 1RR.
Everyking on his 3rd RfAr retains his adminship becuase it is deemed his incivility is not relevant to his role as admin. He was banned from certain admin duties. In each of the 3 ArbCom decisions, his desysopping was discussed and rejected. Note that Everyking was desysopped 10 months later for an unrelated incident.
Here arbitrators agree that enforcement by block is appropriate for adminstrative abuse contrary to the ArbCom parole ruling (i.e. a adminstrative rollbacks). Arguably this would interfere with "normal administrative duties" but it appeared to be an acceptable solution. This ruling, indeed the opinions of the same arbcom members, appears to be incongruous with the reasoning presented here.
While not bound by precedent, it appears that the logic of refusing admin parole/probation is flawed as it appears that at least the previous two times it has been successful. -- Tbeatty 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There has been some question, so this is how reapplication for adminship in either of the two cases here should work. I'm not speaking for all of arbcom here, but I think this represents what the full Committee would agree with.
In either case, there is no mandated time frame, and there is no automatic resysopping (it is based either on the support of the community or arbcom). Dmcdevit· t 08:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing", as a general matter:
The wording of the provision is too general, especially considering the level of activity on that article in this particular case. Semi- or full-protection of articles can both be warranted on articles one is actively editing for a variety of reasons, including edit warring in which the admin is not involved.
In this case, MONGO's protection could be wrong not because he was actively involved in editing the article in general, but because the sentences that were the subject of the edit war appear to be sentences he had previously added and reverted in the listed revisions from two weeks earlier (compare [17] and [18]). Note also that the revision that MONGO protected, [19], would appear to be somewhat contrary to the revision to which he reverted two weeks earlier, [20] (same revisions as above); also, the version he protected was the version preferred by a user he later banned, [21] (who appears to continue to be abusive with sockpuppets, [22]). In other words, it seems that the admin protected what he would himself consider the Wrong version; the admin did not protect a favored version, and appears to have protected in the manner in which any admin would have, faced with an edit war. There may be other reasons why a protection in the circumstances of this case were wrong, such as general passionate involvement in a POV issue, etc., but the provision as currently written does not demonstrate misuse of admin tools. See also:
Note: I am commenting specifically and only on this provision of this finding of fact. — Centrx→ talk • 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, Dmcdevit, you say you made it for "clarity", but you "clarified" it in a way that seems to add some justification to the proposed desysopping. You changed from:
to:
I suggest:
I would very much like to hear from arbitrators as to whether they think there is anything inaccurate in Version C. If there is not, can someone explain in what way Version B could be considered to be fairer, or what advantage it has other than that it gives some justification for a block which some members have already decided on?
And by the way, I don't mean this with any sarcasm. I am genuinely concerned at what I see as a serious injustice and harmful decision, and do not know how to question it in a way that will definitely not come across as argumentative and defiant. AnnH ♫ 11:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Stuff's getting chaotic with these proposals by outside parties. It might be a good idea to use the workshop page, isn't that what it's for? Milto LOL pia 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This remedy has been added today. I'm flummoxed. The traffic on this page in the last 48 hours has shown the dramatic lack of support to desysop MONGO based on the current supporting arguments. Suspending for six months is little different. If there's no case to desysop, how can there be a case to suspend for six months? ArbCom, you've got to rewrite this whole thing, come up with better evidence, and provide a very strong argument why MONGO should be desysopped. If you can't do that, you can't support a suspension either. You want to talk about Remedy 4 or 4.1, fine. But, your case for desysopping is virtually non-existent, and likewise non-existent for suspension. -- Durin 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies to those my brush was bit too wide on. My specific feel on this above all is that this is another angry response by a variety of admins--in fact, a REVOLT and borderline coup de'tat--against any perceived reigning in of their "authority". An important note is that admins have no authority, but what Jimbo, the Board, the Stewards, and ArbCom deem they have. The time is past due for true quality control/"above admin" oversight over administrative action, and I (and many) readily welcome what feels to be the sweeping new direction of this. The message as read--unless I am 100% off base--is that shenanigans will no longer be tolerated, endorsed (vocally, or silently), or supported by the Powers That Be. Good. I implore the ArbCom to not bow to rouge admin/MONGO partisan pressure on this. While you may piss off an EXTREME minority of the 1,000+ admins out there, the project long term, historically, will look back on you as people willing to take a stand versus excess. Draw the line in the sand, to begin cleaning up the mess, and the other troublemakers will toe the appropriate line of civil behavior and discourse going forward. Even more importantly, it will send a 100% clear message that "adminiship is no big deal", and that we are not here to strive to be admins. We're here to make an encyclopedia and add content. All else is fluff, extraneous, and counter to our goals. Please stand fast versus the rouge admin/MONGO partisans. · XP · 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Without taking a position on the merits, I'd like to suggest that placing 5 diffs into the proposed decision does not nullify the remainder of the evidence, and if the 5 diffs do not support the proposed remedies, that may be an indication of a poorly written and poorly explained outcome, rather than an invalid outcome. I would further like to suggest that those who remain in favor of desysopping MONGO and/or Seabhcan might find it more productive of their time to add new proposals and stronger diffs to the workshop page, rather than engaging in irresistable force meets immovable object argumentation on this talk page. Thatcher131 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom motion to close this case now stands at 5-2 in favor of closing with MONGO and Seabhcan desysopped. Though some members of ArbCom have engaged us on this page, most have not. The activity levels on areas where ArbCom can interact with other users on this case has been exceptionally low. I note the following traffic:
ArbCom member | Edits/mails | Last edit |
/workshop Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop: | ||
The Epopt | 2 edits | 2 December |
SimonP | 0 edits | |
Jayjg | 0 edits | |
Charles Matthews | 0 edits | |
Fred Bauder | 44 edits | 9 December |
Dmcdevit | 0 edits | |
Morven | 0 edits | |
All traffic on the page: 40 edits in the last 72 hours, with 15 different contributors
| ||
Talk:Proposed decision (this page): | ||
The Epopt | 0 edits | |
SimonP | 0 edits | |
Jayjg | 0 edits | |
Charles Matthews | 0 edits | |
Fred Bauder | 6 edits | 13 December |
Dmcdevit | 7 edits | 13 December |
Morven | 2 edits | 13 December |
All traffic on the page: 347 edits in the last 72 hours, with 76 different contributors.
