Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision

message: 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)
thread_title: Protection removed by MONGO on [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]

message: 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:
*On November 27, he protected  Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing .
::As I mentioned in my evidence, I did this to PREVENT Cplot from going over 3RR...I protected the page on a version I didn't even like! There was an edit war that I was not currently involved in...I thoiught at that time Cplot was just a edit warrior...not the abusive troll he turned out to be...if I had known earlier, I wouldn't have protected the page on HIS version and just let him instead violate 3RR. The material being argued about between Cplot and others wasn't even things I was involved in...the diffs demostrating I had edit warred are from six weeks PRIOR to my protecting the article.
*On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks , which was protected after a dispute he was involved in.
::I removed the FULL protection and instead changed it to semi-protection since the persons who had been edit warring had either been blocked or had moved on...it's that simple. There is no abuse here...what on earth are they talking about? I haven't even edited the article since I reduced the full protection to semi...
*On November 13, MONGO unprotected Operation Gladio , which was protected during an edit war involving Seabhcan, with whom MONGO was in a dispute.
::This wasn't done maliciously! I didn't do this to adversely impact Seabhcan and I don't think I have edited that article much at all...not once that I can see in the last 500 edits...going back to the beginning of 2006!--MONGO 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and has proposed desysopping in other cases.  Usually he is outvoted by the other arbitrators and some form of warning or caution is voted instead.  Since Fred has withdrawn the case from voting, presumably he intends to add additional proposals setting up a foundation for his split vote on the dual desysopping and/or adding some additional remedies like civility parole or probation.  The remaining arbitrators will vote on everything, and may even make their own alternate proposals.  Thatcher131 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing Dmcdevit of anything, only asking he reexamine his evidence of desysopping based on protecting pages. In the three instances I see there that list that, not once is there evidence I have violated the policy...I have commented on this above and on the evidence page.--MONGO 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I can remember (and there have been a lot of cases) I have only supported two failed desysopping proposals (recently, Bucketsofg and back in April, MarkSweep). (Your quote is about the passed desysopping of Fys.) Statements like "Usually he is outvoted by the other arbitrators and some form of warning or caution is voted instead" tend to distract from arguments about the actual merit of the proposal. I don't disagree that I'm generally more proactive about administrative misconduct than others on the current arbcom, but I think it does us good, and I also wouldn't have proposed these if I didn't think they had a high chance of passing. (And just to note, I will comment on MONGO's response as well.) Dmcdevit·t 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done thousands of admin actions, so in my case, we are talking about a "screw-up" ratio of less than a few tenths of a percent. Out of 430 something blocks, I get not even  5 "wrong"...so a better average than 99% right is grounds for desysopping? In those extremely few times when I blocked someone and another admin overturned it, not once did I wheel war with them, not once.--MONGO 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: After seeing partisans in this case go after each other with the long knives (although not necessarily MONGO and Seabhcan themselves), I wasn't at all surprised to see your proposals to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan.  I was trying to offer some historical context for those who do not follow arbitration cases extensively and may have been shocked by your proposal.  I think your comments about not having confidence in someone as an admin are useful and instructive, and give insight into your proposal here, which I why I brought them up for the parties.  I suppose I mentioned the fact that previous proposals have not passed to in some way reassure the parties, but of course, each case and each proposal should be decided on its own merits, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the desysopping proposal was in any way out of bounds.  I apologize if I overstepped in any way. Thatcher131 12:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my vantage point, Arbitrator McDevit is desysop-obsessed. In my case he proposed desysopping immediately and on the basis of actions which were not the subject of the case. Nor did I ever 'wheel war' (an overused phrase). In other words, he was perfectly happy to form conclusions without ever asking about the circumstances. Does it "do us good"? No it bloody well doesn't. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed remedies 

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

message: 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 ) 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)
replies: text: Indeed it did. ;) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed decision - Mongo desysopped 

