Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tango

Statement by Majorly

One instance of a correct block within policy does not require desysopping. It may have been too long, but Tango agreed to consensus of other editors if he'd been incorrect. There is nothing to arbitrate here. Majorly (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Tango (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuburnPilot

This request is absurd, and a waste of time. Tango's block was within policy and amended to an appropriate duration (one Tango agreed with). There is nothing for the arbcom to review, and there is nothing that would warrant desysopping. - auburnpilot talk 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

The block was too long, yes. Its appropriateness is not in doubt (for this is not appropriate, nor was the response to Tango's warning). If this was my Balkan friends, and I was enforcing WP:ARBMAC, yes, I do think I would have issued a brief block for the sort of conduct MONGO engaged in. I see no difference why MONGO and WP:ARB9/11 should be any different. Discretionary sanctions are meaningless if not issued even-handedly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the events relating to Goa Inquisition a very long time ago, it may as well be noted that one of the principal parties in the dispute opposite Tango later went through this. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano

I think the blocking of an established editor such as Mongo for one week for daring to tell Tango to "get lost" [1] tells us that this Admin is incompetent, impulsive and out of control. His tolerance levels [2] are no excuse to disrupt the project. He is completely unsuited in experience and temperament to be an Admin, and needs de-sysoping sooner rather than later, before he does any more damage. Giano (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Tango's 1st offence

As usual our Arbs are voting to dismiss a case against a wayward Admin before bothering to investigate. See here for his abuse of tools: [3]. More importantly, some may have forgotten the first thing User:Tango did when he became an admin was indulge in a controversial block of User:Fys. See the bottom of this [4] and [5]

Choice quotes:

From Mackensen (then an arb):"You seem to think that it constitutes impersonating an admin to proffer advice. That's ridiculous and you ought to ashamed of yourself. Fys is a contributor and former sysop of several years standing and you're treating him like a common vandal. As you obviously aren't interested in unblocking I'll be doing so myself."

And this one from me, 2 years later I'm singing the same song: "Something sooner or later has to be done to curb this enthusiasm of admins for blocking those who are writing the encyclopedia, while there are still some editors left." It would be nice for once if the Arbs, rather then the writing editors, would take the initiative. Giano (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Doc

Bad block. Reviewed extensively on ANI, and reduced. Nuff drama, immediate case closed. (Personally, I think even the shorter block time is slightly ridiculous - but, I'm generally a MONGO fan, and consensus is what consensus is.)

Now, I don't know Tango, maybe he's there is a case, based on a pattern of poor judgement, for desysopping. But if there is, someone ought to actually like make it. "We like MONGO, this block is bad, hang the blocker just for this" isn't a good rationale. Nothing to arbitrate here unless unless a substantive case is put. Is there one? --Doc^g 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the unblock by Slim, on reflection I wish I'd done that. Although Tango shouldn't be hung for one offence - his continuing protestations concern me. He obviously doesn't "get it" - and we do need assurance of better judgement going forward. OTOH, I can't blame Tango for the loss of MONGO - MONGO's been here a while - he knows shit happens here. This may have been the last straw, but if MONGO decides he can't take the crap Wikipedia sometimes gives, he'd only have left over some other incident. Don't blame the single straw for the camel's fractured vertebrae. --Doc^g 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(noting Giano's additions) Kudos to Giano for actually doing some research here. However, I think the point is that those seeking arbitration ought to have investigated before prosecuting. Arbcom seems to work on an Anglo-American model where the parties bring the case to court, rather than being continental-style investigating magistrates. Oh, I'd write some wiki-jurisprudance, but it'd be awfully pompous. Seriously, I'd suggest the route to pursue here (if you want to pursue it) is RfC. There the community can put the admin under the spotlight, and see what it looks like and what his response it. Then, if there's clearly problems and he remains unwilling to resolve them, we can come back here. When the facts are clear, and people have already formed a view, then RfCs are rarely useful, but when there's uncertainly and people are still wishing to hear and investigate, then they can at least clarify the issues if not resolve them. (A pre-trial exploration, if you like).--Doc^g 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved JzG

Let's see if Bishzilla sets fire to anyone's pants before they realise that the message here is "silly drama, get back to work". Guy (Help!) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC) OK, I'm changing this. I think this does need to be looked into: the AN thread [6] shows a clear sequence: Thomas Basboll (who is pretty much a single-purpose account) posted to the tlak page of MONGO, an editor with whom he had a long-running dispute due to Basboll's advocacy of fringe views on 9/11, [7]. MONGO responded by removing the notice, with a rather rude edit summary. Basboll then solicited action against MONGO [8] despite that the locus of dispute was user talk space and nowhere near the encyclopaedia; Basboll exhibits a low tolerance for criticism and always has. The admin who chose to block MONGO, Tango, has a long-standing agenda against MONGO as evidence in the MONOGO RFA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2 where Tango actively campaigns to get others to change to oppose. So Tango should not have been the one to block even if a block was justified. Actually, though, the block was handed out for talking back to Tango, with a comment that is barely above the level of brusque, "get lost". Under the circumstances, I would have to say that a one week block of a user with whom you have a long-standing dispute for being slightly rude to you is questionable at best. But the clincher here is that Tango does not appear to acknowledge that any of the above is a problem. Quite a lot of us think it is.[reply]