| ||
Mailing list: [41] | ||
The Epopt | 0 mails | |
SimonP | 0 mails | |
Jayjg | 19 mails | |
Charles Matthews | 2 mails | |
Fred Bauder | 10 mails | |
Dmcdevit | 0 mails | |
Morven | 3 mails | |
All traffic on the list: 114 e-mails in the last 72 hours, with 29 different contributors. |
Of course, nothing requires ArbCom to engage on these pages. But, myself and others have gained the distinct impression that ArbCom is essentially absent from these discussions and is refusing to interact with the community present on these pages to bring about the best solution. More than 70 different people have contributed to this page alone in the last 72 hours. In the introduction of all requests for arbitration, it says "Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop" yet 5 of the 7 arbitrators who have voted on the motion to close have contributed nothing to the workshop page. Why do we even have workshop pages if the ArbCom won't use them? ArbCom is almost singularly absent from this work. It is as if there is a large meeting of concerned parties conducting work on this case in a large meeting room and ArbCom is off in another city in some private meeting room, with an occasional call in to say "Let's close this case. Bye!".
Does ArbCom have to bend to community will? Of course not. Does ArbCom have to listen to opinion polls to decide what to do? Of course not. But, when there is *this* much dissent, *this* much ongoing discussion, *this* much effort going into trying to bring about the best solution, ArbCom owes it to us to at least put up some measure of working in concert with the people here and elsewhere on this RfAr rather than acting in isolation.
At [42], Jimbo Wales said "last thing any of us want is judges making decisions not based on facts but based on opinion polls." This is true. He also said in the same e-mail, "it can be fine for the ArbCom to always be open to new evidence or arguments from trusted community members as a sanity check."
New arguments have been made. Four different people, acting independently, have arrived at similar conclusions; that ArbCom's case for de-adminning MONGO is without basis.
I am not suggesting that ArbCom close this in favor of not desysopping MONGO. I am suggesting that given
that they take a step back from closing this RfAr and get back to the drawing table; the same drawing table where they are supposed to be sitting but most of them have not yet pulled up a chair to.
Respectfully submitted, -- Durin 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly see it the role of the Arbitration Committee to get in long discussions with the community regarding current cases. They discuss these issues in-depth amongst themselves and look at all of our evidence and such. The process is already long enough as it is. I don't think it'd be feasible for the community at large to somehow get involved in trying to make or adjust their decisions. As far as I can tell the ArbCom is taking a strong stand against misuse of administrator tools, and they aren't letting friendship or bias cloud their judgement. I think, in the long run, this will be for the best. -- Cyde Weys 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Some have noted above that past arbitrations did not impose de-sysoping for 'offenses' similar to those in this case. I think that is a valid observation, but rather than any sort of 'bias' I think this is indicative of increased severity. In many quarters there is a growing sense that Wikipedia is becoming more chaotic, more hostile, and more beset by destructive forces. There is a natural instinct to squash any perceived problem to 'stem the tide' or 'send a message' in hopes of protecting what we love about Wikipedia.
However, it seems clear that it was this same impulse which led MONGO himself to feel justified in taking strong action against perceived troublemakers. Stomp on the problem to protect the site. This is a common and not unpopular reaction. Yet the ArbCom has concluded (rightly IMO) that some of MONGO's actions were harsh and themselves disruptive and dangerous to Wikipedia. You are now taking strong action to stop that... but consider that you may be falling into the same trap which you condemn MONGO for failing to avoid. We can't continue to apply more and more severe 'punishments' for less and less significant 'infractions'... this provides the feeling of taking decisive action to protect Wikipedia while in fact often serving to fracture and destroy it.
There are times when we have no choice but to take drastic and potentially permanent action. If a user continues vandalizing after repeated warnings. If an admin habitually blocks users to 'win' content disputes. If it has become clear that there is no other way to stop them.
I do not believe that we have reached such a point here. Can anyone say that they are certain MONGO would not avoid incivility and questionable admin actions if strongly warned or enjoined against such? Can anyone say that they believe he has received such instructions in the past? The last ArbCom ruling said that he showed "excessive zeal". A daunting indictment it was not. Can we really say that if ArbCom had put MONGO on parole then (or there had been less support for his questionable actions in the RfC even earlier) that there would still have been subsequent problems?
