Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Need non-political arbitrators
1) In the last Arbcom against MONGO, User:Fred Bauder wrote up the remedies for the Arbcom case, among them was:


 * "No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed." :Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision

The "excessive zeal" was for MONGOs WP:NPA violations against several wikipideans. Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence

Some of the dispute betwen MONGO, Seabhcan, and many of the other people in this dispute have centered around Operation Gladio, User:Fred Bauder also has been involved in this dispute between MONGO and Seabhcan personally, deciding that Daniele Ganser who writes on Operation Gladio does not meet WP:RS after Seabhcan asked him to share his opinion, stating "Any American citizen can recognize the phony 9/11 bull." 

Daniele Ganser is also involved in 9/11 conspiracies, which is the center of the dispute between MONGO and Seabhcan. Both MONGO and Seabhcan gave there opinion on Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser. Should User:Fred Bauder who thinks Daniele Ganser's view is "9/11 bull" decide an Arbcom case which central dispute is 9/11?

This case is a very headed debate that centers around US political issues, with several editors, branding Seabhcan as anti-American, including MONGO. and "nationalistic bias against American users". Seabhcan for his part, has also violated WP:NPA and WP:Civil.

Response to Fred Fred makes no mention of the last arbcom ruling in which he stated: "No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed."

Fred Seabhcan, made this request, not me. I personally think Operation Gladio maybe a fraud and both sides have handled this edit war badly. I have not been involved in the Operation Gladio debate, and have repeatedly stated Operation Gladio does not belong on the American terrorism page.

Suggestions


 * 1) If we are too get a completly impartial ArbCom ruling, User:Fred Bauder should recuse himself from this case.  Where can I suggest this? What are the formalities? I am not as familar with wikipolicy as other users.


 * Signed: Travb (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I would say you have suggested recusal. I will consider it. Fred Bauder 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No basis exists for recusal. My input was at Seabhcan's request, see User_talk:Fred_Bauder/Archive_33. I have not been involved with the disputed articles or the dispute between the parties. Becoming greatly offended at an opinion offered at your own request is not grounds for recusal. Fred Bauder 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * While I would agree with this to an extent, I do not think its possible to find anyone that is not "political" meaning has political beliefs. I also dont see Fred participating in my politcla articles, main space that is . I would also question why this would be necessary, are we stating that people with political beliefs cannot edit or decide issues rationally? That would prevent the editors of those contested articles from ever editing them. --Nuclear Zer0 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a case that examines content disputes, instead it involves an examination of violations of civility, no personal attacks and abuse of administrative tools and status. I can't see why any of the standing arbitrators should not be able to impartially determine a finding of facts based on the evidence presented, since we are looking at conduct, not content.--MONGO 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: MONGO and Nuclear's comments
 * "This is not a case that examines content disputes" of course it is, that is the nexis and foundation of the dispute, which I will show clearly later on the evidence page. I think some users want to focus only on Seabhcan's own "violations of civility, no personal attacks and abuse of administrative tools and status" because if an impartial ArbCom were to look at the entire dispute, they would find several "violations of civility, no personal attacks and abuse of administrative tools and status", including by MONGO.
 * These edit wars have been going on for months, with two groups of editors who have two starkly different POVs. Seabhcan did not suddenly one day post on MONGO's page, for example, "I hate you MONGO". I have also shown on the evidence page that the incivility and WP:NPA violations are not simply confined to Seabhcan. If Seabhcan is too be reprimanded for incivility and WP:NPA violations, then those admins who have also been conducting incivility and WP:NPA violations should also be reprimanded.
 * As per: "The "excessive zeal" was for MONGOs WP:NPA violations against several wikipideans." that Fred is talking about is several incivility and WP:NPA violations of MONGO, over the span of months. I simply would like to see an impartial hearing on the merits of this arbcom, without users personal biases and POV clouding the ruling. Travb (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this is in relation to my comment but I do not think you have shown Fred to be a person who edits political articles or who should recuse themselves out of bias. --Nuclear Zer0 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do edit political articles, and very aggressively. However, I'm a sucker for evidence. That's the objection. Fred Bauder 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO brought it up here, so I responded: MONGO wrote: "This is not a case that examines content disputes". This is a theme echoed many time before which I felt needed to be addressed. Sorry Zer0faults if I got off topic.Travb (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am revising my stance, I am not sure if Fred is simply in a rush or just doesn't care about the fact that people are still adding evidence, revising sections etc. I had a feel ArbCom would not handle this appropriatly and the fact that "proposed measures" started appearing before Seabhcan even had the chance to respond is negligent. Considering some of the wording and stances in the proposed items, I feel Fred may perhaps be a bit bias without even knowing it, especially because his stand point on conspiracy theories, and as such support Fred recusing themselves. --Nuclear Zer0 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for The Epopt to recuse
RE:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence

1) I believe The Epopt should recuse themselves from this ArbCom hearing as they have now presented evidence against one of the people and can no longer be considered neutral. While I understand the statement they are making, that they received an email and this is not their specific request, the truth of the matter is its not a verifiable claim. Unfortunatly if such a person asked The Epopt to present evidence on their behalf, they should have been informed of the view it would create. I ask The Epopt in the essence of fairness and transparency to recuse themselves from this hearing, what is needed most on a hearing this large involving so many people is the utmost purest impression on behalf of the Arbitration Commitee. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearUmpf (talk • contribs)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No basis for this. We encourage banned or blocked users to forward material to us for inclusion in arbitration proceedings. Fred Bauder 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please reread the statement more carefully, the issue is not about the anon's identity. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If any other Arbiter wants to verify the e-mail message I received, I will ask its source if I may forward the message to the mailing list. Of course, if I cannot now be considered neutral, forwarding a message will not restore my neutrality, and if it is not now a verifiable claim, forwarding it will not make it verifiable ... but I offer to do so anyway. ➥the Epopt 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The person says they sent it to everyone on the list, so as I posted below if two Arbcom members can, they can simply state if they got the email, if they did, then I will happily close this. Again Epopt I hope you do not take offense, I am not saying you arent trustworthy, just that there is an issue of transparency. Also you would not need to forward it to the mailing list to verify, as you have posted the text of the email on the evidence page, so its easy for them to verify and search for as well if they have outlook. --Nuclear Zer0 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does the person say "they sent it to everyone on the list"? ➥the Epopt 01:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "i have registered using the email address i sent the request from and i sent the request to the entire arbcom list" --Nuclear Zer0 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i have forwarded all my messages to epopt to the arbcom list in case the one with the statement did not get through. epopt has my permission to publish any of them. Cunderpants 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask again did anyone on Arbcom recieve this email and can confirm it? Cunderpants said he sent it to the whole list, which means every Arbitrator should have it, can at least two arbitrators confirm recieving this email to put this issue to rest. --Nuclear Zer0 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I believe the facts presented do not warrant recusal. The arbitrator in question explained on the evidence page that he was cutting-and-pasting material from an e-mail from a user who wished to remain anonymous, for consideration as part of the evidence in the case. He made it quite clear that he was not endorsing the contents of that evidence. User often submit evidence or arguments by e-mail to an arbitrator, whether because they are blocked at the time, to preserve anonymity in contentious cases, or for other reasons. This provides no basis on which the impartiality of the arbitrator who ministerially posts the evidence could reasonably be questioned. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you are wrong, as Thatcher131 pointed out there are ways to introduce evidence that creates a trail for everyone to follow, such as emailing Arbcom-L, which I believe is the shared email for all Arbitration members. This would allow all Arbcom members and clerks to state factually that such evidence was emailed and not being presented by the Epopt himself. As it stands noone can verify this and the situation becomes tainted, especially such a large situation. I find it odd that you would say it "provides no basis on which the impartiality of the arbitrator who ministerially posts the evidence could reasonably be questioned." when there is no way to verify if this arbitrator in fact posted evidence on their own behalf. --Nuclear Zer0 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would back away rapidly from the implication that The Epopt is lying about this. Thatcher131 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding, I have already stated 3 times that I feel he is telling the truth, however since there is no way to verify it it corrupts the whole proccess, I guess since that is all you had to say, that you do not refute anything else I countered you with? Again please be more careful as I have specifically stated in this thread 2x that I think he is telling the truth and once on his talk page =) --Nuclear Zer0 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Followup on the talk page. Thatcher131 23:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're smarter than that, Nuclear. We specifically invite the submission of evidence by e-mail to either the clerks or the arbitrators.  If this anonymous person had e-mailed Arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org instead of The Epopt, would the entire committee have to recuse?  (What a loophole that would be!) Thatcher131 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No in fact that would be perfect as people would then have access to verify that an anon did in fact make those comments and not The Epopt, my issue is transparency and an email that all Arbcom members have access to would be transparent. However this manner leaves no verification or oversight. If The Epopt insists on remaining on this particular hearing it also begs the question of why. Not only have they possibly posted evidence on their own behalf, but then also force themselves to be a part of the hearing ... Its really a matter of transparency when dealing with so many editors who all have long histories with one another and here at Wikipedia. I would think you of all people would want the most fair hearing to be conducted as to not give anyone cause to question the process, this obviously taints that process. As I told The Epopt, its not that I do not trust him, its really a matter of image, would you like it if the judge in a case started presenting evidence from "anonymous" sources? Obviously not, such a situation would never be permitted to happen. --Nuclear Zer0 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that The Epopt would be able to come up with a better argument than what that email had to say. I invite all those who wish to use this forum to settle scores with me, come on in and do so, even if they wish to anonymously, via email.--MONGO 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are larger issue seeing as the evidence being brought forward consists of evidence from a time in which Rex had just left Wikipedia on an indef ban. The mention of Mr. Tibbs begs the question of who it is as Mr. Tibbs has not edited Wikipedia in some time. The fact that we cannot take a look at this editor and question if they are an indef banned, sockpuppet master, someone with an ax to grind or Arbcom ruling that may be relevant, or even someone banned over the ED or UE issue, whichever it was, is quite disturbing. Why should we be subject to scrutiny simply because we register accounts? --Nuclear Zer0 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what you are raising now is a sounder question, which is what weight, if any, should be given to the anonymous evidence. To the extent diffs are cited, then they are there for anyone to read regardless of who cites them, but to the extent the evidence contains argumentation, you or any other editor are free to make a "consider the source" argument. That is very different from arguing (I think absurdly) that although The Epopt attests that he posted this evidence at the request of a user who wishes to remain anonymous, people might think he's lying and really wrote it himself. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You think absurdly because you have interactions with The Epopt, I do not, nor did I vote for his Arbcom position or have any experience with them. The issue here is not what we believe, its what portrays the best image of a fair hearing. As I stated and noone seems to refute, there is no verification that they actually did receive an email and are not presenting evidence on their own behalf. From that now comes an issue of who is anon is, why they choose The Epopt, what their status on Wikipedia is etc. All information that The Epopt can't answer.
 * Here is an example for you and I would like you to answer honestly. If you were in court and the judge stated he had evidence which was no presented by the prosecution or defense and would not turn over where it came from, yet it was directly against you, would you be perfectly fine with this, even though its entirely out of proccess, contains no checks and balances, or even verification and you were told be the judge that you should accept it, simply because he is a judge? Also if you would accept that, do you find anything wrong with it, or perhaps odd? --Nuclear Zer0 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i chose randomly. my message to the arbcom list was the material quoted, and i said before it "ok i will do so in quotes.  thank you for the opportunity." Cunderpants 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You stated earlier you "..sent the request to the entire arbcom list" --Nuclear Zer0 03:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i was unclear. i picked epopt randomly from the list to ask if anon statements were accepted and how to submit them.  his response was to either send to him or to the arbcom list and i sent my full statement to the arbcom list. the full statement was posted earlier by epopt and to prove that i am the same person who sent the request i quoted the line before my statement in response to epopt: "ok i will do so in quotes.  thank you for the opportunity." Cunderpants 03:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but the arbitrators are here due to the community believing they will be impartial in their decisions, and I see no evidence that any of the current members would not be able to remain so. The Epopt stated that he was posting an email he had recieved by someone that wished to remain anonymous...I trust that to be the truth.--MONGO 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That arguement is obviously faulty as it would mean no arbitrator would ever have to recuse themself, so while we believe they will tell the truth and look at things objectionably, we also realize their are limits to this. As I stated, if The Epopt has no stake in this matter, then surely recusing themselves to continue the image of a clean hearing, would not be a problem. --Nuclear Zer0 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find it odd that everyone is not "walking on eggshells". This Arbcom hearing involves accusations against two administrators of admin tools abuse. The situation can end with two admins losing their admin rights or just one, which I am sure at that point then calls would arise of an unfair Arbcom hearing. In situations that require extreme caution I think everyone should take that caution, including in this case The Epopt by recusing himself to continue what I think has been a careful and fair hearing. I would prefer everyone walking on eggshells now, then crying foul later and laying accusations. At least this way you can say and show this hearing was 100% transparent. --Nuclear Zer0 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i didnt expect this sort of reaction to the situation when i requested to give my statement anonymously. it has been done before including the most recent case with mongo.  first, i am who sent the request.  i have registered using the email address i sent the request from and i sent the request to the entire arbcom list.  i can verify previous messages to eptot or whatever else the rest of the arbcom needs to know that i am who sent the anonymous request.  with this login i wish to remain anonymous because i do fear retribution.  i am not a banned user or a blocked user and i am not evading anything and i dont know how else to prove that without revealing my identity which i will not do because i refuse to be blackballed like other editors have been.  i am not sure what else is needed at this point but i want to cooperate as best as i can.  Cunderpants 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am willing to drop my request if at least two other Arbcom members can verify receiving this email in complete. If not then the statement above is now in question. Is this a fair middle ground for everyone? Thatcher131? Newyorkbrad? --Nuclear Zer0 23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that your request is not a good idea; whatever conditions you set for deciding to pursue or not pursue the matter is up to you at this point. Thatcher131 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly saying that such an easy way for Epopt to be confirmed 100% to be telling the truth should just be ignored? I thought you were a more open person, I am not sure why you wouldnt want this confirmed and put to rest, especially since if that is the anon and they are telling the truth, all two other Arbcom members have to do is state if they got the email. Sorry to hear you prefer this cloud of secrecy to hang over an Arbcom hearing then to have the situation resolved. --Nuclear Zer0 00:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I think this issue should never have been raised in the first place, I simply decline to participate in setting conditions for dropping it. Thatcher131 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you wont be participating further. I hope two Arbcom members step forward as their is now an anon claiming responcibility which creates more doubt that can all be confirmed quite easily. --Nuclear Zer0 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not so nice to post anonymously, when it's obvious you are or were once involved. For example, if you sound like Striver, but aren't him, some people may mistakenly attribute what you say to him.  Toiyabe 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i am sorry you cannot assume good faith in my practices here. i would enjoy revealing myself but would rather keep my ability to edit freely intact. Cunderpants 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is about: Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Request
1) I hope the arbitrators will take into account this evidence provided by Musical Linguist. Tom Harrison Talk 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * By all means. The absurdity of these attacks on me needs to be scrutinized as closely as possible.  While you're at it, please read my response.  Milto LOL pia 22:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1 content revert per day, per article, for 1 month
Established users who have contributed the most to this dispute, accused and accuser, admin and non-admin, should be limited to 1 content revert per article, per day, for 1 month. The root of this ArbCom is unresolveable recriminations over edit warring by admins and non-admins alike. A temporary sanction of 1 content revert per day, per article will move disputes into Talk, and hopefully constructive Sandboxes, instead of time consuming RfC's and ArbCom. Abe Froman 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This does not address the root of the problem, which is repeated insertion and mischaracterization of information from unreliable sources by Seabhcan. Fred Bauder 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This statement is discussed here: ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Edit warring is about the least of the concerns here. The problem has been primarily Seabhcan's inability to remain civil and not persoanlly attacks others on numerous talkpages. So, I can't see why any temporary injunction is needed, especially in regards to edit warring.--MONGO 10:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Froman's proposal is acceptable. I agree. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  10:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question to Fred: Do you have evidence you have not presented? I see no evidence or even accusations of "repeated insertion and mischaracterization of information from unreliable sources". In fact, Mongo, the person who brought this complaint, has just said that content is not the issue! Fred, perhaps you are confusing this Arb with someone else? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  12:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Use of unreliable sources is not a content issue. Fred Bauder 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who accused me of using unreliable sources? This is the first I've heard of it! .. al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  13:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I have argued with Seabhcan on many occassions I think to frame this as being over ganser is very shortsighted. This whole issue is much larger then if Ganser's book is ok or not. If ArbCom isnt going to look at the issue in whole it should not have accepted this case. Perhaps this case will bring about new policies on politically divisive terms etc. But to frame this as having really anything to do with Ganser is trivilizing the issue. Also Ganser meets WP:RS even if one source in the book is wrong, not saying it is. Other then Ganser I have not seen many/any unreliable sources from Seabhcan. --Nuclear Zer0 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I did not add Ganser originally. My role in the dispute was to try to prevent Morty, Tbeaty, etc from removing the Ganser reference without giving a good reason. Their reason given at the time centered around Ganser's involvement in 9/11 conspiracy theories and the made-up allegation that Ganser is anti-semitic. Whether Ganser is a reliable source or not - I didn't put him in. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  13:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well hopefully Fred revises his statement then unless I am missing other claims of non WP:RS sources somewhere. I myself apologize I thought Ganser originally came from you since you were so well versed in his work. --Nuclear Zer0 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I had never heard of Gladio until I discovered the article in wikipedia a few months ago. I thought it sounded crazy so I bought Ganser's book, which was referenced, and also got hold of a few of the other sources. I have never added any significant material to the article. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Halt Desysop
1) Arbcom halt desysop talk as noone involved believes its a necessary step, and believes they are taking the issue to far.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed --Nuclear Zer0 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, this is not really a temporary injunction, and given that the case is in the voting stage now I don't think any temporary injunctions will really be considered. But you don't hear me arguing with the sentiment. Newyorkbrad 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand we are in the evidence stage again. Perhaps it has changed recently though. --Nuclear Zer0 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just rather silly to ask the arbitrators to pass a motion that would limit how they may approach the case. You would be better off copying the proposed remedies back to the workshop page (since Dmcdevit originally placed them directly into voting without using the workshop) and then commenting there. Thatcher131 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I already gave up after writing this. I now realize there are too many buddies on Wikipedia for things to be taken seriously. The fact that this case ping pongs around and noone wants to admit possible wrong perceptions etc is just a joke. Notice no ArbCom member has confirmed receiving that email, seems our anon doesnt really exist. I laid this all out before, I know ArbCom doesnt care whats on the workshop page, its just something for people to think they contribute, thats why their own items don't always appear on Workshop first etc. Anyway thank you Thatcher131, you have shown to me just how buddy ArbCom is when even you cannot answer a simple question. --Nuclear Zer0 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where on these pages one could post anything to make sure anyone would actually find it, but see MONGO's statement that he is leaving. Very unfortunate. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Figures and I do not blame him, why resolve a problem when you can simply punish, one requires time and effort, the other a simple sentence and an vote. --Nuclear Zer0 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspend this ArbCom until Mongo's return
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't support this. We have sufficient evidence to address the main issues. Our proposals, at least so far, are not punitive. My personal approach is two fold: You ought not to be an administrator if you are abusing your tools and you should be using more moderate language if you chose to edit controversial subjects. Fred Bauder 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you want to plough on. Although it seems everyone has lost interest. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone need to be present, Fred wrote the propsed decision before you even got to say your part. Just sit back and enjoy the travesty ... I mean show, actually I don't. --Nuclear Zer0 19:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, now. Nuclear... This is clearly not important enough to be called a travesty. I find this whole process incredibly interesting. This is politics at its most pure. As Kissinger said "[University] politics is so cut throat precisely because the stakes are so low." I would write a book about all this, except no-one would buy it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Mongo (the originator of this ArbCom) says he has left Wikipedia. I imagine he'll be back in a few days after he's had a wikibreak. There's not much we can do without him here so I propose we suspend this ArbCom until he returns. For my part, I don't plan to make any article edits for a few weeks due to real-life time constraints - so I also propose I don't edit until he returns (or at least until next year if he doesn't return). ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I am assuming Mongo will return to Wikipedia when any threat from this ArbCon to his Adminship has passed. Abe Froman 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Miltopia remain unbanned for edits here
1) Miltopia's behavior has been brought up and is now used to support some proposed decisions. Miltopia's edits to this case are not to be considered harassment, despite caution to avoid entangling with MONGO on the wiki.  The Aritration Committee may ban Miltopia in the final decision at their discretion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't think there will be a problem. Fred Bauder 12:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I don't want to be banned for defending myself, though I won't have heavy involvement.  Milto LOL pia 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Civility
1) All contributors to Wikipedia are expected to remain civil.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Civility is not conditional
1.1) Although editors may sometimes be required to describe other editor's specific conduct in unflattering terms, see WP:SPADE, general incivility and personal attacks are not acceptable, even if an editor feels wronged by others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by TheronJ 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC) - may be too strong, though.