The block extension of AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also looks vindictive and a wholly disproportionate response to a very polite request to reconsider. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved DHeyward

It's sad to see that Tango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s first block for civility is wholly inappropriate. Length, justification, "uninvolved" and "per ArbCom" has been turned on their heads. Revert the block as it was done in the name of the arbitration committee but it doesn't fit any of the arbcom remedies outlined. Editors have the right to remove talk page trolling from their talk page they also have the right to remove warnings, especially unjustified warnings by any editor. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Until(1 == 2)

No charges of behavior that warrants desysoping have been presented. The block itself was upheld, though reduced. We don't take the bit away because consensus reduced the block length after the fact. No abuse of admin tools or bad faith behavior here. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved User:LessHeard vanU

Premature. Consensus continues to hold that a block was appropriate, the re-instated block has not been reverted as being without consensus, and that initial concern was only in respect of the tariff imposed. There is therefore no case to answer in respect of Tango's actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this block now has been reverted following a very WP:BOLD interpretation of consensus (experienced Wikipedians that disagreed with the block, excluding the opposing views of equally experienced editors - no appeal to authority there...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Nick

Is blocking someone 9 hours and 14 minutes after they make a remark acceptable ? Nick (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jossi

A week's block for "get lost"? Bad block indeed. But to bring this to arbCom for desysoping is as bad as an idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Overly aggressive block, overly aggressive RFAR. We need less drama, not more. Let's live and learn. Durova^Charge! 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through the above. Risker presents a pattern of questionable blocks and Tango has resisted community feedback. Adding to the concerns expressed by other Wikipedians, I find it worrisome that Tango confused block review with wheel warring. "Live and learn" isn't working this time, so I ask the Committee to accept this request.

Also, fellow Wikipedians please note: Newyorkbrad posts that his office was four miles from the World Trade Center. I have an uncle who was in the World Trade Center itself and survived from a high floor; I joined the Navy and went to war because of 9/11. While opinions vary about the underlying topic, this subject deserves a measure of dignity that has been lacking in the last few days' discussion. Whether the conduct you wish to criticize is Tango's, MONGO's, or somebody else's, please demonstrate the appropriate standard for civility and restraint with your own actions. I assure you, this does not come easily for some of us. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev

This is a bad block that needs to be undone ASAP. I think it is a job of Arbcom. I would also support review of the behavior of Tango, if it was not an isolated incident he should be desysopped. It would also help to review our policy on offensive marginal theories, why it so happen that Mango needs to be a hero to just stop the conspirological nonsense Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

It seems to be a recurrent problem on wiki. On one side we have a very productive editor who do an important job here but is not an admin. On the other side there is an admin who is either not very experienced or has a conflict of interests. The admin gives a warning that the editor considered to be erroneous or made in bad faith. The editor replies to warning with a minor incivility to the admin. Admin or his friend blocks the editor. The editor leaves wiki (usually temporarily). I saw it with Ghirlandajo, Giano, ! , many others. This scenario should be stopped. There should be clearly understood that editors being grumpy toward admins is not the reason for blocks, especially not the reason for blocks by the subject of the grumpiness, especially if there is a conflict of interests. A decision of arbcom might be a good start for this.

Another thing that worries me is that Tango apparently does not see what was wrong with his block. He seems to have a history of questionable blocks of regular editors and unless either desysopped or sternly warned, he is a danger for project Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Nwwaew

After what I've read on WP:ANI, I have no confidence in Tango holding the mop. The project has now lost a valuable editor, due to a block that many disagreed with. I request that the Committee review the block, and review whether Tango should continue to be an administrator here. Including myself, I count four recall requests so far. I think that in itself should be looked at. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Appended 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Orderinchaos

In response to Tango's revised statement - The initial action I took to unblock with time served (i.e. block stays in block log for the record but the duration was dropped) was in line with the comments by a number of participants in the discussion (Jehochman, JzG and others). As it became apparent that the block was faulty, the priority was to rectify the fault. As the block served no preventative purpose and it appeared that a consensus on AN/I had concluded the same - although several participants believed a block had been necessary - I opted to unblock in the way I did. Note that the wording carefully avoided ruling the block invalid - the idea was it would stay on the block log as a record entry of incivility, but that that was probably sufficient to deal with whatever problem people felt existed, and avoided the intense levels of drama which seem to have picked up on AN/I in the last two months or so in regards to any matter, whether correct or incorrect.

I then reblocked as a measure of good faith to those such as Until1==2 and others who had felt an unblock with time served was overly lenient - in doing so, I effectively went from the near middle of the consensus to one far end of it with the reblock. I felt able to do so as I was a neutral admin, had arrived a couple of hours after the dispute began, and was if anything slightly predisposed to the other side until reading the details, after past runins with some of the blockee's co-contributors in certain subject areas.

I still maintain that the original decision I took was the most sound action to take following the AN/I discussion, and the facts which have emerged since about the admin's past record and involvement in my view as well as their failure to effectively respond to criticism of their actions substantiate it, but like I said at the time, my own actions are open to review and if ArbCom choose to rule on my unblock and reblock and merits thereof, I will happily defer to their judgment.