I don't like the way MONGO goes about trying to 'protect Wikipedia' because I think he is sometimes unjustifiably harsh and unforgiving of users who make mistakes or simply disagree with him. Much of the evidence against him came (directly or indirectly) from me. I am not his biggest fan <tm>. However, I think this move to desysop him is equally harsh and unforgiving and introduces the same problems that I objected to in MONGO's actions. We need to stand up and say when things are damaging, but we don't need to take action to make it impossible for someone to commit that damage unless there is no other way. That may seem tiresome or 'inexpedient', but it is also less disruptive and dividing.
Note: I don't speak to the Seabhcan side of the case because I know very little about him. Some of the evidence I've seen here seems clearly improper, but I think the same principles apply. Unless we are (nearly) sure that 'rehabilitation' is impossible I think we do more harm than good in trying to 'prevent further abuse' by taking away his ability to do so rather than simply telling him NOT to and seeing if that works. -- CBD 17:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#MONGO_is_suspended
User:Dmcdevit brought up some good points is regards to suspension. [43]
What is the difference between being suspended and being desysopped? Are being desysopped vs suspended synonyms? I am rather confused, can someone explain this please? Travb ( talk) 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's bad enough that the ArbCom were considering desysopping MONGO, but to now suggest he be suspended without any indication of whether the community will be permitted to give MONGO sysop status in future is utterly infuriating. Are they trying to force the community to accept MONGOs desysopping by dangling this carrot in front of us. The fact is the evidence doesn't warrant desysopping let alone what appears to be a permanent suspension. Do the present ArbCom want to totally destroy what little credibility they're left with after the Seabhcan case ? Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I must say that I am rather surprised by the comments above. It seems clear to me that the idea of suspension is meant as a lesser punishment because of the often repeated charge that RfA is "broken" and is too harsh, especially on candidates requesting resysoping. Though perhaps this could be made clear by stating a specific time at which the suspension would be reviewed. This interpretation is supported, IMO, by the pattern of votes in the case. Not that users won't still have concerns about the remedy or that clarification of the potential role of RfA wouldn't be helpful, of course. Eluchil404 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to offer remedy, but I've suggested administrative suspension for an as yet undefined period, followed by application to arbcom OR normal RfA, coupled with a suggested civility parole for both users. BusterD 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I know my inexperience is showing here, but my intent was to pose the following: if arbitrator A has already voted to close, how can arbitrator A make a change on any proposed remedy tally without first changing his or her current tally on the closing motion? And doesn't it seem odd for this rather extreme solution to be conducted at a time when only a bare quorum of arbitrators are available to consider what has become a rather large and conflated discussion? BusterD 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The proposal to de-admin MONGO and Seabhcan appears not to have support on these talk pages, either because of the facts, or that such a decree from ArbCom is inappropriate. Admins serve at the will of the community. I've added another (in what is now a long list of) alternatives: they must immediately re-apply for adminship to judge the will of the community. SchmuckyTheCat 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that XP has been blocked as being a sock puppet of the banned User:Rootology, who was banned in large part because of his repeated attacks on MONGO. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I go a away for a week or so, come back ... and see that the Arbcom is close to desysopping someone whom I regard as a valuable contributor and admin, i.e. MONGO. The exposure of XP, above, as one of MONGO's past harassers kind of makes the point: MONGO has had a lot to put up with. Has his response been exemplary? No. But not many of us are saints, and it's not that long since an arbitration explicitly held that no action should be taken against him for any "excessive zeal". With all respect to the arbitrators - and it's a group of people whom I do greatly respect - it seems a bit much turning around taking such a drastic action now. Any evidence that his behaviour has deteriorated in some drastic way of late is surely very thin.
This looks to me as if we are only at that stage when an otherwise great contributor to Wikipedia should somehow be put on notice that he has to change by being more consistently civil. I could even understand some kind of cooling off period (i.e. desysopping for a fixed term that simply expires with the effluxion of time after some weeks or months). But just plain desysopping is too much an unexpected slap in the face for someone of this calibre in all the circumstances obtaining here, including everything good he has done as both a contributor and an admin. I don't say that MONGO should get a free pass, but please reconsider the appropriate remedy. Metamagician3000 07:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Boy-o-boy I hope somebody writes a humdinger of a summary, because several admins have stated in this process there is inadequate evidence to support this specific remedy. I know MONGO has expressed no desire to create any more controversy with an early RfA, but I suspect we're not done here. Disproportionate and impetuous. BusterD 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Are they really saying that it is inappropriate to ever protect or unprotect a page which an admin has never edited, so long as somebody else with whom that admin has, at some time in the past, had a disagreement with, is, or has ever, edited that page? User:Zoe| (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Wikipedia. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Wikipedia and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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]
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirlineToHeaven ( talk • contribs)
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
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)
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)
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)
Mongo seems to have quit Wikipedia [10] [11]. 67.117.130.181 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
One other comment. It seems odd that this RFAr has devolved into a referendum on how MONGO has dealt with ED trolling and harassment. It seems that MONGO's involvement in any RFAr makes him a target from certain groups. Travb wasn't originally part of the RFAr. NEither was Miltopia. This is a terrible precedent to set. It seems that in a fit of mud slinging, Travb, CPlot and Miltopia became relevant in proceeding that didn't involve them. If this is sucessful, I feel sorry for anyone they dislike who brings an ArbCom action as it will devolve into a referendum on them. -- Tbeatty 07:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It is apparent that the decisions to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan are going to go through. Both proposed remedies have 6-0 support, with the passage bar being simple majority. There is a motion to close now, with two supports to close with four needed to close. The RfAr is about to close in favor of desysopping.