message: 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)
replies: text: Disruptive admin actions tend to result in desysoppings in the past, actually, if my memory serves me right. If adminship is no big deal, then it should be no big deal to take it away if it is determined than a sysop is using their tools in an improper manner. Cowman109Talk 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That entirely fails to address my question.  My question is why it would result in punative blocks in the case of administrative patrol but not in the case of blocks for say civility patrol.  There is a logical disconnect here in the reasoning. —Doug Bell talk 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of it this way: blocks for administrative activities are punitive because they prevent administrators from editing, when editing has not caused a problem, and they could still do useful editing. That is punishment. The proper preventive measure would be a 24 hour desysopping rather than a 24 hour block, but that is not technically possible. Civility blocks are fundamentally different because it is edits that are in violation, and edits that are blocked. Dmcdevit·t 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Temporary desysopping is something I'm sure could be added to the software if supported by a suitable policy discussion.  67.117.130.181 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I understand that reasoning.  However, there is precedent for admins being blocked because of their admin actions.  Are you saying that those were punative blocks?  Also, can you explain why a bureaucrat could not desysop and resysop someone to facilitate a temporary desysoping as a remedy?  Seems like what you are arguing is that because the automatic resysoping is not implemented as a feature of the software that there is no middle ground for remedies relating to misuse of administrative abilities. —Doug Bell talk 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bureaucrats cannot remove the sysop flag - only stewards can, actually, if memory serves me right once more. Cowman109Talk 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, blocking an administrator for an administrative action strikes me as inevitably punitive. I think we've only made a remedy like that once before (and it wasn't my first chice, but compromise was necessary). I don't think there is much room for middle ground in adminship. Neither administrators nor bureaucrats can desysop, only stewards, global users not involved in this project, could enforce, which is unworkable. Consider the effect of probation or parole or article ban measures for editorial concerns: the disruptive behavior like personal attacks or edit warring is already prohibited for everyone, but the remedy is a way of ArbCom giving it's authority to administrators to enforce the prohibitions against habitual violators with blocks or bans that might normally be against policy. That approach is impossible with administrators: true, admin miscunduct is already prohibited for all admins, and the only viable solution for habitual misusers is desysopping. Dmcdevit·t 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we should be able to de-sysop an admin without resort to technical means. We already prohibit users from editing certain topics as a remedy even though there are no technical methods of enforcing that ban. Admins who didn't honor their de-sysopping would be in more serious trouble. -Will Beback · † · 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dmcdevit's position on administrative parole 

message: Mongo seems to have quit Wikipedia  . 67.117.130.181 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We know.  Hopefully he has only temporarily lost heart. Thatcher131 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MONGO gone 

message: 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)
replies: text: You may apply again at any time. Arbitrators serve at the pleasure of Jimbo and may be removed at any time. I suppose the Foundation could overrule Jimbo should he decline to remove one or all of us. I would start with Jimbo, the Foundation is a very long shot. Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just asked the same question on Arbcom-L.  I have a thought or two about this, but not being an arbitrator, should probably let them speak for themselves. Thatcher131 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Mongo, Seeing that your policy of 'applying to a higher authority' as gotten you into this much trouble already, don't you think its time to stop digging? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This much trouble? What is this kindergarden? What "trouble" am I in? I see a number of arbitrators who apparently fail to see the merit of enforcing even recent past decisions they have made, ie: "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves" .--MONGO 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't care about such things, the phrase "What is this kindergarden?" might be seen as being 'incivil' by those ultra-sensitive editors who hang around this place. Just a bit of advice for when/if you are put on 'probation' of some kind. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, perhaps I neglected to apply that principle. I'll take a look at it again. Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, look, I know your jobs are thankless...much of the time, being an admin is as well...but the point is, I brought this case here to resolve via higher authority issues that were unresolvable in the Seabhcan Rfc. Where does it state that admins are to be perfect? I do thousands of admin actions and I am to be desyopped because I argued with other admins rather than wheel war with them? I want someone to show me an admin of recent that has been in the trenches dealing with the vandalism and harassment on a level I have and let's see if they too are perfect. I make a couple mistakes and am desyopped?...Seabhcan has been an admin for a year and a half, makes a couple mistakes and is deadminned? Where is the justice here. I am not put on probabtion for incivility, yet I am to be desyopped for partly the same reasons?--MONGO 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict, and my comments are less important than AnnH's) I do not support the proposed remedy against MONGO (which is not, of course, to say that I agree with every word he has every written or every action he has ever taken). However, in response to his questions above and consistent with Fred Bauder's response above, I understand that a desysopped administrator is generally free to file a new RfA at any time. (The best timing for such a request is another story.) As for replacement of arbitrators, we know that four incumbents will be leaving the Arbitration Committee and at least six new arbitrators selected within the next few weeks. I would estimate the odds of having any of the remaining ArbCom members removed as minimal to non-existent, especially if the only basis for the request were disagreement with the merits of a decision or series of decisions. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having followed the case from the beginning, it is worth noting that Fred originally opposed desysopping MONGO for the reasons originally proposed by Dmcdevit.  After further reviewing the case, he reversed his vote, citing this and this, and adding this finding of fact. The problem is not that MONGO blocked trolls who were harassing him, it is the comments he made to other users and admins who questioned his judgement.  Reinforcing the principle that admins may ban trolls who harass them will not change this aspect of the case. Thatcher131 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the problem is not that MONGO blocked trolls who were harassing him (use of admin tools) but the comments he made to other users and admins who questioned his judgement (CIVIL, NPA), then why would he not be sanctioned under CIVIL and NPA, and given the appropriate block. If he did not abuse the admin tools, he should not be desysopped. If MONGO had not been an admin, what would the punishment have been for the comments that he made? - Crockspot 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response below.  It appears that Dmcdevit and Fred Bauder have different reasons for supporting desysopping.  The other arbitrators who have voted have either commented or not. Thatcher131 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: the other admins were not interested in doing anything other than reverting my block of Miltopia...they should have reduced it, not reverted it. Not once did they ask me why I had blocked him. Concerns for my ability to edit the website without being trolled were ignored. My reaction was to NOT wheel war, yet my strong objections to their efforts to not support me when I was being stalked are questioned.--MONGO 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reply to Musical Linguist's comment - please bear in mind this is from someone who lists drafting a section supporting Kelly Martin in my userpage as trolling, as well as making an edit to my userpage saying I've "found an article to edit" trolling.  Give me a break...  Milto LOL pia 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Kelly Martin, you're more than welcome to support her. There are editors I highly respect who support her. Posting that she "kicks ass" is not, to my mind, the politest way of supporting someone. It's not an expression I've ever come across, and in fact, I wasn't even sure that it really was a support. I certainly don't count support for Kelly as trolling. Tom harrison supports her. Nowhere do I suggest that saying that you've "found an article" is trolling. My point is that a new user turns up, gets into dispute with someone who is being harassed by the website the new user comes from, announces that he is finding articles by "checking out the contribs of a few editors", starts turning up at articles edited by the user he's in dispute with, and then denies that he's stalking. AnnH ♫ 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: *The apparent answer I've read is that ArbCom decisions are not to be used as precedent, and that they feel an error in the past does not mean they should commit the same error in the future. That logic might be sound if the reasons to desysop demonstrated a pattern of admin abuse. That hasn't been done. --Durin 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the way it always has been.  ArbCom actions commonly envelope people who want nothing to do with it, and commonly end up restricting the person who brought it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desysopping 