With regard to SlimVirgin quoting me as the last blocking admin, she contacted both myself and Tango. My comment here in response to SlimVirgin and to Alex Bakharev made my position clear. Orderinchaos 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this proceeding is long but I encourage readers to view Risker's analysis, which I endorse - I had cursorily looked at the record myself but hadn't the time to sit down and analyse it. Orderinchaos 08:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AddendumAs noted in the arbitrator comments section below, I recused myself as an arbitrator in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, and inasmuch as this dispute concerns a controversial block arising from arbitration enforcement in that case, I conclude that I should not participate as an arbitrator in reviewing it. I do, however, wish to contribute a few observations in my personal capacity.

I will begin by saying that nothing that in these comments, nor I hope anything that other editors commenting might say, should deter administrators participating in the important work of enforcing arbitration decisions. The project needs more administrators, including our most experienced and most level-headed ones, participating in and sharing this work. In recent times, we have had stretches of months at a time when substantially all of the extremely challenging and draining work at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement has fallen on the shoulders of a single administrator. To the extent that other administrators have started to provide greater assistance and continue to do so, their participation should be appreciated.

Turning to the substance of the matter, the situation concerning September 11 conspiracy theories and related articles has been an extremely troubling one for almost the entire time that Wikipedia has existed. It is a herculean task to keep discussion of various "conspiracy theories" regarding the events of September 11, 2001 within the appropriate limits prescribed by Wikipedia:Undue weight and other applicable policies. This is work that needs constant doing, though, not only to enforce our content and neutrality policies, but even more importantly because much of the disputed article content raises extraordinarily serious WP:BLP concerns. For example, one version of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center posits that the lessors of the World Trade Center site, who are identified living individuals, deliberately caused or connived at the "controlled demolition" of their own buildings and are thereby directly and intentionally responsible for all the cataclysmic effects of the collapse of the World Trade Towers including the murder of thousands of people. These are extremely grave and defamatory allegations, devoid of reliable mainstream support, and if their existence must be mentioned on Wikipedia at all, it is imperative that they be accompanied by the appropriate language of skepticism and qualification in each and every instance.

MONGO (talk · contribs) is one of the editors who—in addition to unrelated, and universally praised, contributions on topics relating to national parks—has been in the forefront of editing the September 11-related articles with a view toward excluding or limiting discussion of "conspiracy theory" allegations. MONGO does not mince words; he often does not express himself as I might do or might in an ideal world want others to do; and there have been plenty of time when I wished that he had expressed an idea, ofttimes a very sound idea though sometimes a clunker (the Occam's razor incident comes to mind), in very different words. He has also tended to overreact to provocation, ranging from relatively slight expressions of disagreement with his views on the one hand, to instances of persistent trolling and harassment both on and especially off this site. There are plenty of times I have not agreed with him about one thing or another. But in spite of it all, he has an important role to play on Wikipedia, and if he follows through on his statement that he intends to leave Wikipedia as a result of the current block, the encyclopedia will be the less for it.

I have carefully reviewed the colloquy that led up to the initial one-week block (now reduced to 31 hours) imposed on MONGO by Tango (talk · contribs) in enforcement of the remedies enacted in the September 11 ArbCom decision. My evaluation is that MONGO, and not for the first time, used words that would have been better left unsaid, but that the comment he made to an administrator on his own talkpage did not necessitate any block of an experienced contributor, much less a weeklong one. I also conclude that given the time that elapsed between when MONGO made his final comment and when he was blocked for it, consultation among multiple administrators would have been in order before imposing this block. I note for what it is worth that ANI discussion of the matter is still possible.

I yield to no one in my desire to see enhanced civility in Wikipedians' interactions with one another—the promise of that sort of environment was one of the things that brought and keeps me here—but this type of controversial block of a good-faith contributor with tens of thousands of edits is simply not reasonably likely to improve the editing environment for any of us. If I had blocked every editor who has been uncivilly critical of one of my edits or administrator actions, often in language far more egregious than "get lost," my blocking log would be thrice as long as it is, yet Wikipedia would not be a better or fairer or even a more civil place.

In short, my opinion is that any block of MONGO in this matter was unnecessary, and the one-week block originally imposed by Tango represented a significant overreaction and misjudgment. However, there is no allegation that this block was part of a pattern of administrator misconduct or misjudgments by Tango, or was anything other than an isolated incident. In fact, it has been stated without contradiction that this was the first "civility" block that Tango has ever imposed, which would tend to confirm that this is an isolated incident. Tango appears to have had the good-faith view that this was the appropriate action to take based upon the situation as he saw it. I hope that he will gather from the resulting discussion and controversy that there is a widespread view, dare I say a consensus though not a unanimous one, that he was wrong, and it would be helpful if he could acknowledge this. However, the Arbitration Committee generally does not desysop an administrator for a single instance of poor judgment—even extremely poor judgment. If, as is likely, the committee declines to take up this case, it should be on that basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Some thoughts at this point based on today's submissions:

• I recommend that the concerns about Tango's blocking history as well as about his response to the present dispute be pursued at an administrator-conduct RfC. (Addendum to addendum: I see now that an RfC is pending.)
• I recommend that Tango consider seriously the input provided at such an RfC to avoid any potential need for further proceedings or any further disputes.
• I recommend that the unblock of MONGO stand as supported by a reasonable weight of consensus. Consensus in this context does not mean unanimity.
• I recommend that any continuing dispute about the validity of the civility sanction imposed upon MONGO be addressed at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, and that if consensus is not reached, a request for clarification be filed with the Arbitration Committee (if MONGO has resumed editing or if the sanction appears to be deterring him from doing so).
• I recommend that the non-recused arbitrators review the situation on the September 11-related articles after a reasonable time has passed and assess whether additional or revised remedies are warranted.
• I strongly urge that editors who are doing important and valuable work on the September 11-related articles, including those who have posted here, should continue to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:HiDrNick

Statement by uninvolved Irpen

Mongo issues are secondary here. The issue at hand is whether Tango's actions and comments were helpful in assuaging the situation or escalating it. It is obvious that the latter is the case.

Tango's act totally lacked the proper humility, what a wonderful and forgotten word. Instead Tango was full of himself, demonstrated the bossy attitude and arrogant tone. The tone of his "warning" was nothing but provocative, the block placed 9 hours after the alleged offense (and what offense?) shows he was looking for an excuse and blocked despite the issue has become historic, and his further comments at ANI and at the talk page of the aggrieved user showed nothing but revolting arrogance. He acted as if he was using a glorious opportunity to show who is in charge.

Tango/Mongo's butting heads in the past may give a partial explanation on why Tango was so eager here. But even in general, admins who act this way out of enjoyment should be desysopped.

Problem is, though, this is not an exceptional case. So, should Tango be punished for something that some others propagate as well? I elaborated on that earlier and I still think that the grievous behavior should be addressed even if it is not done in all cases. The result of Tango's actions is an invaluable editor leaving the WP, a great loss to the project. It could have been avoided should Tango have addressed the issue differently. He did not.

Admins with such attitudes need to be desysopped for the good of this project.

Statement by uninvolved Abd

Statement by Risker

The block by User:Tango has been controversial from the moment that it was posted on WP:AN/I, yet Tango saw no reason to reconsider any aspect of the block. Tango blocked because of what he perceived as an incivil statement directed at himself – not another editor, not another administrator, and Tango apparently did not discuss the situation with any other administrators as a sanity check in the intervening several hours between MONGO’s edit summary and the imposition of the block; therefore, a longstanding member of our community was subjected to considerable humiliation at the hands of an administrator who took a moderately insulting comment as grave incivility that endangered the project.

To add insult to injury, two hours after announcing the block at AN/I, and knowing that the block itself was controversial, Tango then imposed an indefinite civility restriction on MONGO.[9] Not a month. Not even a year—the longest penalty ever handed out by Arbcom itself—an indefinite civility restriction. For as long as MONGO chooses to edit at Wikipedia, he will be doing so knowing that anyone can say whatever they want to him, anywhere including his talk page, and he will be unable to respond. He will be subject to interpretations of the term “civility” as defined by 1500 different administrators, including those of administrators with whom he has had previous conflicts, with every single edit he makes to this project. Forever.

The September 11 decision specifically identifies that appeals of enforcement actions may be made to the administrator involved, discussed at the appropriate administrator’s noticeboard, or brought before the committee. It also specifies that “The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.” (Link to quote)

I urge the Committee to review the additional sanctions applied by Tango at a time when he knew that even the block itself was controversial, and had already been reduced in duration. This decision to impose additional sanctions in excess of the historical application of civility remedies and outside of community norms, when the appropriateness of the initial sanction had already been questioned and modified, demonstrates a disregard for the opinion of the community and an obstinate attitude unbecoming an administrator.

Review of Tango's previous blocks: Addendum from Risker

I have reviewed Tango's block log, and note that he has made 77 blocks since being granted the tools on November 19, 2006. Of these, 60 are of vandalising IPs or solely vandalising (new) accounts; one is of an obvious SPA which was subsequently blocked by two other admins in separate edit wars; and 16 involved "regular users", i.e., editors with a prior history of contributions to Wikipedia. The blocks involving regular users appear to be consistently problematic; 14 of 16 raise questions as to the appropriate use of tools and consideration of alternatives to blocking. I have summarized my review here. In response to a request from CBM, I have provided a detailed analysis here of the last block Tango imposed prior to the block under discussion at this RFAR. Several of these blocks are already discussed elsewhere on this page: the block of User:Fys, the blocks and admin actions related to Goa Inquisition, the block of User:AlexCovarrubias. Additional blocks that raise concern are:

• 26 Jul 2007 - Four regular editors blocked for edit warring on Atanas Badev. No apparent consideration of protecting the page and forcing the dispute to the talk pages. Blocks ranged from 3 hours to 1 week.
• 22 Aug 2007 - Blocked two regular editors for 3RR/edit-warring over an image in Mulatto, although other editors had been involved in inserting/removing the image as well. After the two editors were blocked, another editor returned to remove the image. No apparent consideration of protecting the page and forcing all of the involved editors to the talk page.
• 27 Aug 2007 - Blocked two regular editors for edit warring on Stargate Atlantis. Neither editor had edited the page on that date. There was discussion between the editors taking place on the talk page, attempting to resolve their content dispute. Tango also was a regular editor of this article, although his last edit was a few months before; he edited several related articles in the interim.
• 21 Mar 2008 - Block of new (less than 1 month) User:Tubesship and an IP for 3RR violation on List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Four editors over 24 hours had been inserting and removing the same information from the article, two IPs removing sourced info and Tubesship and another regular editor returning it to the article; no apparent consideration that the IPs were vandalising the article, or of protecting the page and forcing discussion on the talk page. Neither of the blocked editors received 3RR warnings, and there had been no report to the 3RR noticeboard. This block is described in greater detail here

Incivility restriction: As to MONGO's indefinite incivility restriction, it appears that the remedies enacted at the close of the September 11 case do permit any administrator to issue just about any sanction they feel like imposing, regardless of whether it is within community norms or even Arbitration Committee norms. Arbcom has narrowed the usually understood definition of admin involvement: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." That permits admins to apply sanctions to editors with whom they have had prior disputes. Tango was a quite vociferous opponent of MONGO's candidacy at his RfA in January 2008. Tango has added this incivility restriction to the list of blocks and bans under the September 11 case, and has not posted it to any other noticeboard; the only places it has been discussed are (briefly) on MONGO's talk page and on this page here. After the extensive discussion of the initial block in multiple places, it is reasonable to assume that there is community exhaustion to review this additional sanction separately. Thus, it falls to this committee to review the sanction. Should the committee elect not to review this specific sanction, there are grounds for a request for clarification and modification of the September 11 decision, as it has already demonstrated itself to be susceptible to perhaps unanticipated negative effects.

Statement by SlimVirgin

Statement by HaemoI'm just going to point out to the ArbCom that this is exactly what happens when an ArbCom case makes no attempt to actually resolve the editorial issues underlying the original issues. As Newyorkbrad points out above, keeping defamatory conspiracy theorist material out of 9/11 articles is a "herculean" task — and one which very few editors have the time or inclination to take on — for their trouble, they can expect to be labeled government shills, liars, censors, and aides to mass murder, all apparently without ArbCom's support or defense.

Your decision in the 9/11 case was underwhelming in the extreme — only two, maybe three, members showed any interest in understanding the case or making an effort to address the issues. What resulted was a tepid, warmed over decision that did nothing to (1) clarify policy in this respect (2) warn or even censure editors in this area or (3) address any of the concerns made by either side. As a result, nothing has changed. As MONGO said in his parting statement, these articles are besieged by editors who do nothing else on Wikipedia save push conspiracy theories. They have a nearly unlimited amount of time to do so, and there are an unlimited number of them. Now, thanks to ArbCom's lukewarm decision, we have a ridiculous state of affairs where one of the few editors who was willing to spend the time defending Wikipedia's integrity as a serious encyclopedia was blocked under your decision for saying "get lost" on his own talk page. I'm on the verge of giving up, because it's not going to get better, and one day I'm going to have a bad day and say something like "get lost" and end up blocked for a week. Meanwhile, the problem continues completely unabated. You were supposed to do something to help these articles — and you did the very least you possibly could. This is the result — MONGO blocked, ArbCom restrictions used to advance personal disputes, and absolutely no improvement in what really matters.

I'd say more, but I have no faith that the ArbCom even reads these things, since they don't appear to have read any on the original case. --Haemo (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

Added point by Black Kite

Statement by (uninvolved) John Smith'sAn arbitration case is not appropriate at this stage as administrators do make mistakes - I think there needs to be some pattern of behaviour, even if a mistake is a bad one, to warrant this.

That said I do not think the unblocking admins acted inappropriately. Whether or not there was consensus for removing it, the block was a bad call and needed to be rectified pretty promptly. A number of people don't like MONGO, so it's pretty unlikely there will ever be consensus in regards to blocks on his account. John Smith's (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) User:Corvus cornix

Statement by Aude

Statement by patswI support the Haemo statement. I think there's a ivory tower attitude on display here that denigrates the editors of the 9/11 pages. In reading the diffs between Mongo and Tango, it's my opinion that the so-called "warning" was targeted and manufactured to give Tango a tripwire to plausibly block Mongo as payback for their past clashes.

The arbitration committee in not providing clear limits to the repeated attempts to insert conspiracy theories into the 9/11 articles opens the floodgates to more edit warring and not less. Advocates of the conspiracy theories are using Wikipedia a means to advocate their point of view, or rather, their version of truth -- which is coincidentally contingent on the perfect and perpetual conspiratorial silence on the part of all involved in planning, execution, and cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. It is a real, not theoretical, attack on the credibility of the Wikipedia.

For editor Mongo to get a block for a get lost is punishment for a failure to give homage to one with the power to block. That's very low threshold. Be bold was not meant to apply to blocks.