No personal attacks
2) Contributors to Wikipedia should not make personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
3) Wikipedia contributors are expected to not engage in edit wars.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed User:MONGO's block log Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Travb block log.--MONGO 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Mongo's block log as displayed above shows Mongo has not been blocked since June 2006. Just felt this should be noted if it was being offered as some sort of evidence. --Nuclear Zer0 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
1) Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Administrators should not abuse nonadministrators
4) Administrators should not use their administrator title to gain a position of power through abuse of nonadministrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Fixed what looked like a typo, MONGO please check. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do copyedit as you see fit...I know my spelling is poor at times.--MONGO 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to follow policy when using admin tools
5) Administrators are expected to follow policies when using their administrative tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Even minor insults may, over time, add up to incivility and personal attacks
6) Minor insults, if repeated frequently and with enough venom, are a violation of policies regarding civility and no personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence Travb (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia
7) Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia which promotes collaborative international editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Users should not call other users Anti-American or their contributions Anti-American. Travb (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is accepting of all nationalities
1) Comments made to deliberately insult someone's native country or culture are discouraged.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Users should not call other users Anti-American or their contributions Anti-American. Travb (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Admins must follow Protection policy
1) As per policy: Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism. Travb (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * That's what it says. Fred Bauder 13:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Admins must follow Blocking_policy
1) Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!) (emphasis my own) Travb (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. Fred Bauder 13:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * You left off the first qualifying sentence and arguably the most important. Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Blocking trolls, however, is perfectly legitimate.  If the block is unrelated to content, it is legitimate.  To wit, blocking the sockpuppet troll Cplot was perfectly  legitimate. --Tbeatty 08:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This oversimplifies the issue. Interpretations of who is and is not a 'troll' are ridiculously subjective and thus should be left to someone who has NOT been edit warring with the person, NOT engaged in any incivility towards them, et cetera. An admin blocking a user they are in conflict with for a legitimate offense is sometimes forgivable, but NEVER a good idea. The latter (and clearly independent) sentence quoted by Travb above has the right of it... because even if there is some excuse for the block other than 'gaining advantage in a content dispute' the person evaluating whether that is a blockable offense should not be personally involved and potentially applying an unequal standard. For instance, the admin blocking users for incivility and personal attacks (when they have actually committed such) would best be one who has NOT called those users "morons". Allowing involved admins to make such evaluations inevitably leads to blocks being made to 'gain advantage in a content dispute' under some pretext of a theoretically blockable offense (whether it be the 'threat of physical harm' with Occam's razor or the 'vandalism' of committing a 1RR violation to remove the words "conspiracy theorists"), and even when that is not the case will certainly often APPEAR that way. --CBD 11:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: cplots block was reviewed on AN/I and numerous admins agreed with the block stating Mongo did "nothing wrong", and it was a "righteous block". --Nuclear Zer0 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