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

text: I agree that the language used in F of Fact #1 is a mischaracterisation of Seabhcan's edits and position- see e.g. his response here. The edit used as a citation is a bit bizarre also- I don't see this comment as anti-American at all, to be honest. By the same token, his somewhat ill-disciplined language in some other edits, and especially his tendency to (seemingly) over-generalise when making accusatory statements has left him wide-open to this. But- IMHO, it's more a case of lazy syntax (e.g. wrongly conflating phrases like "some American editors" with "American editors", or "the US"/"Americans" with "the US government") than genuine anti-Americanism. He shouldn't do this, but he's not alone- similar examples of wrongly synonymising disparate phrases can be found extensively on and off-Wiki (so widely in fact that I question really whether "anti-Americanism" (i.e. a racial predisposition against American people, as opposed to political opposition to the American government) actually exists anyway). Careful use of language is the key to clear expression. Badgerpatrol 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very wise comment. SalvNaut 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by SalvNut 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: A few more wins like that and we are screwed. Tom Harrison Talk 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not feel that way.  Quite the opposite.  Abe Froman 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tom, with friends like these....Rx StrangeLove 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also agree with Tom. If this is the direction ArbCom really wants to take us in, I shudder at the potential outcomes. I would not want to be an admin under such absurd restrictions as this RfAr warrants; don't use your admin functions on anything you've ever edited before? You can't be serious. --Durin 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also concur with Tom. --Aude (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MONGO and Seabhcan are excellent contributors to the project.  As admins, some of their actions made it clear their strengths are in editing articles, and adding content.  I believe this decision is the best for the community.  Abe Froman 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Work 

message: 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)
replies: text: Of the items evidenced as violating the protection policy, they have no merit. I unprotected one article which I had never edited (Gladio), yet because the person I brought the arbcom case against (Seabhcan) was an active editor, I have somehow, not sure how, violated policy. The Septemeber 11, 2001 attacks article was changed from full protection to semi-protected by me so everyone could resume editing the article...no further major issues were apparent, so I ddn't see what harm it did to change the protection to semi-protection...there was zero opposition to me doing this on the talkpage and I had consensus to do so. I protected the Steven JOnes article on an edit that I didn't approve of, and kept an editor (Cplot) from going over 3RR, which he likely would have. Cplot has been demonstrated to be an abusive account, but I didn't know that at the time. I doubt if I warned him about 3RR he would have listened to me...he had been warned a number of times in the prior week and yet still violated 3RR twice and was blocked. My reward for protecting that editor is to have that protected page be used as evidence that I had somehow done something wrong.--MONGO 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Un''protection? 

