Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Blocking users for alleged personal attacks and incivility
1) Administrators may not block good faith users for perceived personal attacks or incivility directed against themselves, except in egregious cases, or when alleged personal attacks or incivility are directed against a large number of administrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I disagree that this is a new idea. Administrators have always been cautioned to not use their tools in situations where that they are involved, and users have always tried to claim that administrators that warn/block them are involved. I see this as a minor issue in this case, truly. The bigger problem is that Tango reacted to a comment that a warned editor made on their own user talk page soon after being warned. A snarly response from a warned editor is a normal reaction, and nothing that warrants a block. It would not matter who the administrator doing the block was, it would still be wrong. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * John254 is exactly right - there is an emerging consensus along these lines. That's irrelevant to this case - it's hardly fair to judge my actions according to a policy that only really came into being (and still isn't recognised on any policy pages, to my knowledge) as a result of those actions, is it? --Tango (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, I don't understand what you're trying to say. You link to a page that says being involved as an administrator doesn't count as being involved, and then say I was involved as an administrator in the past... what's your point? --Tango (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * oops. mistyped.  Your previous disputes with MONGO did not involve you being an administrator. (i.e. calling him a fool, opposing his RFA, etc.)  --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the point as made with emphasis on good faith, as admins like any users have the right to fight simple vandalism, although it's largely a restatement of WP:BLOCK and various past ArbCom resolutions. Admins have a position of responsibility and can't be thin-skinned when their actions produce a proportionate if not entirely civil response. If the response is disproportionate, they still don't need to act as others will undoubtedly see it and can make a rational judgment. Orderinchaos 10:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. There seems to be an emerging community consensus that administrators often experience difficulty in impartially judging whether perceived personal attacks or incivility directed against themselves are actually blockable.  If a block of a good faith user in this situation is warranted, an uninvolved administrator will be willing to place it. Of course, administrators who receive insulting messages from vandals or trolls may personally block the offending users. John254 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandals and trolls should be ignored until they do something else blockable, and then be blocked for that. It is really not worth the time and effort to respond directly to a vandal or troll insulting oneself unless they refuse to give up - just hit rollback a few times, then block for the previous offence citing "continued vandalism". See also Ignore personal attacks and my comment at the ANI thread:"'You can still deal with the situation in the following way: Admin B warns User C for incivility to User D. User C responds by being incivil to Admin B. Admin B can either: (1) ignore the incivility directed at him and repeat the warning and say that he will block if there is further incivility directed at other users; or (2) Report both cases of incivility to a noticeboard. In case 2, this should produce Admin E who can review the warning(s) and the incivility and block user C for the incivility. If User C is subsequently incivil to Admin E, this should be ignored. The block is in place, the User should now appeal the block and demonstrate they can be civil. It might seem like a waste of time, but just like sockpuppet cases, if you take a bit more time and do things the right way, a lot of drama and appearance of involvement can be avoided. If admins don't want users being incivil towards them to 'involve' them, then the best way to acheive that is to ignore the incivility towards you - let others deal with that part of the incivility. Trust me - selective ignoring of incivility towards yourself really does work. It is very difficult to say that an admin is involved because of an 'incivil comment towards the blocking admin', when said admin has entirely ignored the said incivil comment and blocked for another reason entirely.'" One response there was that discretionary sanctions were supposed to reduce process, to which my answer is that just a little bit more process can sometimes help to avoid drama. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some clarification would help explain what a "good faith user" is. Apart from vandalism-only accounts, isn't everyone a good-faith user? Also, "may not" should be "should not"; if the goal is to change WP:BLOCK, that should be done via the policy talk page. I do think it seems possible to find consensus to change the policy wording there in light of recent discussion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have been cautioned not to use our tools in a content dispute, not just any old dispute. There is no such policy that prevents an admin from enforcing NPA when they are the recipient of the attack. If that were the case then you could just insult an admin to prevent them from blocking you. If you think this restriction should exist then make a proposal at WT:NPA, or WT:BLOCK, but right now there is just no such rule. undefinedUntil  03:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy and guidelines reflect current practice, which is not always best practice. The better way to change things is to remove instances of bad practice, encourage people to change the way they do things, and then record the new practice in the policy or guideline. Carcharoth (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been a long-standing policy. There are enough admins and editors with long histories are generally not going to destroy the encyclopedia while an enraged admin asks for AN/I.  Tango asked for ANI but after he committed the block.  He could have easily done so before his actions and adhered to this policy.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Long standing policy? I must have missed that, can you show me where? Enraged? Who was enraged? Do you have evidence to support your statements? undefinedUntil  13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * UNINVOLVED. He's involved with MONGO not as an administrator on a number of occasions as I clearly show in the evidence page.   --DHeyward (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what the proposed principal says. If this has something to do with a special involvement, the the principal is far to wide to be accurate. My reading of UNINVOLVED must be different than yours because I don't see it supporting either the proposed principal or what you are describing. undefinedUntil  13:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support if "good faith" is the key word; we shouldn't stop admins from blocking people who vandalise admin pages by saying "U R GHEY". Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you could just revert and let others deal with it. It is not worth the time to block people that post messages like that unless they do it repeatedly. If you block them straightaway, they have got the reaction they were looking for. Better to let them get bored and go away. Carcharoth (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not be blocking people because they were rude to us (e.g. ). Obvious vandals, as in Sceptre's example, can and should be blocked wherever they appear, but if a good-faith editor is just angry at your over one of your actions, then it's best to either a) calmly discuss, b) disengage, or c) if it's especially ugly, have an uninvolved admin review it. This seems common-sensical, and it's been an unwritten part of good practice forever, but given the fact that issues like this keep coming up I think it might be useful to codify this principle in writing. MastCell Talk 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the archives for the civility policy talk page and I have not seen any attempt to gain consensus for this idea(please correct me if I am wrong). I have also not seen this to be a common practice, whenever there is objection to this there are people on both sides of the debate, and more commonly there is no objection at all. I agree with MastCell in that I do think we should codify this, but I think we should codify it in policy based on consensus. I am not sure if arbcom can create policy or not, but regardless I think it is better left to the community to decide(imho). undefinedUntil  16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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.