For this committee not to sanction admin Tango in some way, it is sending a message to all admins that this committee will not sanction them for a capricious and self-serving use of block power. It is a terrible precedent. patsw (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update by Nwwaew

Statement by uninvolved John Carter

Having made a statement on the RfC, I now am no longer certain I am "uninvolved", and am striking that word. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher

Comment by CharlotteWebbThe amount of focus on the words "get lost", both here and on AN/I (ctrl-F is your friend), is perplexing. "Get lost" is a red herring compared to the remainder of Mongo's edit summary comment. I see two issues here:

• Wild assumptions of bad faith by Mongo, e.g. flatly dismissing behavioral concerns on the basis that if the concerned user "support[s] conspiracy theorist[s] misusing this website" he should be desysopped and thusly unfit to issue "discretionary sanctions".
• Retaliatory blocking by Tango in response to the above comment. He should have known better than to block in response to attacks directed at him. Judgment may have been clouded by personal feelings and outlandish accusations and logical fallacies notorious inherent to any discussion concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, but this is something we all have to deal with.

I really don't care whether this case is opened, but I can only hope for a day when reasonable people can disagree on issues as polarizing as this and still consider each other to be reasonable people. I don't want to see anybody calling anybody a conspiracy theorist or a government shill or a supporter/sympathizer/apologist/believer/denier of either flavor. These are all fighting words and I would support "discretionary sanctions" for anyone throwing them around on a personal level. — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kwsn

Thoughts from AGKMy thoughts here will be mostly on whether this case should be accepted or rejected, including the merits of both outcomes, and the evidence supporting each course of action. It is clear that Tango's judgement in his block against MONGO (talk · contribs) was somewhat short of that expected; to be frank, I simply think Tango needs to do a little thinking before he acts: a little consideration goes a long way. Although I tend to lean very much on the AGF side of blocks, I do believe that the response from MONGO ("get lost") was not blockable, but rather a user who is simply irked. Tango should have ignored that, not instated a week-long block.

Statements elsewhere in this thread indicate that Tango has accepted that he exercised poor judgement when making the MONGO block; I have had a decent look, and can't see that, but I do hope Tango has acknowledged to that end. Regardless, an arbitration case cannot be based solely on one block alone, although wider administrator conduct is grounds for Committee consideration.

What concerns me, unfortunately, is Tango's inability to step into the shoes of those with whom he disagrees, and see things from the other side. He has, in short, stood his ground very stubbornly for this entire event; that must struck me on the relevant thread (now closed; permalink) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There is a general sense, I feel, of conduct unbecoming of an administrator on Tango's part.

There's lots more I could, and wish to, say, but I feel it's best if I cut my thoughts short right now. To summarise the above, I feel there is evidence of conduct unbecoming of an administrator. However, I do not believe a full-on RfAr is warranted at this point in time. We're not far from it, and I fully expect Tango to heed to warnings from the community, and do some serious self-re-education. One isolated incident, and Tango's conduct and reactions there, is what this mainly boils down to, and that's not quite enough for a RfAr. Anthøny 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TravbI think MONGO himself said it best:

"ridiculous...Wow...one block that was ill conceived is now considered to be a desysoppable offense..." [10]

Except this block was not ill conceived, maybe overly harsh but not ill conceived. Mongo has a long history of being rude to other editors. As an example, here are Mongo's comments as of late:

• "conspiracy theory POV pushers" "Basboll...he needs to be topic banned as a single purpose account" [11]
• Mongo removes Thomas's civil comments with the statment: "revert SPA trolling" [12]
• "continued POV pushing by Basboll will be dealt with" [13]
• "so far, none of your suggestions are worth taking seriously." [14]
• "His recent bullshit at the 9/11 CT arbcom case is a load of crap as well." [15]
• "trolling is right No kidding about this being trolling...he's about as off kilter as anyone I have ever met on this website." 29 March 2008 [16]
• "revert dramaqueens" [17]
• "stop being a dramaqueen and stirring up crap." 13 March 2008 [18]

Again Mongo: "...many editors need to really do some self examinations and reevaluate what their purposes here are and how they may be contributing to the problems." [19] GTBacchus said it best in JzG's second RfC.

I think this boot shows that sometimes editors, no matter how many partisan friends they have on wikipedia, are sometimes treated like everyone else.

MONGO will be back within a week. He said he was leaving when he lost his adminship too. Trav (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved and unimpressed dihydrogen monoxide"I see no reason to assume anything has changed just because time has passed. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)"—So Tango said at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2, in response to someone pointing out that the evidence Tango attempted to use against MONGO was "more than a year old" (I quote Avruch at 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)). Since Tango seems to be against overlooking events that took place over a year ago, (I am opposed to him on this stance) I don't see a reason for Tango to object to ArbCom looking into his actions in relation to MONGO, in the context of this (as raised by Giano and Bish), this (as raised by FloNight), and this (as raised by Risker). I see here three poor uses of the admin tools, including two blocks, and I don't see Tango apologising, or acknowledging a mistake, in any of them (though I am willing to strike this if shown such a thing). I do not feel comfortable with Tango being able to block users until he addresses these issues, and if he is unable to, then I believe the ArbCom should de-sysop him to prevent further damange to the encyclopedia from taking place. (I am yet to see someone show how blocking MONGO prevented damage from an encyclopedia he has done so much positive work on.)