Discussion related to this straw poll should be elsewhere on this page, and not on the poll itself. Please add any comments to the "Comments" section and limit your additions to the agree/disagree sections to your signature.
Two questions are asked (and presume the decision will be instituted):
This poll is of course not binding, but intended to gauge community support for the decision.
Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop MONGO?
Agree
Disagree
Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Seabhcan?
Agree
Disagree
Comments
(moved comment) Adamantly disagree. Questions of the lack of specific policy violations, the lack of consideration of parole (especially given Tony Sidaway), in addition to weighing against Mongo's absolutely tremendous and stellar contributions to the project. Arbcom needs to tread carefully in this matter in order to avoid setting such a dangerous precedent. -- kizzle 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO has indicated that he is not interested in being re-nominated, so my proposal above is moot. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
(moved comment) I agree that MONGO has taken some admin actions that are inappropriate, but don't agree that all of the actions identified by Arb Comm are clear violations, and think that some cautionary instruction/probation is preferable to desysopping a largely productive admin, particularly where at least one of MONGO's bad acts was successfully resolved through dispute resolution. TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
(moved comment) Don't see anything so egregious to warrant desysopping. -- Aude ( talk) 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think straw polls second-guessing the ArbCom on the ArbCom's own pages are rather absurd, so I shall not participate in it. -- Cyde Weys 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not the place for a straw poll. However, both Seabhcan and MONGO are good admins and good editors. I'll support future RFA's for both, should they be needed. It's unfortunate that this arbitration is taking down constructive editors while leaving the warrior likes of Morton Devonshire, who essentially created the Gladio conflict, untouched. An opportunity has been missed to address the wolfpack behavior of the Devonshire gang, which is the underlying cause of so much of the conflict. Derex 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Too many issues in too short a time. However, Mongo should be free to submit himself for adminship again and the community can decide if he is still a suitable candidate for the post. Gamaliel 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
MONGO has shown that he is a controversial admin that has made too many major mistakes. Ral315 ( talk) 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Tentative agreement. It would be enough to ban MONGO from editing or administering those pages where he demonstrates an inability to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Those are pages that nearly always deal with political issues. His presence as an editor on less volatile pages is generally well regarded. If, however, such an arrangement is impossible, then i support eliminating his administrator privileges. Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Looking through the evidence, one is clearly left with the feeling that Mongo has made many controversial admin actions in a short time and has frequently been uncivil. He may have been provoked, but two wrongs do not make a right and Mongo's behaviour is contributing to an unfortunate atmosphere on wikipedia. As an admin, he is part of the public face of Wikipedia and this should not be acceptable. We are finally starting to act on reigning in admins who behave in this way, and should continue to do so. (No comment on other remedies from me - I spent 10 mins looking this over since so contentious but am now again logging out.) Martinp 13:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Per [15], which confirms what my gut reaction told me. MONGO has done things for which he might justly be criticised, but these are not the things on which this remedy is founded. Guy ( Help!) 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidence and arguments, not straw polls, should sway arbitrators. But the evidence and arguments against the proposed decision are strong, and the straw poll is here, so I add my name. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
While I generally avoid polls, I feel strongly enough about this to list my name here; desysopping MONGO harms the project. We need admins like him. Anyone here read, or even better seen, Coriolanus? Pay close attention: it even includes an "RFA". Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In a word NO, and if anything, if this bullshit monkey show goes through, there should be an immediate RfAdmin to make Mongo an admin again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Like Newyorkbrad said, this should be decided on arguments and evidence, but since the poll is here. Samir धर्म 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Same as for MONGO - IMHO, Seabchan crossed the line, but desysopping is overkill, assuming that he's otherwise been a productive admin. TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Per my comments above, though [Seabchan is] a closer call than MONGO. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
To give them both a second chance here. Antandrus (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very fond of Seabhcan's approach to editing Wikipedia. He has a great sense of humour and accurately points out bias in other editors. Because some editors have no sense of humour and can't look at themselves from different POV than their own, it doesn't mean that Seabhcan should be desysoped. SalvNaut 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Seabhcan has become the target of a malicious cabal of editors who consider his political observations and opinions to be "anti-american". On this basis, they have spent many months provoking him towards incriminating acts. Despite this considerable time and effort, the evidence they have accumulated is scanty and weak, resulting in the fabrication of evidence through purposeful distortion and inuendo. Upon factoring in the environment in which Seabhcan has been working, i consider his conduct more laudable than condemnable. Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the case for abuse of admin powers is convincingly made for either. However, there is little doubt that both have engaged in incivility, sillyness, and various other activities that I a least consider "conduct unbecoming an admin" (if you like...sounds a but haughty I know...). If either were editors asking for the mop today, then their respective actions detailed in this case would surely kill their RfAs stone-dead outright. On that basis, if nothing else, I reluctantly agree with the original arbcom decision to desysop them both (judging from a quick scan, they may have changed their minds about this sanction anyway, I'm only adding my opinion). Adminship is (nominally....) no big deal. Provided both are free to stand again at some stage in the future, I see no reason not to remove them from the admin ranks for now and let the community decide in the normal way later (although I think it's very clear that at least one and perhaps both have forever scuppered their chances of re-promotion due to some very rash use of language which a large number of editors are likely to find offensive...). I certainly don't think a lesser sanction (e.g. admin parole or similar) is appropriate- one either has the decorum, calmness and common sense to be an admin, or one doesn't. There is no middle ground. Whatever happens however, I feel the evidence of both abuse of privilege and incivility is equally strong against both parties here. I certainly would not support unequally weighted sanctions- if one goes, they both go, and if one stays they both should stay. Badgerpatrol 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, this entire subject is fraught with very high emotion for everyone. I have Notepad open where I'm making a copy of all the uncivil, NPAviolating things I've almost typed in and stopped myself from doing. (See, Firsfron, progress!)