All users should not violate WP:BITE
1) All users should not violate WP:BITE. Travb (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Redundant. There is no need to specify about admins. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed, thanks for suggestion! Travb (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Revenge
1) Editors should not misuse current arbitration cases to avenge a perceived wrong from a previous case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by MONGO 05:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is in regards to: Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence
 * Once again MONGO, what revenge? Revenge for what? Our last disagreement in September 2006, three months ago, ended with no repercutions against me. Despite your accusations on the ANI that I was trolling, and harrassing you, no sanctions were imposed on me at all.  After that, I had little if no contact with you, until Tom brought up the RfC against Seabhcan in mid-November.
 * How do you know what my personal motives are? Please stick to accusations that can be supported by evidence, and stop guessing my personal motivations.
 * Despite numerous requests for you to back up this accusation of revenge, you continue to state that I am seeking revenge, or you take my comments out of context as support for your allegations.
 * This ArbCom is about several editors editing behavior. Establishing and listing past wikipedia violations is not revenge, it is not trolling, it is not harrassment, it is not disruptive.
 * When you post Seabhcan's wikipedia violations (which I have repeatedly said many have merit), is this "revenge" "trolling" "harrassment" and "disruptive" too? If not why? What is the difference? Travb (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Appropriate reaction to harassment
1) Users, especially administrators and others who are involved in controversial decisions, are expected to respond to harassment, and legitimate criticism, in an appropriate way. Some forgiveness may be extended if the harassment is unexpected, but sustained inappropriate reactions are unacceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors who also edit on critical sites
1) Editors of the drama site, ED, and other sites critical of Wikipedia, are free to edit provided they do not engage in unappropriate behavior here or in behavior on another site which seriously affects Wikipedia or its users. Specifically, strong, even unfair criticism on another site is quite acceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Limitations on Administrator unprotection
18) Per Protection_policy, administrators are instructed not to "protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." This prohibition also extends to unprotecting a page or reducing the level of protection, even if that action is uncontroversial.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I don't think this point is obvious, but if Arb Comm is going to desysop for it, I think a specific principle finding is appropriate, in addition to the current language regarding administrator conduct.  At a minimum, Arb Comm should make this point clear for remaining admins.   TheronJ 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrators may not protect or unprotect pages that are frequently edited by editors with whom they have conflicts on other subjects
19) Per Protection_policy, administrators are instructed not to "protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." This principle extends to unprotecting pages where some of the participants in that page's conflict have engaged in subject matter conflicts with the unprotecting administrator on other subjects, even if the unprotecting administrator has never edited the page in question.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think this principle is even less clear from the policy than the previous one, but if it's a de-sysop level offense, I think it would be prudent for Arb Comm to make it clear.  TheronJ 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposed. What next? "Not to (un)protect pages edited by people who are in conflict with protecting admin's buddies?" No extension "by association", please. Opens wide doors for troll's abuse. `'mikkanarxi 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This ruling would be difficult to follow and would lead to unnecessary conflicts between admins. Opposed. -- Ghirla -трёп-  12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Threats to take admin action
20) It is inappropriate to threaten to take an administrative action that, if carried out, would be considered a misuse of administrative tools. Wikipedia administrators who do so abuse their position, even if no administrative action is actually taken.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If this is aimed at me and my threat to block Mongo - I disagree that this was improper. Mongo had twice reverted material without discussion or a reply to request for clarification. I warned him not to do it again, and as this would have been a breach of 3RR, it would have been correct for him to be blocked. Luckily, the warning did get his attention and he lowered himself to the level of discussing his reverts on the talk page. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, though I realize it is late in the game. I would have thought this principle ought to go without saying, but having waded through the fallout on the mailing list, and the way the discussion seems to focus, I wonder if perhaps it needs to be said after all. I therefore offer up this principle in the hopes that you may find that it is relevant and explanatory. Regards, Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is right, but it's a tricky issue. MONGO and Seabchan would clearly be ok to say "If you keep doing X, I will report you and expect you to get blocked" and clearly not be ok to say "If you keep doing X, I will block you" if they were in a content dispute with the editor doing X.  "Stop doing X or get blocked" might mean either one, so it's at least imprudent.  TheronJ 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Background issues
1) Opposing viewpoints regarding the cause of the Collapse of the World Trade Center, 9/11 conspiracy theories and similar controversies lie in the background of this dispute with Seabhcan advancing an anti-American viewpoint and Mongo vigorously opposing what he considers "lunacy" and "ridiculous junk science"  and defending what he considers accurate characterizations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose...simply off base...Seabhcan supports conspiracy theories and I don't.--MONGO 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me if Seabhcan advances an anti-American viewpoint because he supports the conspiracy theories or whether he advances conspiracy theories because of his anti-American viewpoint. I would even go so far as to say his viewpoint comes across as anti-George Bush (and the "stupid Americans" who support him).  Regardless, the background of the dispute is Seabhcan advancing a POV beyond what the the facts support and MONGO opposing it.  --Tbeatty 08:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Fred Bauder According to Arbitration_policy
 * There is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by Arbitrators. If the deliberations are made public, then outside commentary on the deliberations is discouraged until such time after the hearing has ceased that the Arbitrators define as the period for public commentary on the deliberations.
 * This case has been open for a couple of days, and you are already offering User:MONGO clemency Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop. Why not simply write: "No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed." as you did in the last ArbCom case against MONGO? (You never responded too this above).
 * I am still editing evidence on the page, as are other users.
 * User:Seabhcan is only a wikivation for a week, and still hasn't even responded to any of MONGO's accusations on this page.
 * Most importantly, I am still in the process of getting you recused from this case, and having other editors who are not involved in political edits recused also.
 * This is exactly why you should not be hearing this case.
 * Please remove you comments for until the one week time period is up, because they violate Arbitration_policy. Thank you. Travb (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I have to throw a bucket of cold water on this section: There has been no evidence presented of me "pushing" anything in the article name space any-where/any-time. Perhaps I have been a little stern with users (on the talk pages) who delete sourced material or mislead others about sources, however, I have never posted unsourced information or biased material to an article.
 * Fred, I would also like you to recuse yourself from this case. You are involved and are clearly biased in favour of MONGO. It is unjust of you to be involved in this arbitration. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

MONGO has dealt appropriately with trolling by Cplot
2) has removed trolling  ; blocked users who engaged in trolling  User_talk:Cplot warning response another response . Characterized as personal attacks by Travb, MONGO has accurately characterized trolling and appropriately dealt with it. See especially this edit. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * User:Cplot was trolling as a sockpuppet. He spammed multiple Village Pump and other forums.  His block has broad support  from admins.  MONGO blocked the troll, requested a review by other admins and it was upheld.   MONGO then had to endure the brunt of abuse by the sockpuppet troll on numerous discussion pages and now it appears it will be rehashed by certain editors here.  As an aside, I have endured a certain amount of abuse simply by cleaning up after the trolls.  It's my opinion that MONGO does this cleanup knowing that a) he is already a target and cleanup won't make his life any harder and b) if he left it for other admins, they would become targets as well.  It's apparent that any admin would have blocked Cplot for trolling and MONGO could have easily passed this problem to someone else, but he chose to save them the abuse. He should be commended for taking on the trollsand not shirking them to others.  --Tbeatty 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocking_policy Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)