For the record, I think Tango was "involved" when he made the block. That's if we're going with a literal definition of the word (which would make it pretty darn hard to block without involving yourself at all...lock by proxy?). That said, I think that some sort of block in that case could have been justifiable—were I an admin, I wouldn't have blocked, but I can understand (while disagreeing with) the logic if someone else would block for 24 hours there. 24 hours is a hell of a lot less than one week, though, and I don't think we should (or rather, the ArbCom should), in any way, shape, or form, give the impression that Tango's one week block was justified. It was massively over the top, and he did let (what seems to be, from my perspective as someone who's read most of the discussion over this) emotion and spite cloud his judgement. This isn't the first time. It needs serious ArbCom review. Several members of the community have deferred to the leadership we elected the ArbCom for, and I ask they show it by accepting this case. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Walton One

Statement by Uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Statement by largely uninvolved Andjam

Statement by uninvolved WaltonRegardless of the rights and wrongs of this case, it was highly inappropriate of Bishonen to request arbitration using the User:Bishzilla account, and to make the request in dino-babytalk broken English. User:Bishonen and User:Bishzilla are well-known to be two accounts operated by the same user, and she has demonstrated with the User:Bishonen account that she is perfectly capable of communicating in appropriate, serious language, without this "Little arbs reject..." or "'Zilla liberated from Bishonen, stole her tools !" nonsense. Her choice not to do so gives the impression, whether justified or not, that she is not taking this seriously. A call for desysopping is a very serious matter, and I would be both hurt and appalled if anyone ever used a joke account, communicating in intentional broken English, to request that I be desysopped. It would suggest that they didn't think my reputation and my integrity were important.

I am surprised that Tango hasn't mentioned this, but even if he doesn't personally mind, it is still offensive and ridiculous, and I take it as an insult to all of us who volunteer our time to edit Wikipedia. ArbCom proceedings and desysopping are very serious things, and they need to be treated with the dignity they merit. Otherwise the institution loses any value.

I have no opinion on what the outcome of this case should be as regards Tango, but I suggest that Bishonen/Bishzilla should be admonished for her opening statement. The pretending-to-be-a-dinosaur thing is funny, and clever, in its proper context. In this context, it is not funny. It's rather like turning up to court for a serious criminal trial (whether you like it or not, the Arbcom is equivalent to a court of law) wearing a clown suit. It is tasteless.

Maybe I'm being needlessly pompous, but this is how I honestly feel. Walton^One 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I also wish to express my agreement with Durova's comments above. Considering that the background to this case lies in the disputes over 9/11, one of the worst atrocities to occur in modern times, we need to treat it with the seriousness and gravity it merits. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a very influential website, which many people use as a major source of quick information; and so our coverage of 9/11, and, by extension, the conduct of the editors who work on those articles, is an important issue. We need to take this seriously, and I think a reprimand to Bishonen is in order. Walton^One 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved CirtBishonen (talk · contribs)'s conduct has been highly inappropriate on the Bishzilla (talk · contribs) joke account since she transferred her admin privileges there. Last month she used Bishzilla, along with its deliberately broken English, to unblock a difficult user in the same thread where jpgordon (talk · contribs) had cautioned that individual that Wikipedia is not a role playing game. Her behavior sets the wrong example and sends the wrong message. We wouldn't tolerate this RFAR opener from a troll. Shouldn't the standard be higher for a senior administrator?

In addition to the disrespect she is showing towards the arbitration committe and for the administrator she seeks to desysop, the underlying 9/11 dispute renders this completely inappropriate. In the words of Durova:

Your behavior these last few days has been like showing up to a funeral in a clown suit, littering the graves with balloon animals, and pretending you're in a position to take offense when a family member gasps.Diff

Several editors have urged her to reconsider, and her response has been to challenge them to RFC her and to compound the insult to the party she has wronged the most. I urge the Committee to censure Bishonen and restrict her to one account. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horologium

Statement by the village idiot

I'm largely with Jossi and some others who have pointed out both the timing of the block (9 hours after the "get lost") and its duration as being highly questionable. But the single worst thing is MONGO's retirement; and for the sake of the community's sanity and esp that of all involved parties I hope and trust that there is no causal relation to the effect that MONGO would return if Tango loses his bit. So what's the desired outcome? Tango is already cautioned to exercise greater care with the tools, and unless I've missed some decisive shift in how the ArbCom handles things, this is the most probable outcome of an arbitration case.

I don't think the ArbCom has the luxury of wasting time on this. Dorftrottel (warn) 13:56, April 17, 2008

Oh, yes, and if the ArbCom decides to take on this case, for heaven's sake please lay down the law to us as far as conspiracy theories et.al are concerned. I know it's out of the official scope of the AC, but screw that. Someone has to do it and who else if not you guys? By avoiding to ignore the rules as far as necessary, in an attempt not to risk anything, you will automatically gamble away a lot more valuable chips. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:08, April 17, 2008

Statement by Thomas Basboll

Statement by uninvolved Bhadani

Statement by uninvolved Gwen Gale

Statement by uninvolved User:Waggers

Request to amend prior case: Tango

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Tango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Tango