That being said, I wish to make a point that may or may not matter, but that isn't readily shown by the discussion heretofor.
I admire several members of the ArbCom, in particular Fred who puts up with entirely too much crap, and SimonP. I think the ArbCom usually does an admirable job of finding a solution to a horrific set of problems that is hurled at them ,and they are almost never thanked for such service.
However, I also think that in this particular case the ArbCom is making a mistake. If I, alone, a relatively new editor with a history of incivility and known dislike of ED, 9/11 truthers, and trolls, was making this assertion, it would be (rightfully) discounted as screed. But I'm not alone, there are a LOT of people upset about this here, on MONGO's talk page, on the mailing list, in email, offwiki sites, and in various talk pages. They are more than upset, they are angry.
I'm not happy at desysopping for MONGO or Seabhcan, and I cannot remember why I used to believe Wikipedia process meant something, or that the fact that Wikipedia wasn't a bureaucracy was comforting. This is not a calm, considered decision based on the needs of the community. This is not even a good attempt at railroading. This is, to me, a message being sent to other admins.
Behave, or you'll lose your bit.
I can fully understand the idea behind such a message, but I disagree with it, strongly. Has Seabhcan messed up? Yes. Guess what? He's got spine, and I'm pretty convinced he's mature enough to face up to any wrongdoing. The same goes for MONGO. Do I like Seabhcan? No. But that doesn't matter. Right now, I like him more than I like the ArbCom, and that saddens me. I used to naively think the ArbCom was some of the Wiki's best, the most fair minded, the most even tempered, who put up with bullshit to fix what wasn't working. I used to sneer at people who suggested ArbCom was broken. Now? Now I don't know.
No one here, least of all me, is attacking the ArbCom or your dedication. But we are confused and hurt and upset and angry because your decision doesn't seem to make any sense or serve any purpose except to send a message. We ask you to reconsider. -- Elar a girl Talk| Count 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have voted to desysop MONGO based on the fact that I personally have doubts about his judgment in future, entirely because of the stress and harassment he has endured. It's understandable, and it excuses his behaviour, but it makes me worry that if nothing is done, he'll be back before the arbcom in short order and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands. A number of times, the arbitration committee has, indeed, let people off with a warning because they are productive editors that we like. A number of times, this has come back to bite us, because our failure to act has let the situation only escalate.
Believe me, I am not blithely voting for this without regard of the consequences. The consequences in both directions trouble me. I fear that there is no good and right answer; I'm left between two bad choices. Desysopping MONGO because of my gut feeling that more trouble will result breaks from the existing way of things, in that we have historically waited for someone to totally burn out and break things before desysopping. On the other hand, we've all seen the chaos that can result from that.
I am most emphatically not speaking for the rest of the arbitration committee here. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
I only became aware of this case last weekend, and didn't plan on getting involved until I saw this nonsense. Unless people are okay with admins running roughshod on them, I really wish a lot of people here - including a number of folks I respect highly and am completely puzzled about - would rethink their position on opposing the proposed remedies. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the ArbCom is removing MONGO due to a history of unrepentant incivility and brusque behavior. Review recent comments by Jimbo, who is -THE- finally authority for all things Wikipedia, and his repeated reemphasis of late for all admins to be respectful and courteous. MONGO is the unfortunate antithesis of this, so this ArbCom decision is in line with Jimbo's will. Also, it sends the correct message: do not be rude, intolerant, or allow your personal beliefs to shine through your admin work. As an admin, any personal beliefs need to take a back seat to the policy beliefs as trickled down from Jimbo. · XP · 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I would think that For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped would show you that the ArbCom is clearly saying that admins have to give other admins deference. Wouldn't this be admitting that admins are somehow superior to run of the mill editors? User:Zoe| (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As I noted above, the proposal to desysop MONGO is expressly based on two things: (1) alleged misuse of administrative tools, and (2) alleged failure to relate properly to other administrators. Durin (above) and Radiant (below), among others, have pointed out that the evidence of the first of these is thin. I (above) have noted that there is no finding as to the second of these and no evidence has been adduced to support it.