 * Need I say more? Travb (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As of this moment, Cplot has created 59 disruptive vandal sockpuppets, including one called Mongology. See Suspected sock puppets/Cplot for a complete list. Morton devonshire 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Accusations by Travb regarding violations of Assume Good Faith
3) Close examination of the Accusations by Travb regarding violations of Assume Good Faith    shows that, with one possible exception, they are with without foundation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am not done yet, and Seabhcan has not even responded yet. See Arbitration_policy which User:Fred Bauder appears to be violating. Travb (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Accusations that MONGO has been uncivil
4) With respect to accusations by Travb that MONGO has been uncivil most   are without foundation, However, in this edit  there is inappropriate joking.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am not done yet, and Seabhcan has not even responded yet. See Arbitration_policy which User:Fred Bauder appears to be violating. Travb (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Fred, a generic, 'Accusations that MONGO has been uncivil', title and then disputing that incivility was displayed (in a specific subset of instances) seems potentially misleading. If ArbCom is intended to look at the person in general, rather than choosing a limited set of edits to evaluate, then I think it should be clear that MONGO has been uncivil: "deleted garbage from moronic troll and two admins that support harassment", "I'll remember it" / "get a clue", "I suppose you think folks should be allowed to troll at their pleasure"... and those are examples of his recent comments towards admins. MONGO is not the devil, but any implication that he has not been uncivil (beyond "inappropriate joking") is just untrue. He describes citation of the civility policy, in an effort to get him to reconsider hostile statements to another admin, as "defending disruption". There was no "disruption" for me to 'defend' in yandman's effort to get MONGO to be less hostile to Luna Santin and Gentgeen... and that anger/hostility towards four admins who were politely disagreeing with him is indicative of a problem. --CBD 13:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They didn't understand the situation...that was Miltopia, an encyclopedia dramatica editor who was stalking mt edits, as I commented on my evidence under the heading Miltopia. Please refer to my explanation that clarifies who this person is in that evidence section...I can't and won't link to ED to demostrate the edits that person has made on that website, attacking numerous editors here.--MONGO 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us assume all that to be true (though the user in question has been editing without incident since your indefinite block was lifted). It would then remain the reason this was a problem... because "admins that support harassment" was not a civil way of describing people who merely "didn't understand the situation"... and the same holds for your cited subsequent responses to efforts to get you to back off that hostility. You can't use, 'but Miltopia is an evil evil EDer' as an excuse for lashing out at four admins who merely questioned your impartiality or urged you to be civil. Your obligation to follow those behavioural standards does not vanish the instant someone you have reason to dislike appears. Just calling Miltopia himself a "moronic troll" was well over the line, but turning that hostility on anyone and everyone else who got in your way was disruptive and self-defeating. It's not easy to convince people that you are acting in an impartial and level-headed manner when you start by insulting them. Again, we aren't talking about the end of the world here, but keeping your cool is something you need to work on. --CBD 11:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reexamine the evidence about Miltopia in the setion I have about this editor.--MONGO 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted Miltopia's edits in that timeframe and am very familiar with that sequence. I was shocked that he was unblcoked without discussion.  It was clear trolling.  MONGO was working on improving a number of articles siply as an editor.  This involved trying to achieve consensus with a number of editors.  In the middle of this article improvement and expansion, Miltopia arrives and follows MONGO to his last few edits, undoing them.  He leaves silly descriptions like the neutrality box wasn't pretty enough. He is reverted by MONGO and others and he reverts the reverts.  Miltopia had no editing history with those articles.  None of what he did was vandalism but it was clearly trolling.  MONGO blocked him after a few warnings for trolling.  Another admin unblocks him without even discussing the unblcok with MONGO to understand why.  Considering Miltopia's history with ED, including direct attacks against MONGO on that site, coupled with his trolling of MONGO at Wikipedia and the recent permanent ban of other ED trolls, I would think a courtesy note on MONGO's talk page or a chance to comment on the unblock at AN/I would be in order.  That did not happen.  MONGO was understandably upset.   It's clear that the unblocking admin didn't understand the situation.  --Tbeatty 03:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. When I was editing the same pages as MONGO, I never once just "undid" whatever he did.  In the case of the new article, I would have had to blank the article.  In the case of dysgenics - well, I don't know, because I didn't know he was editing it and I still don't know what he's done to it.  You are spouting falsities bordering on deceit, and as for "shocked that he was unblocked", all I have to say is enough with the theatrics.  I had explained myself on ANI and did so again  in my evidence section.  You ought to refrain from any more ludicrous mischaracterizations like these and tryo to evaluate my edits, rather than simply react to MONGO's bidding.  Milto LOL pia 03:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 Edit 2. This was after you were told to stop stalking him on dysgenics, you followed him there.  You were warned in the edit summary as well.  --Tbeatty 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yawn, more straw men. If I wasn't stalking him in the first place, there's no reason to think further edits would be "stalking despite warnings."  You're running in circles at this point, as you are below.  Milto LOL pia 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What strawman? You claimed you didn't revert him and I just showed links where you clearly did.  After being warned.   You claim you found that article by seeing "New" in MONGO's contribution list but you proceeded to edit this article undoing his work twice.  The second time as a blatant revert after being warned to stop stalking him.  That is not a strawman, it is the record of editing events.  This was all occuring while MONGO was dealing on his talk page with another person of your acquaintance User:Alexjohnc3 also from ED fame.  Coincidence?  I think not.   --Tbeatty 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Duh, the only time I reverted him, as I said in my evidence section I'm assuming you still haven't read, was when he rollbacked me with no explanation. I then stopped when I was reverted with an explanation.  The original edits were not reverts.  And now you're accusing Alexjohnc3, who has never done anything worse than liking ED and advocating for the recreation of an article about it, of conspiring with me to harass MONGO.  Your theories are getting more and more far fetched so you can explain inconsistencies in your accusations.  Tbeatty has shown has shown he can't analyze this "Miltopia incident" with any shred of reason and everyone involved would do best to ignore him, as I now will.  Milto LOL pia 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * duh what? You didn't call out your revert in your evidence.  But here's the sequence again.  20:21 Miltopia edits Dysgenics (too many ugly boxes) coincidentally at the same time as MONGO and at the same time as MONGO is dealing with Alexjohnc3.   21:51 MONGO reverts Milopia .  23:52 Miltopia reverts MONGO and leaves note on talk page.  23:56 Miltopia edits Folsom Expedition.  00:01 MONGO responds to Miltopia warning him not to stalk him.  00:02 MONG reverts Miltopia on Folsom Expedition 00:06 Miltopia acknowledges that MONGO doesn't want to be stalked and assures him he isn't.  00:07 Miltopia reverts MONGO on Folsom 00:08 Miltopia says he was just checking for roll backs on the talk page.  00:10 MONGO warns Miltopia on his talk page not to disrupt.  00:13 MONGO reverts Miltopia on Folsom with warning to knock it off. 00:14 MONGO warns Miltopia on his talk page again.  00:20 Miltopia reports MONGO as threatening him with blocks. 13:32 alexjohnc3 restores material MONGO deleted to MONGOs talk page about Miltopia discussion.  Even after acknowledging that you weren't stalking him you reverted his edits on Folsom, an article he had just created, over red links that he had just restored and dysgenics.  Both articles that you had never edited before.  And you claim you are testing your rollback theory on this one brand new article created by MONGO instead of an article you edit frequently? It's just not believeable with the history you have with ED and MONGO, specifically, that this was not some form of trolling.  And which off-site community was it that seems to consume itself with the ugliness of template boxes on Wikipedia pages?  --Tbeatty 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You only mentioned me twice in that list. The former of which you listed was MONGO, not me . I've already explained the latter edit (here?). Anyways, I've really had enough of this. Just because a website isn't nice to someone who happens to be an admin here isn't a justification for censoring it away, though that has nothing to do with this discussion, so you guys have fun. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A note on this: Tbeatty has raised some relevant (but false) concerns regarding ED, and I'd tried to keep on topic of the case so as not to appear that I'm trying to drag ED into this. But now I'm seeing that's been Tbeatty's aim all along.  In the original request, which I only now got around to reading, he mentions ED even before I'm brought into this, while not a single other person has brought it up.  Or me, for that matter.  Tbeatty has been focused on this from the beginning before I was even brought into the case.  All the more reason his concerns should not be given much though, as rude as that sounds.  Milto LOL pia 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Taunting by Seabhcan
5) This sequence of edits     revolve around repeatedly misspelling another users name. An earlier edit  is of similar tenor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Seabhcan has not even responded yet. See Arbitration_policy which User:Fred Bauder appears to be violating. Travb (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, the idea that Mongo's incivility is "inappropriate joking" and mine are "taunting" is clearly a biased opinion. This judgement of yours is further reason for you to recuse yourself from this case. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Miltopia incident
6) In the Miltopia incident MONGO engaged in aggressive behavior towards another user and two administrators which violated civility and failed to assume good faith on the part of other administrators "deleted garbage from moronic troll and two admins that support harassment", an edit removing a protest regarding rollback of this edit by . MONGO followed up with an indefinite block of Miltopia, making the comment "account set up for trolling only, just another ED editor looking to cause trouble" Block log Miltopia. See extended discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * No. I reverted some of Miltopia's harassment.  MONGO showed remarkable restraint.  Admins apparently unfamiliar with the "moronic ED troll" (or maybe they were familiar with him) reversed this well deserved block.  They unblocked him without even discussing it with MONGO before doing it.  The other admins clearly violated Wheel War principles.  To his credit, MONGO did not lower himself to this Wheel War mentality and showed remarkable restraint in dealing with them.   --Tbeatty 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Miltopia may have edited inappropriately, but MONGO does not need to wallow around using language like "garbage from moronic troll". It is quite likely the two administrators knew nothing regarding the underlying issues, but they were at least trying to discuss the issues while MONGO deleted their discussion and in a blatant display of bad faith comments, "deleted garbage from moronic troll and two admins that support harassment". I guess what the administrator said is considered "garbage" also. Fred Bauder 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I said "and" two admins that support harassment. I knew Miltopia is here to play games, look at the section about Miltopia in my evidence section please. If anyone had bad faith, it was those who wouldn't bother to listen to me when I state that this editor is here for mainly mischief.--MONGO 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think this issue shouldn't be considered in this ArbCom. IMO Mongo's blocks of these losers is ligit. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The community seems to think otherwise. Milto LOL pia 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * IMHO, Miltopia should be outside the scope of this ArbComm proceeding. The dispute wasn't related to 9/11, and I am not aware of any attempt at dispute resolution.  In general, I think that MONGO is (understandably) too close to ED issues to issue blocks based on ED trolling, and should refer ED issues (as civilly as possible) to another admin.  However, I think that any MONGO-ED issues should go through dispute resolution first, rather than being injected into this Arb Comm.  At a minimum, if the scope is expanded to include MONGO's civility to editors not involved in the 9/11 dispute, can we have some additional time to present evidence?  Thanks, TheronJ 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Travb has tried to make this into a case against MONGO. Whatever his motives, and I don't think they are pure, he and others have turned up some definite problems which I think need to be addressed. My impression is that MONGO is having trouble relating in an appropriate way when he is harassed, especially with other administrators. He also seems to think it is up to him to block anyone he thinks is harassing him and freely threatens to do so. So yes, it is an issue, but mostly as relates to his inadequate communication with other administrators and the use of his administrative tools. I don't think starting over with a separate procedure would accomplish much. However I would not welcome addition of many other diffs showing MONGO to have been uncivil. I got that. Fred Bauder 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The harassment is ongoing now for six plus months. About the only way to defeat the harassment would be to leave the project.--MONGO 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no diffs of Miltoia's edits? Here Miltopia follows MONGO to an article that MONGO had been actively editing by removing tags because he doesn't like the "look" of the article. Here Miltopia is warned not to stalk MONGO and he talks about the "ugly boxes" and how he heard about it offsite. He then goes on to follow MONGO to other articles for a few more annoying edits to articles that MONGO regularly edits but Miltopia does not. This is called "harassment". I reverted Miltopia for what I call harassing vandalism or stalking vandalism but no admin stepped up to stop the harassment and MONGO blocked him when he had enough. Look the edit description here and you will see that Miltopia did not randomly find an article MONGO was working on. He has a beef with MONGO and he brought to Wikipeida in the form of these edits. Miltopia deserved his block pending review. I would question the admin who reversed it without discussion on AN/I. Miltopia's block should have been reviewed but not just overturned without discussion. MONGO used the tools appropriately, with warnings and with restraint. --Tbeatty 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those diffs are nothing new, MONGO has already brought them up. Note also that I abandoned all thos conflicts as soon as they started brewing... see my evidence section for more. Milto LOL pia 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that the way I deal with vandals on another wiki is completely irrelevant here (I'd link to the users edits, but unlike Tbeatty, I'm not going to circumvent the spam filter to make a point). When you vandalize ED, you get hit with Pain Series, simple as that.  Also, during early October I wasn't editing here, so why does this matter?  I don't get it.  Whoever was the account holder in this case (which I'm guessing was Tbeatty, if he knew about being banned for vandalism) came of their own free will to pursue editing on ED, vandalized, and was punished accordingly.  Totally unrelated to MONGO, Wikipedia, this arbcom, me on Wikipedia, or anything important to this case.  Something is not "harassment" if you seek it out yourself.  If you come to my livejournal and troll me and I call you names, for example, you have no business complaining.  It sounds to me like Tbeatty is trying to drag ED drama into this case for no reason.  Milto LOL pia 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I don't want ED drama here that's why I supported his block of you.  Nor have I ever edited ED or have ever had an account there.  You followed him to 2 or 3 articles and reverted his edits for no reason that I can discern other than to antagonize him.  I did not even know you were an ED editor until Mongo commented on it.  A quick search of ED for you and MONGO turned up that edit comment. "Mongo's arbom case suggests that this is him" and then you added those pictures.  I am not sure how you justify that as fighting vandalism.  It does explain though why you would follow him around trying to antagonize him.  If you leave those kind of edits on ED about a WP editor, then come here and follow him around reverting his edits on articles that he frequents but you don't, you deserve a permanent block.   --Tbeatty 02:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already refuted these mistaken allegations on my evidence section by now, so it's pointless to continue. As for the ED edit you brought up, it was fighting vandalism by shock-imageing a vandal (check the accounts contribs, you/he/she blanked a page), and it has zero to do with this case, even moreso if the vandal was not a Wikipedia editor.  Milto LOL pia 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So the edit comment for fighting vandals with a shock image is "Mongo's arbom case suggests that this is him" ? And that's not supposed to be considered as animosity towards MONGO?  I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.  --Tbeatty 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but explaining what I was feeling would imply that MONGO is a joke, which he isn't, so I won't bother explaining. I'll only be thankful that this has nothing to do with my edits here and that banning me from Wikipedia won't stop me from posting shock images to vandals' talk pages on ED.  I have no idea where you're going with this.  All I know is that I've kept my attitude towards MONGO off of Wikipedia, and if you're having to stretch as far as months-old ED edits to find "animosity", you will get nowhere and are not advocating what's best for Wikipedia.  Milto LOL pia 05:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My only point is that your interaction with MONGO was not by chance. you sought him out.  You have historical reasons for doing so (the ED links) and you were warned to stop and didn't.  You claim innocence and the hisotrical evidence suggests otherwise.  --Tbeatty 05:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Miltopia
1) Miltopia is an active editor on the off-wiki drama site, ED, which was involved in harassing MONGO . Miltopia has been engaged there in a struggle with who is believed there to be . Soon after Miltopia began editing Jacknstock inserted a link to an edit reverting an edit by Miltopia on ED. After the link was disabled, Miltopia inserted an edit restoring it  "for reference". It has again been disabled.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Please examine my comments in my evidence section regarding this editor.--MONGO 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I apologize for the link re-insertion and won't do it again, it is not that big of a deal. Sorry!  Also, my "struggle" is long dead, that was months ago before I was interested in really editing.  My inapporpriate insults on his tlak page have been reverted and to me it's a completely dead issue, since I actually have some interest in Wikipedia there.  Also note that the redirect to the Jacknstock article you're referencing was a joke, prompted by the template I had used on the page showing Jacknstock's user picture elsewhere and referencing edit conflicts (loooong story).  Milto LOL pia 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's habitual over-reaction
1) MONGO was seriously harassed in the past, and has been harassed to some extent recently, both with respect to the off-wiki drama site, ED, and with respect to his efforts to fight against inclusion of unsourced and poorly sourced information regarding 9/11. In many instances he has reacted inappropriate to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner and misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools. This has been compounded by failure to communicate appropriately with other administrators with respect to his problems and actions, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