To MBisanz: I wouldn't generally consider the person that wrote it to be "involved or directly affected" (at least any more that anyone else on the committee at the time), but I'll go an notify him now, since you've asked. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no objection to Newyorkbrad's participation in this appeal. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Kirill: "An administrator is expected..." is a statement of policy, either written or unwritten, there is no other reasonable interpretation of that wording. An unwritten rule can only exist if everyone knows about it, that's the nature of unwritten rules, so one arb not knowing about it is enough to invalidate it. If I just wanted the mop back I would go to RFA, I'm here to clear my name. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the logic you are using, it is forbidden for any admin to take more than one piece of action over a given issue since, after the first, they are involved. My only involvement was that I gave the warning which MONGO made clear he intended to ignore. The principle in the case is far broader than existing policy - it says that it is never acceptable to block when you were the target, even when you being the target is incidental to the case and does not constitute an involvement. --Tango (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Kirill: One persons lack of knowledge of an unwritten rule does invalidate it. The whole concept of unwritten rules makes no sense if they aren't universally known. --Tango (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Casliber: No, I do not have any remorse. I stand by my actions for the reasons stated at the time. If an administrator is not allowed to do the right thing for the project, I have no interest in being one. --Tango (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

• Seeing no objection, I'll comment on the merits of the appeal below (after the other comments already here, since I've read and considered them). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that all principles in an arbitration decision be found in project policy, written or otherwise (compare, for example, this); they are simply statements of principle that the Committee considers to be valid. As such, asserting that the text of the principle is not found in policy is not grounds for an appeal even if true. (Nor, for that matter, does the opinion of a single arbitrator that a rule does not exist outweight the opinions of nine others who assert that it does.) If you wish to ask for your adminship to be restored (on the basis of good behavior in the interim, for example), I'm happy to entertain that appeal; but I see no reason why the original decision could in any way be considered invalid. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tango: well, I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken if you believe that one individual's ignorance of a rule somehow invalidates it. (If you really want to argue policy, incidentally, then consider that blocking for attacks against oneself is implicitly prohibited by the policy that an administrator may not use their tools "to [their] advantage... or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist" (WP:ADMIN); that linking the title of a finding to an external document does not in any way invalidate the text of the finding itself; and that the section titles used in arbitration decisions are, in any case, present for convenience only, with only the text of each adopted provision constituting a substantive statement from the Committee). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I provided evidence in this case as a non-involved party. I had originally commented here, but on consideration believe it would be better for me to recuse. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case still would appear coherent and rational in the absence of the principle. Regardless, it seems basic to assert that when the admin is a directly involved party that they shouldn't be the one pushing the block button. If a rule is needed to spell out the principle: Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools takes care to try and broadly communicate that the tools should not be used when an administrator is biased or involved in a situation or likely to appear as such. --Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The principle in question is nothing more than an application, to a particular situation, of the general principle that an administrator should not use their tools in situations in which they are involved. Note also that the MONGO block was only one of several poor blocks that were considered in the case. --bainer (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with my colleagues that this is merely an example-specific articulation of longstanding policy that admins may not use the tools when they are involved.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of policy and of its applicability to specific situations is the Committee's raison d'être; the case principles are the fundamental reasoning followed by the arbitrators during deliberation, and there is rarely a 1:1 correspondence with policies. Finding guidance outside of Wikipedia for concepts which are applicable is not incompatible with this. — Coren ^(talk) 13:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the comments of the other arbitrators. The basis for a return of tools needs to be because of the desire to obtain the tools again after a history of good work on Wikipedia and the reassurance that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy about the use of admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Tango's concern about the principle from his case that he cites, and think it may have a bit more merit than some of my colleagues have suggested. As I have mentioned in another pending case, there is tension between the cited principle in RfAr/Tango, which states that an administrator should not block a user for personal attacks on the administrator himself or herself, and the principle set forth in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Combatting harassment, which provides that "[a]ny user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." I reconcile these principles through the understanding that an administrator may block a user who has subjected the administrator to indisputable bad-faith harassment, but not one who has simply made uncivil remarks that may have gone a bit too far. This is an example of the general rule that "administrators may not use their administrator status or tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved", and the question on which we have had some internal disagreement as to whether this principle should be expressed with any nuances or exceptions. Having said all of that, though, I agree with my colleagues that the cited principle played only a small role in the decision that was reached; this is not a situation in which pulling out a single thread, even if a majority were inclined to do so, would unravel the entire skein of the decision. Therefore, I agree that if Tango wishes to regain adminship, he should proceed as outlined in the decision, such as by submitting a request to the committee giving us a basis for concluding that the issues that led to the termination of his prior adminship will not recur. I note that there has been a substantial change in the committee's membership since his case was decided, so any such appeal would be decided by largely fresh sets of eyes. Alternatively, if he prefers, Tango can submit a new RfA at any time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you (Tango) do not voice anything in the above request that indicates any remorse or desire to conduct yourself in a different way. This then does not give me any faith that you will not act the same way if confronted with the same or similar circumstances if they should arise in the future. On brief review, I don't think my opinion is going to differ markedly from the judgement made at the time. Thus, you can either turn to RfA or submit a request as Brad outlines above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse due to being a clerk on the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what my fellow arbs have said above, particularly Casliber. Wizardman 03:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---