message: 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.   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)
replies: text: Sometimes worse is better. It may be that a new crop of editors needs to be drawn to these pages. Tom Harrison Talk 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that as long as you don't protect/block/threaten to block in situations you're involved in, you'll be fine.  Milto LOL pia 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harrassment from the "truthers"

message: 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)
replies: text: Support Newyorkbrad's statement. I suggest 1RR parole for both parties, as per the sentence on Tony Sidaway. They behaved badly, that's clear, and tools were misused - but finding that and 1RR would be sufficient. We can desysop them later should they break parole. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Brad and Zoe, I fail to see on what grounds Arbcom based their decision. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on proposed decision 

message: 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):
#) Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop MONGO?
#) Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Seabhcan
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
# --Abe Froman 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in favour of quick renominations, because I think they have a greater chance of failure (not that they should have, just that they have), and can therefore increase the stress and humiliation of the nominee. However, if this case closes before the ArbCom members come to their senses, I would very much hope that MONGO would change his mind when a couple of months have gone by. AnnH ♫ 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Cyde.  If the community feels the need to resysop MONGO, then go to RFA; otherwise, community consensus (see Stevertigo) has showed that the community prefers to defer decisions on whether an admin should retain adminship to the Committee.  Personally, I believe the Committee has it right here, but in any event, I find it entirely stupid that people are voting on an issue to which they don't (and shouldn't) have any major input.  Ral315 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that just because ArbCom can desysop, that th community feel its best its up to them to do it. The community didnt assign powers to ArbCom. Further if you followed this whole thing, the idea of desysop'ing Seabhcan appeared before he even got to present evidence. Quite absurd. --NuclearZer0 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on decision to desysop 

message: 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)
replies: text: "To govern is to choose between two bad solutions" ~ Pierre Mendès-France. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As one of the ArbCom members said about admins before, it's a question of temperament.  Swallowing your beliefs and surrendering to policy, come what may, is not for everyone.  And it shouldn't be.  Abe Froman 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The last time he went through ArbCom he was not found at fault. How do you expect anything to change if you found no fault? Again, this is going from 0 (MONGO is fine) to 100 (MONGO is *really* bad) with nothing in the middle, and little or no evidence that he has done anything wrong worthy of being de-adminned. MONGO escaped without much in the way of consequences the last time he went through RfAr because YOU (ArbCom) failed to put any remedies in place, not because MONGO willfully ignored the remedies. If this RfAr were to pass, you might as well forget about any intermediary remedies. Just de-admin and/or perma ban anyone that's found at fault on RfArs, even for minor infractions (which is precisely what is happening here). So far, the apparent "strongest" arguments for de-adminning MONGO that I have seen from the ArbCom members participating here are that 1) You (ArbCom) have faith that MONGO will do something bad in the future and 2) He didn't correct any behaviors from the last RfAr (because you didn't ask him to). These arguments do not make the case against MONGO to de-admin him stronger, they make it weaker. --Durin 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laying out my personal opinion here 