MONGO harassed
1) MONGO has been harassed by Miltopia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Possibly, but it is his over-reaction which is at issue. Final decision is probably done now anyway. Fred Bauder 12:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by Miltopia. I DO NOT support this finding of fact (I will add evidence later today), nor do I even support my being pulled into this, but whatever.  I'm sick of this accusation - all I care about is being able to edit, and that's been hindered, see block log.  I've also been getting nasty comments on my talk page, which feel very provocative.  I'm proposing this here so that if it's not in the final decision, it will be implied that I have not harassed anyone.  Milto LOL pia 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't investigated to form a view of your relations with MONGO, but you can't draw the inference you're seeking from a party's proposal not being included in the final decision. For the future, the best plan would probably for you to avoid conflict with MONGO as much as you can, if and when he returns to editing (he's on what I hope is just a Wikibreak at the moment). Newyorkbrad 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thatnks for the advice, but that's what I was doing when I we pulled into this, so clearly that won't work. ArbCom needs to officialize it one way or the other so we can stop having these repeated arguments.  Milto LOL pia 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's unprotection of Operation Gladio
9) On November 13, 2006, MONGO unprotected Operation Gladio. This unprotection was not controversial at the time and did no actual harm to the Encyclopedia.  Although MONGO was involved in editing disputes with to various 9/11 related topics edited by Seabchan, Operation Gladio is not related to 9/11, and MONGO was not involved in an editing dispute related to Operation Gladio.  MONGO had a good faith belief that because he was (1) unprotecting a page rather than protecting it and (2) had never been involved in an editing dispute on that page, he was not in violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding page protection.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I don't think this conflicts with my proposed principles above.  Whether or not the Arb Comm ultimately determines that MONGO's conflicts with Seabhcan on 9/11 mean that MONGO couldn't deprotect an article about Operation Gladio, MONGO surely had a reasonable basis to conclude he was acting within the existing policy.  TheronJ 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Seabhcan is placed on Page Protection Probabtion
1) Seabhcan is placed on Page Protection probation and his adminsitrative page protections are limited to semi-protection. No Desysopping.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