I also think it would be a mistake to believe that MONGO, or for that matter Seabhcan, will not be affected by having been through this process. To those who say MONGO was the subject of a prior arbitration case and didn't change, there's a key difference between the subject-matter of that case and (most of) this one, and I don't see the one as having much relevance to the other. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
An analysis of the alleged admin abuse. [16]. ( Radiant) 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to Radiant!'s analysis, which is easier to read than the diff. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This should be required reading. I knew I voted for Radiant for ArbCom for a reason. — Doug Bell talk 02:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
At this point, my username alone may be a magnet. If I fed the trolls by my actions, then I need to adjust my responses. As far as my handling of Camperstrike and Cplot, in light of especially the latter's efforts, which included attacks made from a serious of sock accounts on myself and numerous others, I believe my reaction was very reserved. I don't consider myself "burned-out" or on the edge of going off on some wild spree of policy violating admin actions. I do recognize I have insulted others and for that I do apologize.-- MONGO 06:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway retains adminship despite Wheel Warring and reversing more than a dozen admins. Placed on Admin probbation of 1RR.
Everyking on his 3rd RfAr retains his adminship becuase it is deemed his incivility is not relevant to his role as admin. He was banned from certain admin duties. In each of the 3 ArbCom decisions, his desysopping was discussed and rejected. Note that Everyking was desysopped 10 months later for an unrelated incident.
Here arbitrators agree that enforcement by block is appropriate for adminstrative abuse contrary to the ArbCom parole ruling (i.e. a adminstrative rollbacks). Arguably this would interfere with "normal administrative duties" but it appeared to be an acceptable solution. This ruling, indeed the opinions of the same arbcom members, appears to be incongruous with the reasoning presented here.
While not bound by precedent, it appears that the logic of refusing admin parole/probation is flawed as it appears that at least the previous two times it has been successful. -- Tbeatty 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There has been some question, so this is how reapplication for adminship in either of the two cases here should work. I'm not speaking for all of arbcom here, but I think this represents what the full Committee would agree with.
In either case, there is no mandated time frame, and there is no automatic resysopping (it is based either on the support of the community or arbcom). Dmcdevit· t 08:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing", as a general matter:
The wording of the provision is too general, especially considering the level of activity on that article in this particular case. Semi- or full-protection of articles can both be warranted on articles one is actively editing for a variety of reasons, including edit warring in which the admin is not involved.
In this case, MONGO's protection could be wrong not because he was actively involved in editing the article in general, but because the sentences that were the subject of the edit war appear to be sentences he had previously added and reverted in the listed revisions from two weeks earlier (compare [17] and [18]). Note also that the revision that MONGO protected, [19], would appear to be somewhat contrary to the revision to which he reverted two weeks earlier, [20] (same revisions as above); also, the version he protected was the version preferred by a user he later banned, [21] (who appears to continue to be abusive with sockpuppets, [22]). In other words, it seems that the admin protected what he would himself consider the Wrong version; the admin did not protect a favored version, and appears to have protected in the manner in which any admin would have, faced with an edit war. There may be other reasons why a protection in the circumstances of this case were wrong, such as general passionate involvement in a POV issue, etc., but the provision as currently written does not demonstrate misuse of admin tools. See also:
Note: I am commenting specifically and only on this provision of this finding of fact. — Centrx→ talk • 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, Dmcdevit, you say you made it for "clarity", but you "clarified" it in a way that seems to add some justification to the proposed desysopping. You changed from:
to:
I suggest:
I would very much like to hear from arbitrators as to whether they think there is anything inaccurate in Version C. If there is not, can someone explain in what way Version B could be considered to be fairer, or what advantage it has other than that it gives some justification for a block which some members have already decided on?
And by the way, I don't mean this with any sarcasm. I am genuinely concerned at what I see as a serious injustice and harmful decision, and do not know how to question it in a way that will definitely not come across as argumentative and defiant. AnnH ♫ 11:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Stuff's getting chaotic with these proposals by outside parties. It might be a good idea to use the workshop page, isn't that what it's for? Milto LOL pia 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This remedy has been added today. I'm flummoxed. The traffic on this page in the last 48 hours has shown the dramatic lack of support to desysop MONGO based on the current supporting arguments. Suspending for six months is little different. If there's no case to desysop, how can there be a case to suspend for six months? ArbCom, you've got to rewrite this whole thing, come up with better evidence, and provide a very strong argument why MONGO should be desysopped. If you can't do that, you can't support a suspension either. You want to talk about Remedy 4 or 4.1, fine. But, your case for desysopping is virtually non-existent, and likewise non-existent for suspension. -- Durin 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies to those my brush was bit too wide on. My specific feel on this above all is that this is another angry response by a variety of admins--in fact, a REVOLT and borderline coup de'tat--against any perceived reigning in of their "authority". An important note is that admins have no authority, but what Jimbo, the Board, the Stewards, and ArbCom deem they have. The time is past due for true quality control/"above admin" oversight over administrative action, and I (and many) readily welcome what feels to be the sweeping new direction of this. The message as read--unless I am 100% off base--is that shenanigans will no longer be tolerated, endorsed (vocally, or silently), or supported by the Powers That