message: Two thoughts:
:1) If this were isolated (like, say, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO), maybe the hollering for nothing to happen to MONGO might make sense.  But this is the second round of people pointing out his consistent incivility (and I could easily toss a pile onto the already amazingly compelling evidence on the evidence page already) and abuse of his administrative tools.  This isn't isolated, and it's not left to only trolls, but to people who disagree with him, people who have a separate point of view, and anyone who dares cross him.  It's conduct unbecoming of someone who really should know better.  As someone who nearly quit due to his conduct toward me in particular, I don't quite understand the opposition to this proposal, but I'm used to being in the minority.
:2)  If ArbCom changes their decision not based on evidence, but because of public outcry because people don't think that this is "justice," this is a very dark time.  I do hope that the relevant arbitrators continue to act based on fact and not on the emotional pull of the supporters of one of the parties involved.
:3) I'm amazed at the love for MONGO, yet no love for Seabchan, who's got a fairly good record in comparison. If anything, not giving him probation of some sort on his "first offense" is much more imbalanced than saying "We've had it with your consistent abuse" to MONGO.
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)
replies: text: Then they should say so.  Their reasons for desysopping don't say that. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom as stated previously does not work under precedent, they adjust constantly. This may be the new thing, or these is private evidence perhaps. · XP · 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Private evidence = Star chamber.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Private evidence = personal info. If you were in an arbcom yourself, and your Real Name were at stake for evidence, would you want it publically out? Your IP? Employer? · XP · 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the decisions makes any mention of such a thing.  Even if there were information they couldn't divulge, they could at least say that.  With no comments on that, we have to assume that "private evidence" is not the case, and as such, theie decision is backed by no evidence.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What about policy "beliefs" set forward by the community?  I'm not about to step into a "Jimbo-worship" debate, but your comments are out of line.  This is a community, not a dictatorship, nor some strange cult where we receive inspiration from one source. -- Renesis (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo sets policy, or adjusts it. It is what it is. · XP · 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Jimbo said you all have to be courteous, to everyone. That's everyone. An admin is a user with buttons, and carries no more weight or inherent value to the project. · XP · 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's my point.  The arbcom's wording of their decision gives undue weight to MONGO's supposed inability to relate "appropriately" with other administators, which makes the decision seem to say that it's his dealings with admins as admins that's wrong, and yet, where do we have any evidence of this, and why is it more wrong to deal inappropriately with admins than it is to deal inappropriately with non-admins?  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, Zoe. AnnH ♫ 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know and arbcom if they decide to will need to answer that. From my encounters with mongo and rereading all the history leading up to this all I can surmise is that a community within wikipedia that is in charge has grown tired of antics; the patience of the community is exhausted? 3 rfcs, 3 arbcoms, etc., in a year. But I could be wrong. I don't know. · XP · 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it worth pointing out that MONGO is similarly poor at dealing with 'non-admins' appropriately? Proto::► 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thin on the second?  Perhaps.  Thin on the first?  Absolutely not.  The evidence that he's misused the tools repeatedly is overwhelming.  Meanwhile, your second paragraph pretty much nails it if the correllation was made - MONGO took the "excessive zeal" free pass, and instead of adjusting his actions, expanded them.  That's not good.  How much more should we accept?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why MONGO is being martyred, when his track record is godawful, particularly when compared to Seabhcan, who seems to be being forgotten about.  I think I'm half agreeing with Jeff ... (shivers). Proto::► 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's that pink, snouty thing flying past my window? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in this last section that User:Badlydrawnjeff and I once again find ourselves in agreement. At the time of the first arbitration result, I and perhaps MONGO viewed the initial ruling about "excessive zeal" (and the wording is important, precedent or no) as exculpatory in basis. I believe Badlydrawnjeff and perhaps others more correctly interpreted that statement as a slap on the wrist for someone who'd acted in an overly aggressive manner. Clearly some penance must be paid for that expression of zeal. However, I suspect the clear consensus demonstrated by the straw poll above demonstrates something akin from removing a well-known but aggressive policeman from his beat; the inevitable result is a community's fear of the unfamiliar. Most of what we're doing here is clearly WP:OR, but just speaking for myself, I sleep better at night knowing that MONGO is out there with his little mop, trying to make a difference in a world less than perfect. BusterD 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And a dissent

message: :It is of no relevance except if past behavior or overall behavior of involved parties is to be considered. It would be folly to not take a user's entire career history into play. If someone behaves in a problematic way not compatible with Jimbo's stated direction 25% of the time, but for months on end, there would be no' assumption plausibley believeable that the negative behavior in question would change, short of severe and repeated disciplineing. It is apt to compare it to a spoiled child--give an inch, or turn a blind eye, and the problem will grown and escalate over time until the behavior is ingrained as acceptable, and you end up with a situation that becomes a sense of entitlement to continue that negative behavior. 
: MONGO has a defined history going back to his beginnings on Wikipedia, upon further review, of negative, abrasive, and at times downright hostile behavior to his peers. This is going back to early 2005. If anything, based on editing patterns and escalation of confrontation with his peers, the problem is gradually worsening, as he appears emboldened by his last ArbCom decision (which is relevant here). Barring repeated ongoing discipline to recondition his behavioral patterns, I can't see MONGO learning how to play well with the other kids. 
:I recommend ArbCom proceed based on this. · XP · 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of ongoing peer conflict, inability to play 'nice'