MONGO is placed on Block Probabtion
2) MONGO is placed on Block probation and his adminsitrative blocks are limited to a maximum of 48 hours. No Desysopping.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * As noted previously, there has been (and continues to be) wide support for MONGO's actions. Despite a strong belief that MONGO has stepped over the line a few times in the use of his admin powers, and has some more general issues with civility when he is annoyed (for which there has been over-ample opportunity), it does not seem appropriate to me to place restrictions on him for behaviours which were tacitly endorsed or even encouraged by other admins and even the prior ArbCom ruling. Further, the vast majority of his blocks are uncontroversial. An instruction to avoid/withdraw from conflict (or at least taking admin action during such) is warranted. Sanctions for acting as a significant portion of 'community leaders' urged or allowed him to are not. --CBD 11:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He was warned in the earlier proceeding to not get carried away. You can be too right. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why the progressive next step of limiting the block times is in order. --Tbeatty 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO counseled
3) MONGO is counseled regarding WP:SPADE. While it may be accurate to characterize other's disruptive behavior as "trolling" or with other dismissive language, there is good reason to be cautious and diplomatic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is exactly why you should be recused from this case User:Fred Bauder, for the second time, you are giving MONGO a free pass, despite his repeated admin and wikipolicy violations.
 * Why don't you write up:
 * Seahbacan is counseled regarding WP:SPADE. While it may be accurate to characterize other's disruptive behavior as "trolling" or with other dismissive language, there is good reason to be cautious and diplomatic.
 * Why? For the same reason you refused to write up: in Rootology's case:
 * "No action is taken against Rootology for any excessive zeal he has displayed."
 * As you did had for MONGO in that case.
 * Please see: Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Proposed_decision
 * Let me remind you that Rootology only went really batshit and started lashing out when he realized that MONGO was getting a free pass from you, as you are giving to him again here. I told Rootology to stop going batshit, but he refused. Fred, you authored the "No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed." Rootology could clearly see the writing on the wall.
 * When rootology went batshit, I withdrew my support for him, but my comments about MONGO's free pass stood then, as they will stand here.Travb (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Travb...positive info regarding Rootology posting vicious attacks off site was already on the arbcom case you mention for some time before Fred Bauder proposed that he be banned indefintely...yet you still supported Rootology, regardless of the evidence.--MONGO 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not support Rootology, and I am appalled that you continue to state such blatant falsities. This is no longer about Rootology.  Rootology has been indefinetely banned. This is about your behavior and your abuse of admin priveleges and the free pass you were given in your first ArbCom.Travb (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Immediately after seeing Rootology was vaporlocking, you showed up on the arbcom case, and made repeated demands that I also be given the same penalty, and then made accusations that Fred Bauder was not an impartial arbitrator. You had not made one contribution to that arbcom case prior to that, that I can see. All named parties, including you, are being examined here.--MONGO 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been advised by an admin who has been involved in many arbcoms not to spend time arguing on talk pages, and focus purely on the Evidence page. Based on how you have taken several of my comments on these talk pages out of context to use as evidence against me, I think this is excellent advice.Travb (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not mark edits like this as "minor" in the future, thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * This is ridiculous. What is considered a spade here??? I have no idea, on the other hand, I clearly see that Seabhcan proved under his Comment on Morton Devonshire's Statement what kind of spade Morton is (one arguing about sources for book he didn't even had). Seabhcan always provides sources and argues with arguments - it's he, who is acting according to WP:SPADE, while I can't say that about every other editor involved (they mainly provide their beliefs as arguments. Take famous "Baloney" - a comment to revert by Mongo - is a great example. Where were arguments there??).
 * I see this very biased, unargumented statement by User:Fred Bauder as a strong signal to reconsider his involvement. SalvNaut 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO on administrative parole
4) MONGO is placed on administrative parole for six months. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, MONGO has misused his administrative tools, he may be blocked briefly, up to one week for repeat offences.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Probably better, but he has lost his temper and left. Fred Bauder 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell. Lots of support for him on his talk page. Time will tell if it's just a wikibreak or if it's long term. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed instead of desysopping. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan on administrative parole
5) Seabhcan is placed on administrative parole for six months. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, Seabhcan has misused his administrative tools, he may be blocked briefly, up to one week for repeat offences.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed instead of desysopping. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO desysopped for an ongoing history of incivility/attacks
6) MONGO is desysopped for an ongoing history of incivility, and indirect/indirect personal attacks. Note the recent behavior as heavily documented here, as well in previous RfCs, ArbComs, and other areas. MONGO has taken the perceived license in regards to excessive zeal from his previous ArbCom to new extremes, and has never made visible progress in growing more civil since he arrived on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as alternative, more accurate reasons for desysopping. · XP  · 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary and excessive. This does not imply endorsement of every word that MONGO ever wrote, as I think he would understand based on numerous comments made throughout the proceedings. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Historical behavior of users is valid evidence. Historically, he has not changed since he joined, hence the proposal. Also, if based on just the evidence FROM this ArbCom, this applies equally to both Seab and he, and your margin statement below is odd (partisanship based on your historical record of interaction with MONGO, which can also be seen as evidence in that sense). Let's not play games anymore. · XP  · 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand either the substance of this comment directed to me, or the venom behind it. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Brad in that the desysoping in this particular case appears to be an overkill (the same aim may be reached by other remedies) and that ad hominem attacks against participants in the discussion will lead us nowhere. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there's some very compelling analysis of this by Radiant, Durin and others that point to this being overkill at this point in time. Rx StrangeLove 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the exact opposite reasoning given by ArbCom members. Incivility is an editor function, not administrator.  As a corollary, the argument is that abuse of admin tools doesn't warrant a block or any other editor sanction.  Incivility warrants a civility parole not removing of Admin privileges.  It's a non-sequitir remedy.  The question is how does removing sysop help civility?  How is incivility an abuse of admin tools?  He can still attack/be incivil if they are removed. --Tbeatty 17:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Similar to Tbeatty. Removing adminship for incivility does not directly address the problem. It is effectively a warning to MONGO to cease incivility. This can be done with a civility parole more effectively by providing a basis on which to block for uncivil comments. --Durin 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan desysopped for an ongoing history of incivility/attacks
7) Seabhcan is desysopped for an ongoing history of incivility, and indirect/indirect personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as alternative, more accurate reasons for desysopping. · XP  · 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, by a narrow margin, per my comments on Proposed Decision/talk. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Removing adminship for incivility does not directly address the problem. It is effectively a warning to Seabhcan to cease incivility. This can be done with a civility parole more effectively by providing a basis on which to block for uncivil comments. --Durin 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO banned from taking administrative action on 9/11 articles
8) MONGO is banned from taking any administrative action on articles relating to the September 11th attacks. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include pages on conspiracy theories, biographies on persons significant in relation to the attacks (including conspiracy theorists), etc. Should he take such action, the Arbitration Committee will consider a motion under WP:RFAR's "Motions in prior cases" section; if MONGO is found to have violated his administrative ban, he will be desysopped. Blocks on IP addresses and accounts for blatant vandalism are excluded from this definition.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Offered. I don't support desysopping, and I feel that 'administrative parole' has the problem that blocks on editing don't match up with misuse of admin tools. This remedy has the disadvantage of requiring follow-up by the Arbcom to act on, but it does relate misuse of administrative tools directly to a restriction on those tools and the penalty for violating that restriction. As far as I'm aware, the problem appears to be related to the subject area of 9/11.