Be. Good. I implore the ArbCom to not bow to rouge admin/MONGO partisan pressure on this. While you may piss off an EXTREME minority of the 1,000+ admins out there, the project long term, historically, will look back on you as people willing to take a stand versus excess. Draw the line in the sand, to begin cleaning up the mess, and the other troublemakers will toe the appropriate line of civil behavior and discourse going forward. Even more importantly, it will send a 100% clear message that "adminiship is no big deal", and that we are not here to strive to be admins. We're here to make an encyclopedia and add content. All else is fluff, extraneous, and counter to our goals. Please stand fast versus the rouge admin/MONGO partisans. · XP · 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Without taking a position on the merits, I'd like to suggest that placing 5 diffs into the proposed decision does not nullify the remainder of the evidence, and if the 5 diffs do not support the proposed remedies, that may be an indication of a poorly written and poorly explained outcome, rather than an invalid outcome. I would further like to suggest that those who remain in favor of desysopping MONGO and/or Seabhcan might find it more productive of their time to add new proposals and stronger diffs to the workshop page, rather than engaging in irresistable force meets immovable object argumentation on this talk page. Thatcher131 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom motion to close this case now stands at 5-2 in favor of closing with MONGO and Seabhcan desysopped. Though some members of ArbCom have engaged us on this page, most have not. The activity levels on areas where ArbCom can interact with other users on this case has been exceptionally low. I note the following traffic:
ArbCom member | Edits/mails | Last edit |
/workshop Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop: | ||
The Epopt | 2 edits | 2 December |
SimonP | 0 edits | |
Jayjg | 0 edits | |
Charles Matthews | 0 edits | |
Fred Bauder | 44 edits | 9 December |
Dmcdevit | 0 edits | |
Morven | 0 edits | |
All traffic on the page: 40 edits in the last 72 hours, with 15 different contributors
| ||
Talk:Proposed decision (this page): | ||
The Epopt | 0 edits | |
SimonP | 0 edits | |
Jayjg | 0 edits | |
Charles Matthews | 0 edits | |
Fred Bauder | 6 edits | 13 December |
Dmcdevit | 7 edits | 13 December |
Morven | 2 edits | 13 December |
All traffic on the page: 347 edits in the last 72 hours, with 76 different contributors.
| ||
Mailing list: [41] | ||
The Epopt | 0 mails | |
SimonP | 0 mails | |
Jayjg | 19 mails | |
Charles Matthews | 2 mails | |
Fred Bauder | 10 mails | |
Dmcdevit | 0 mails | |
Morven | 3 mails | |
All traffic on the list: 114 e-mails in the last 72 hours, with 29 different contributors. |
Of course, nothing requires ArbCom to engage on these pages. But, myself and others have gained the distinct impression that ArbCom is essentially absent from these discussions and is refusing to interact with the community present on these pages to bring about the best solution. More than 70 different people have contributed to this page alone in the last 72 hours. In the introduction of all requests for arbitration, it says "Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop" yet 5 of the 7 arbitrators who have voted on the motion to close have contributed nothing to the workshop page. Why do we even have workshop pages if the ArbCom won't use them? ArbCom is almost singularly absent from this work. It is as if there is a large meeting of concerned parties conducting work on this case in a large meeting room and ArbCom is off in another city in some private meeting room, with an occasional call in to say "Let's close this case. Bye!".
Does ArbCom have to bend to community will? Of course not. Does ArbCom have to listen to opinion polls to decide what to do? Of course not. But, when there is *this* much dissent, *this* much ongoing discussion, *this* much effort going into trying to bring about the best solution, ArbCom owes it to us to at least put up some measure of working in concert with the people here and elsewhere on this RfAr rather than acting in isolation.
At [42], Jimbo Wales said "last thing any of us want is judges making decisions not based on facts but based on opinion polls." This is true. He also said in the same e-mail, "it can be fine for the ArbCom to always be open to new evidence or arguments from trusted community members as a sanity check."
New arguments have been made. Four different people, acting independently, have arrived at similar conclusions; that ArbCom's case for de-adminning MONGO is without basis.
I am not suggesting that ArbCom close this in favor of not desysopping MONGO. I am suggesting that given
that they take a step back from closing this RfAr and get back to the drawing table; the same drawing table where they are supposed to be sitting but most of them have not yet pulled up a chair to.
Respectfully submitted, -- Durin 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly see it the role of the Arbitration Committee to get in long discussions with the community regarding current cases. They discuss these issues in-depth amongst themselves and look at all of our evidence and such. The process is already long enough as it is. I don't think it'd be feasible for the community at large to somehow get involved in trying to make or adjust their decisions. As far as I can tell the ArbCom is taking a strong stand against misuse of administrator tools, and they aren't letting friendship or bias cloud their judgement. I think, in the long run, this will be for the best. -- Cyde Weys 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Some have noted above that past arbitrations did not impose de-sysoping for 'offenses' similar to those in this case. I think that is a valid observation, but rather than any sort of 'bias' I think this is indicative of increased severity. In many quarters there is a growing sense that Wikipedia is becoming more chaotic, more hostile, and more beset by destructive forces. There is a natural instinct to squash any perceived problem to 'stem the tide' or 'send a message' in hopes of protecting what we love about Wikipedia.
However, it seems clear that it was this same impulse which led MONGO himself to feel justified in taking strong action against perceived troublemakers. Stomp on the problem to protect the site. This is a common and not unpopular reaction. Yet the ArbCom has concluded (rightly IMO) that some of MONGO's actions were harsh and themselves disruptive and dangerous to Wikipedia. You are now taking strong action to stop that... but consider that you may be falling into the same trap which you condemn MONGO for failing to avoid. We can't continue to apply more and more severe 'punishments' for less and less significant 'infractions'... this provides the feeling of taking decisive action to protect Wikipedia while in fact often serving to fracture and destroy it.