message: 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)
replies: text: And you don't find it significant that both of your cases were later desysopped (or de facto desysopped) by ArbCom? They weren't successful. Probation doesn't make sense for administrators, because it's about judgment as much as specific behaviors. I am still convinced that administrative probation will cause more strife than either desysopping or lack of remedy. I felt this at the time, and still do. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree wholeheartedly with Dmcdevit.  Ral315 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it significant that both cases allowed probabtion and that probabtion was workable.  If your argument is that it failed because they later were desysopped or relinquished sysop status, then there is no reason to ever let people reapply.  Both editors continue to contribute.  I don't believe either desysopping was related to their probation.  Their probation was workable and effective.  --Tbeatty 11:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You either trust someone, or you don't ... you can't "slightly trust" someone.  Admin probation has never worked out well. Proto::► 09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that means since some prisoners go back to jail we should just start executing them. That makes complete sense. How about we remove probation from Wikipedia all together and just start banning users on first offense? --NuclearZer0 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's would be a good analogy if that was what was happening. But nobody's being banned, they'll just maybe be desysopped. It's more like firing officials for petty corruption than like executing petty criminals. Zocky | picture popups 12:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be a good analogy if this were a court.  All this talk of precedent and procedure... couldn't time being spent here developing bitterness be better spent elsewhere?  Milto LOL pia 12:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedents for Retaining Admin tools 

message: 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. 
*There are no restrictions on reapplication for adminship at WP:RFA. Either can apply as soon as he wants. The only restriction here is the candidate's good sense in not running when he's likely to be clobbered. A successful (or unsuccessful) re-RFA won't be overturned by arbcom, since that is a community process.
*Also, one may appeal a ruling to arbcom (or Jimbo) at any time. ArbCom has in the past repealed sanctions that proved to be no longer necessary, due to good behavior, and we reserve the right to reverse any of our decisions when it is decided that is the prudent thing to do. Again, if arbcom thinks it is prudent to desysop someone, it's not likely to change its mind after a few days, but after a months of good behavior, it might due so.
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)
replies: text: Incivility does have A LOT to do with "the mop and bucket".  If you're a newbie and an administrator BITES you, you'll leave.  Incivil administrators drive away contributors. Admins should be examples, not exemptles, of our civility rules. SchmuckyTheCat 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reapplication 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Workshop 

message: 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)
replies: text: *There is a case to desysop. Fred Bauder 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * There are problems with XP's statement above.  I've had my share of drama (though not on the same scale), so have lots of others, and I still think Tony Sidaway is a loss to the admin community because in my experience he was, however abrasive, almost always right because he referenced everything - everything - back to "does this help build a great encyclopaedia".  Oh, and let's not forget the dramas caused by Danny and Jimbo either.  Or any of the parties in the Great Userbox War. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy 7 "MONGO suspended as an administrator" 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Agreed. ArbCom members reviewing this would do well to read this e-mail from an uninvolved party on the mailing list. If you're going to make a case to take the highly unusual step of desysopping not just one, but *two* admins then at least provide some very damning evidence of abuse of admin tools. This has not been done. --Durin 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: New proposal up from me. · XP · 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend to give a tutorial on arbitration cases, but the problem is not with the remedies, it is with the findings of fact, which many have argued do not support the remedies. Thatcher131 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of those 5 diffs 

message: 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:                           	/workshop Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop:                           	/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    	All traffic on the page: 40 edits in the last 72 hours, with 15 different contributors    	All traffic on the page: 40 edits in the last 72 hours, with 15 different contributors
Talk:Proposed decision (this page):                                                       	Talk:Proposed decision (this page):                                                       	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.  	All traffic on the page: 347 edits in the last 72 hours, with 76 different contributors.  	All traffic on the page: 347 edits in the last 72 hours, with 76 different contributors.
Mailing list:                                                                             	Mailing list:                                                                             	Mailing list:
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.	All traffic on the list: 114 e-mails in the last 72 hours, with 29 different contributors.	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 , 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 
* Their overall lack of involvement in this RfAR for which they have been put in place to do
* The considerable ongoing discussion regarding this case in multiple fora
* The work that is still ongoing at /workshop (which they have almost uniformly not been involved in)
* The presentation of new arguments that (given so many people arriving at the same conclusions) deserve consideration per Jimbo Wales quote above
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)
replies: text: And one arbitrator opposed closure, reviewed the facts, and then voted in favor of closure, saying nothing compelled him to change his stance.  What, exactly, are you expecting at this point?  There's no question as to their involvement - they have reviewed the evidence and voted.  The lack of closure yet indicates that they have heard the cries of the masses regarding this.  Furthermore, the ArbCom does have a closed mailing list that Jimbo and all the members and clerks are involved with.  You simply do not know what they have or haven't discussed.  What is your purpose at this point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor correction; the clerks aren't on the mailing list.  We can send messages without going through moderation, but that's all. Thatcher131 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned something new today, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'd also like to point out that while I disagree with the decision made, Fred is consistant in communicating on this page. I don't know or have any way of knowing how many of the ArbCom members looked at the page, but I can at least thank Fred for being polite and concerned enough to engage in discussion. Still think desyssopping either of them is flat out wrong. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (double edit conflict) I agree that arbitrators need not, and probably should not, get into "long discussions" with the community regarding the merits of a decision. On the other hand, because the arbitration cases are resolved on-wiki, this page can ensure the quality of the decisions by allowing users to point out any perceived errors of fact or analysis or other concerns raised by the Proposed Decision. In this case, the concerns have apparently led at least some of the arbitrators to give further consideration to the issues raised and to note that they have done so. I don't see how that can be a bad thing, whether or not it ultimately changes the result. In fact, if anything, it should lead to the community being more satisfied that the case was considered carefully and fully, whether or not a particular editor agrees with all or part of the final decision. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise, there need not be lengthy discussions with the community, but the ArbCom should at least inform the community of how and why they arrived at their various decisions and address concerns raised by the community.  Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to close is nearly passed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Justice tempered with mercy 