 * If necessary, the meaning of 'vandalism' might be clarified to explicitly exclude WP:NPOV violations, as Vandalism does, but the paragraph is quite long as it is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would this cover supplemental conspiracy/controlled demolition articles? They are as much the problem. · XP  · 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think so, "interpreted broadly" seems to certainly cover that. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Novel solution, but the reconsideration could take a lot of argument and arbcom time. Also doesn't seem to cover Seabhcan. Second choice. See refinement below. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the reconsideration would take more than minimal arbcom time. If four net arbitrators decide that MONGO has used his admin tools on a 9/11-related article, then he's desysopped. I don't see how it could possibly be argued over; given an administrative action by MONGO, eihter it was on a 9/11-related article or it wasn't. It should be settled as soon as the necessary number of arbitrators get round to looking at the motion. Fred's proposed "If... x has misused his administrative tools" is vaguer and more open to dispute.
 * No objection to this being offered on Seabchan as well - I was asked about MONGO's desysopping specifically which led me to try and think up a different acceptable intermediate remedy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO and Seabhcan banned from taking administrative action on 9/11 articles
8.1) MONGO and Seabhcan are banned from taking any administrative action on articles relating to the September 11th attacks. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include pages on conspiracy theories, biographies on persons significant in relation to the attacks (including conspiracy theorists), etc. Should either take such action, any currently serving Arbitrator can desysop the violator, or ask a Bureaucrat to desysop the violator. Blocks and uses of the rollback button for blatant vandalism are excluded from this definition.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Much faster implementation, covers both parties. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing proposal, given mistaken assumption that a bureaucrat could revoke admin status. If we have to go to a steward anyway, that won't make it fast. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Allowing future desysopping by any one arbitrator or bureaucrat is problematic, especially if there is legitimate question as to whether an article is related or not. Assuming that is fixed, not exactly the remedy I would choose inasmuch as the primary issues here still relate to civility concerns rather than misuse of admin tools, but certainly preferable to desysopping. Newyorkbrad 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Recommend such uses for vandalism be subject to review/oversight. This is to protect both admins (Seab/MONGO) plus other editors versus any conflicts--in case Seab or MONGO declare something vandalism, but it is contested by others. Thus, require all actions be reported. Perhaps something along the lines also as a supplemental of threatening action be prohibited (to prevent any perceived intimidation by either side) with 24 hour blocks for such violations, and to functionally limit both to be "regular" editors only on these articles, barring any extremly flagrant vandalism. But due to both showing bad judgement on these articles, reign them in fully for their own protection. · XP  · 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As a technical note, bureaucrats cannot desysop administrators, and nor can a single arbitrator. Only a Steward can upon the request of the arbitration committee. Cowman109 Talk 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO and Seabhcan banned from taking administrative action on 9/11 articles
8.2 MONGO and Seabhcan are banned from taking any administrative action on articles relating to the September 11th attacks. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include pages on related conspiracy theories and biographies (including conspiracy theorists). Should either admin take such action, he may be blocked briefly, up to one week for repeat offences. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This sounds like a very reasonable proposal. I agree. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  16:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the proposed remedies in this matter will change, but this is in keeping with what I see as a fair resolution.--MONGO 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed: Rather than more complex exceptions, or dangers of desysopping (which only stewards can do anyway), just make it a restriction against use of admin tools on this category of articles. If either admin feels an admin action is needed, they can take it to WP:AN or other appropriate places to get action. I don't think this is the best option overall, but it's a better option than 8 or 8.1 in my opinion. I'd be considerably more agreeable to a civility parole, which seems to be the main consideration. --Durin 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree in all respects with Durin's comments. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, withdrawing earlier proposal. Please extend this one with the logical corrolary: "The banned action may be immediately reversed by any other administrator." AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble with this is that, in the first objection to Fred's administrative parole, Dmcdevit says "I don't like the idea of a valuable memeber of the community getting blocked over administrative judgments (which would be punitive, in any case)". Blocking for admin actions is something of a mismatch - blocks don't even prevent admins from carrying out admin actions as far as I'm aware.
 * Of course, both he and Matthew seem to think that admins shouldn't be restricted from editing, they should be either desysopped or not, which would render my proposal - that an admin action on a 9/11 article by the affected parties should result in their desysopping - equally fruitless. But if this is the stance all the Arbitrators are taking then I don't know why they're hovering over the motion to close when both of the desysopping remedies have achieved unanimous majority. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a strong expediency argument here. Imagine an editor who repeatedly vandalizes one article, and does fine work on ten in the meanwhile. Does she get blocked? Absolutely. Yes, eventually we can have an arbcom case banning her from certain articles only, but in the meanwhile, she will certainly get blocked in general. Similarly if an admin does bad things with admin tools while meanwhile editing articles, until those admin tools are taken away, I think it reasonable to block temporarily, just because that's all an admin can do; we have 15 EN arbcom members, fewer stewards, but 1000 admins - until the arbcom or stewards can act, which can be a while, the admins need to be the enforcement. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would the arbitrators please comment? We now have both parties to the dispute agreeing this is a proper resolution. Some agreement/disagreement from the arbitrators would be helpful. --Durin 20:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is suspended from administrative status
1) For questionable use of his administrative tools which for whatever intended motive sometimes reflected poorly on the entire community, frequent use of unduly harsh tone in dealing with some users including fellow administrators, and failure to relate appropriately with some administrators, MONGO is suspended from administrative status for a period to be determined in this workshop. After this period he may either apply to the Arbitration Committee for restoration of administrative status or apply for RfA in the normal manner.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed I believe this wording is more accurate (though bulky and as yet unrefined), and provides an opportunity to quantify some appropriate punishment by the community. I will offer a very similar proposal on Seabhcan, and then hope that the community can come to some consensus about a civility parole period. BusterD 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan is suspended from administrative status
1) For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is suspended from administrative status for a period to be determined in this workshop. After this period he may either apply to the Arbitration Committee for restoration of administrative status or apply for RfA in the normal manner.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed I believe this equivalent wording offers the same quantitative option as the above remedy for MONGO. IMHO, I would like to see this remedy tied to a civility parole. I believe this sort of solution offers a way for the ArbCom to be appropriately firm with two troublesome administrators while serving rough consensus. BusterD 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO must reapply for adminship
1) Administrators serve at the will of the community. The evidence, principles, and finding of fact question whether that will still exists. MONGO must re-apply for adminship to judge the will of the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by User:SchmuckyTheCat.
 * As both admins are free to go back to RfA immediately upon desysopping, this is essentially what's happening already, albeit possibly in gentler language. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan must reapply for adminship
1) Administrators serve at the will of the community. The evidence, principles, and finding of fact question whether that will still exists. Seabhcan must re-apply for adminship to judge the will of the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by User:SchmuckyTheCat.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Cplot

 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Cplot


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Blocked by me as a troll/sock of cplot. Thatcher131 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. Thatcher131 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CamperStrike

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Blocked by Shreshth91 for using sockpuppets to evade blocks. --Nuclear Zer0 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:cplot

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Blocked by MONGO for using IP's to evade block and for being a sockmaster. --Nuclear Zer0 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The talk of desysoping had the unintended effect of escalating things beyond where they needed to go. Parole was all that was ever needed to end the personal attacks and name-calling, and is still a better remedy than others. I would hate to see anything implemented that would give joy to people who are basically hostile to Wikipedia - Cplot and the ED trolls. It's hard to see how anything likely to do that could be called a remedy. Tom Harrison Talk 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only ED editor involved is me, and I care nothing for MONGO's admin flag as long as I remain unbanned. I was dragged into this by others, I didn't volunteer evidence on my own and my only evidence will be defending myself, not seeking a remedy against MONGO.  I've also made a little over a hundred unremarkable but helpful edits to Wikipedia articles, so it's clear that I am not hostile to the site.  Your characterization of these events is false.  Milto LOL pia 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please take note the foolhardiness of making any decision based off the whims of supposed "enemies" of Wikipedia. When making Wikipedia edits and decisions, ignore outside influences rather than working to appease or spite them.  That's what I do when editing here after all - I ignore ED and all of its drama, and do a good job of "wearing my Wikipedia hat".  It's an encyclopedia, not a weapon for winning the internet.  Milto LOL pia 01:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)