There are times when we have no choice but to take drastic and potentially permanent action. If a user continues vandalizing after repeated warnings. If an admin habitually blocks users to 'win' content disputes. If it has become clear that there is no other way to stop them.
I do not believe that we have reached such a point here. Can anyone say that they are certain MONGO would not avoid incivility and questionable admin actions if strongly warned or enjoined against such? Can anyone say that they believe he has received such instructions in the past? The last ArbCom ruling said that he showed "excessive zeal". A daunting indictment it was not. Can we really say that if ArbCom had put MONGO on parole then (or there had been less support for his questionable actions in the RfC even earlier) that there would still have been subsequent problems?
I don't like the way MONGO goes about trying to 'protect Wikipedia' because I think he is sometimes unjustifiably harsh and unforgiving of users who make mistakes or simply disagree with him. Much of the evidence against him came (directly or indirectly) from me. I am not his biggest fan <tm>. However, I think this move to desysop him is equally harsh and unforgiving and introduces the same problems that I objected to in MONGO's actions. We need to stand up and say when things are damaging, but we don't need to take action to make it impossible for someone to commit that damage unless there is no other way. That may seem tiresome or 'inexpedient', but it is also less disruptive and dividing.
Note: I don't speak to the Seabhcan side of the case because I know very little about him. Some of the evidence I've seen here seems clearly improper, but I think the same principles apply. Unless we are (nearly) sure that 'rehabilitation' is impossible I think we do more harm than good in trying to 'prevent further abuse' by taking away his ability to do so rather than simply telling him NOT to and seeing if that works. -- CBD 17:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#MONGO_is_suspended
User:Dmcdevit brought up some good points is regards to suspension. [43]
What is the difference between being suspended and being desysopped? Are being desysopped vs suspended synonyms? I am rather confused, can someone explain this please? Travb ( talk) 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's bad enough that the ArbCom were considering desysopping MONGO, but to now suggest he be suspended without any indication of whether the community will be permitted to give MONGO sysop status in future is utterly infuriating. Are they trying to force the community to accept MONGOs desysopping by dangling this carrot in front of us. The fact is the evidence doesn't warrant desysopping let alone what appears to be a permanent suspension. Do the present ArbCom want to totally destroy what little credibility they're left with after the Seabhcan case ? Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I must say that I am rather surprised by the comments above. It seems clear to me that the idea of suspension is meant as a lesser punishment because of the often repeated charge that RfA is "broken" and is too harsh, especially on candidates requesting resysoping. Though perhaps this could be made clear by stating a specific time at which the suspension would be reviewed. This interpretation is supported, IMO, by the pattern of votes in the case. Not that users won't still have concerns about the remedy or that clarification of the potential role of RfA wouldn't be helpful, of course. Eluchil404 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to offer remedy, but I've suggested administrative suspension for an as yet undefined period, followed by application to arbcom OR normal RfA, coupled with a suggested civility parole for both users. BusterD 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I know my inexperience is showing here, but my intent was to pose the following: if arbitrator A has already voted to close, how can arbitrator A make a change on any proposed remedy tally without first changing his or her current tally on the closing motion? And doesn't it seem odd for this rather extreme solution to be conducted at a time when only a bare quorum of arbitrators are available to consider what has become a rather large and conflated discussion? BusterD 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The proposal to de-admin MONGO and Seabhcan appears not to have support on these talk pages, either because of the facts, or that such a decree from ArbCom is inappropriate. Admins serve at the will of the community. I've added another (in what is now a long list of) alternatives: they must immediately re-apply for adminship to judge the will of the community. SchmuckyTheCat 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that XP has been blocked as being a sock puppet of the banned User:Rootology, who was banned in large part because of his repeated attacks on MONGO. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I go a away for a week or so, come back ... and see that the Arbcom is close to desysopping someone whom I regard as a valuable contributor and admin, i.e. MONGO. The exposure of XP, above, as one of MONGO's past harassers kind of makes the point: MONGO has had a lot to put up with. Has his response been exemplary? No. But not many of us are saints, and it's not that long since an arbitration explicitly held that no action should be taken against him for any "excessive zeal". With all respect to the arbitrators - and it's a group of people whom I do greatly respect - it seems a bit much turning around taking such a drastic action now. Any evidence that his behaviour has deteriorated in some drastic way of late is surely very thin.
This looks to me as if we are only at that stage when an otherwise great contributor to Wikipedia should somehow be put on notice that he has to change by being more consistently civil. I could even understand some kind of cooling off period (i.e. desysopping for a fixed term that simply expires with the effluxion of time after some weeks or months). But just plain desysopping is too much an unexpected slap in the face for someone of this calibre in all the circumstances obtaining here, including everything good he has done as both a contributor and an admin. I don't say that MONGO should get a free pass, but please reconsider the appropriate remedy. Metamagician3000 07:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Boy-o-boy I hope somebody writes a humdinger of a summary, because several admins have stated in this process there is inadequate evidence to support this specific remedy. I know MONGO has expressed no desire to create any more controversy with an early RfA, but I suspect we're not done here. Disproportionate and impetuous. BusterD 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Are they really saying that it is inappropriate to ever protect or unprotect a page which an admin has never edited, so long as somebody else with whom that admin has, at some time in the past, had a disagreement with, is, or has ever, edited that page? User:Zoe| (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Wikipedia. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Wikipedia and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)