message: 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)
replies: text: The "will of the community" to be determined by what?  RfA is not a vote, it is a discussion.  There are no hard pass/fail criteria.  Who is to judge the will of the community? —Doug Bell talk 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably bureaucrats. Wouldn't it be a standard RfA? (Please note that I'm not advocating an immediate reapplication as the best solution.) SuperMachine 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reapplication immediately or even in the near future would be disruptive.--MONGO 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be contentious, but not disruptive.  There is already a lot of minor disruption around this whole issue. SchmuckyTheCat 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reply to Doug:  The bureaucrats, of coures.  Just like they do for other RFAs.  Don't they decide the consensus themselves, or does someone else do it and then they merely have the technical means to implement it?  Milto LOL pia 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'crats decide on whether or not there is a consensus and promote as necessary. Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the crats have been known to promote without consensus.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please, let's not go there. Newyorkbrad 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another proposal

message: 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)
replies: text:  Outstanding. - Crockspot 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! BusterD 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's just a straw poll but shouldn’t user:xp vote be struck being that it is a sock puppet?▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 19:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:XP]]

message: 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)
replies: text: And I believe we're now closed (fred just changed making it 6-1), and both are desysopped. BusterD 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Clerk hasn't formally closed it yet, and probably won't for a short while longer , but it certainly looks like that's where we're headed. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a formality...I'll probably be minus the tools as the case is closed out...maybe the desyopping comes first.--MONGO 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn’t make sense. Can the decisions be appealed? JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be appealed to Jimbo Wales, but I won't do this and I ask everyone else to not do this either.--MONGO 19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We needed to shut it down, as we were deadlocked. Fred Bauder 19:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all sure what that means, Fred.  You were deadlocked so instead of working to resolve the significant issues that lead to said deadlock and an exceptional amount of community response, you close it with said issues well intact?  Surely that's not the way it should work... —bbatsell ¿? 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We were deadlocked after extensive discussion. Fred Bauder 21:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that, and I appreciate that extensive discussion must have been undertaken privately off-wiki.  However, my question is, in the case of a deadlock, how is the appropriate action to go ahead with two drastic actions that lead to the deadlock in question.  I know that ArbCom is not a court of law and doesn't function like one, but if it were, in this particular instance, a mistrial would be granted, and the case would "start over".  I personally believe that's a much more responsible course of action to take.  Please note that I, and most other objectors, do not oppose administrative action against MONGO and Seabhcan for issues of incivility.  Attempting to tie a history of incivility to removing one's bit, with very little by way of findings of fact to support it, is irresponsible on the part of the ArbCom, as is the precedent that is being established by this decision (which has been outlined by editors far smarter than I in various places above).  I guess what it boils down to is that I, as well as many others, am confounded by the lack of communication and explanation coming out of those with whom we have entrusted the power to arbitrate matters such as these. —bbatsell ¿? 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two cents' worth

message: 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)
thread_title:  It appears that proceedings have been voted closed (6-1) 

message: 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)
replies: text: That hasn't been said anywhere. The message is don't protect when involved. It's a bad idea to use your buttons on a page when someone your involved in a dispute with is part of the reason fot the protection. You're not likely to be happy with the ruling if you try to distill it into hard and fast rules ad absurdium based on a particular piece of evidence with a particular set of context which is, in any case, only intended to be demonstrable of a pattern of judgment, not an absolute judgment or an automatic ticket for desysopping. Which isn't to say that it isn't still usually a bad idea anyway, but that arbcom has certainly not formed any rule liek the one you've suggested. Dmcdevit·t 07:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But MONGO was desysopped for unprotecting a page he was notinvolved in.  User:Zoe|(talk) 07:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're conflating involvememnt with editing. You can edit (vandal reversions, etc.) without being involved, and you can be involved enough with the page, because of a conflict elsewhere with a party to the edit war, without editing. So he was involved. And, as I said, he wasn't desysopped for that, but it was evidence of his judgment. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting hairs.  Not one person has yet said that the unprotection was wrong.  User:Zoe|(talk) 09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am indeed a person. I assume my five colleagues are the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You six and apparently nobody else except for the sockpuppets who have been harrassing MONGO for months now.  User:Zoe|(talk) 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently ArbCom looked at the entirety of the evidence provided, not just the single action you are focusing on.  SchmuckyTheCat 10:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is several admins and many users have not been able to find any evidence which would support the ArbCom decision, and we're talking about experienced administrators and editors here, not a bunch of dubious sockpuppets who are in no small part responsible for MONGO being desysopped. Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 15:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the ArbCom has yet to explain their arbitrary desysopping based on the unblocking that they claim was not acceptable.  All admins have to stop protecting or unprotecting any and all articles immediately, or risk being desysopped.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider me person number two who thinks it was wrong, then.  Unless I'm one of the six fabled sockpuppets now, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're one of the perpetual harrassers, nor an ArbCom member.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't see that I ever edited the article (Gladio)...my unprotection was not done in malice...to believe it was is a massive loss of good faith.--MONGO 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late to argue now, Mongo. Just resubmit yourself for adminship. If you do it now you'll get lots of protest votes. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeff, how can unprotecting Gladio possibly have been wrong, there were no edits for 43 hours after the page was protected. Apart from removing the page protection and removing the template that says the page was protected, MONGO has never edited that page before or after the protection was carried out. Page Protection is very much against the whole ethos of Wikipedia so what exactly is the problem here. Are admins not supposed to protect and unprotect pages or something ? Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The continued inability of people to a) not be able to read the wealth of evidence for this case as well as b) our protection policy is not something I'm able to solve.  I shouldn't have bothered commenting further.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in our protection policy does it say that an admin may not unprotect an article that he or she has never edited?  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. I just noticed that the ludicrous 'anti-American' charge was found to be 'fact'. This process really is a joke. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  In other words, Heligoland, if we disagree that the evidence shows misuse of admin tools, then we must be too stupid to understand it, or we're deliberately ignoring policy. Nice. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that way. What's worse is I feel that's the attitude of the ArbCom too. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The previous RfAr did that. They clearly have power over Wikipedia before there's a need to blacklist their links and for the various proposals which were passed at the last RfAr basically banning all mentions of ED. I'm concerned with the fact MONGO is likely to suffer more harassment because of this whole farce and it's already started at ED. It'll end up here, I'm sure, and that's the other point I'm trying to get across to ArbCom, even making what, in isolation, is the right decision isn't always the right decision for Wikipedia. If MONGO has to suffer just one piece of harassment over this whole issue, then the wrong decision was reached. The fact the evidence didn't support desysopping only compounds the misery ArbCom have brought to Wikipedia. Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what they put there doesn't matter one iota. Don't sweat it.--MONGO 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to say that I think you are showing a lot of class in this situation. -- Donald Albury 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I hope the ArbCom will explain to us admins their ruling on protection policy

message: </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)
replies: text: The previous RfAr did that. They clearly have power over Wikipedia before there's a need to blacklist their links and for the various proposals which were passed at the last RfAr basically banning all mentions of ED. I'm concerned with the fact MONGO is likely to suffer more harassment because of this whole farce and it's already started at ED. It'll end up here, I'm sure, and that's the other point I'm trying to get across to ArbCom, even making what, in isolation, is the right decision isn't always the right decision for Wikipedia. If MONGO has to suffer just one piece of harassment over this whole issue, then the wrong decision was reached. The fact the evidence didn't support desysopping only compounds the misery ArbCom have brought to Wikipedia. Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what they put there doesn't matter one iota. Don't sweat it.--MONGO 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to say that I think you are showing a lot of class in this situation. -- Donald Albury 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Well Done (to ArbCom)