Template
2) {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
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
1a) Users are expected to interact in a reasonably constructive manner and avoid making personal attacks, incivil remarks, or assumptions of bad faith.

1b) Good faith should be assumed in the absence of contrary evidence. Unwarranted accusations of bad faith are unhelpful and inflammatory. Accusations of motives detrimental to the project, unless accompanied by compelling evidence, can reasonably be interpreted as a personal attack.

1c) Users exhibiting a decorum which is consistently or grossly poor, to the extent that it creates a hostile editing environment and/or damages the reputation of the project, may be blocked for an appropriate length of time to prevent further disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Should be summarised or split into components, but support the sentiments contained within, although 1c seems unnecessary as it isn't in question in the present case. Orderinchaos 10:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I believe these principles are fundamentally sound. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking policy
2) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Blocks should not be used to punish users, and should not be issued in anger or retaliation. If there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, or if a personal motive might reasonably be alleged, other administrators and/or the community should be consulted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Seems a fair wording to me. Orderinchaos 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Amalgamation of principles from a couple of other cases. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sense of this principle; my only quibble is with some of the wording. "If a personal motive might reasonably be alleged..." is potentially troublesome, since the knee-jerk reaction of many blockees is to allege a personal motive, and "reasonable" is a bit of a moving target. Having a low threshold to seek outside input is an excellent idea, though. MastCell Talk 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-awareness
3) It is important for all users to be aware of their own agendas, feelings, and passions toward specific topics and fellow users, and to exercise appropriate restraint, avoiding both biased editing and ill-conceived administrative actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Ineloquently bastardized from somewhere. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) At 14:59, 10 April 2008 Tango issued a discretionary sanction under the provisions of the "September 11 conspiracy theories" case, warning MONGO to "to remain civil at all times and to assume good faith, especially in relation to September 11" . MONGO responded by blanking the warning, with the edit summary "get lost...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned" . Tango responded by blocking MONGO for one week  citing the freshly imposed discretionary sanction. After much discussion, other administrators first reduced the block to 31 hours, then removed it altogether, having reached a consensus that it was inappropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The fact that there was such a consensus is in dispute - it would probably be best to separate this into multiple findings so the undisputed parts (everything except the last 8 words) can be passed regardless of the decision on the final part. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * — CharlotteWebb 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe an important fact is that the initial warning was based on another edit summary that MONGO made on his talk page . IT makes the first warning as much of a reach as the block. This user talk page edit summary was the "trolling" comment that Tango issued the warning for and claimed it wa covered by the arbcom case.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporting search and rescue
2) While overtly dismissive, "get lost" does not exhibit a level of incivility at which blocking would be appropriate or reasonable, regardless of any editing restrictions which may be in effect.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Red herring. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporting conspiracy theorist(s)
3) In his reply to Tango ("if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned"), MONGO appears to assume bad faith by implying that Tango is acting with motives detrimental to the project. This rather serious accusation is not supported by any known evidence, and could be considered an ad hominem attack against Tango. Comments like these are not appropriate, particularly in response to a specific warning to remain civil and assume good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I've had worse. I had no reason to believe that comment was more than an isolated out-burst which was best ignored, and that's still how I see it. --Tango (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Tango. Orderinchaos 10:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DHeyward: I don't recall describing an article complaint as meritless. Could you provide the appropriate diff? I suspect there has been a misunderstanding. I didn't give any judgement on the content issues (they were too complicated to address in the time I had available), so I just dealt with the part that was obvious - MONGO's incivility, and hoped someone with more time and experience in the September 11 issues would address the content problems. I think the content issues and the behavioural issues are separate matters and should be handled separately (someone's edits to an article either improve the article or don't, regardless of their behaviour while making those edits). --Tango (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DHeyward: Yeah, I can see why you might misinterpret that. I wasn't entirely clear. That that intended to be a statement about how the reversion and discussion were conducted, rather than about the merit of the content dispute. In my view, Basboll had been acting in good faith - whether he was right or not, I don't know, and whether he'd acted in bad faith in the past, I don't know, but the actions under immeadiate discussion appeared to be in good faith. That's all I was saying. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Nobody else seems willing to discuss this. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to discuss. The comment is usual mongo speak when there is contention of an issue.  This sort of poor faith is what shot down his recent attempt to be readmin'd.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Basboll has since been topic banned for adding fringe conspiracy elements to these articles. All MONGO did was revert a comment that Basboll put on MONGO's talk page.  MONGO's statement "if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned" is simply an expression of his more extensive knowledge of the situation and I believe accurately reflects the arbcom ruling and WP:FRINGE.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's cut to the chase. By "extensive knowledge", do you mean that Mongo (or arbcom, or anyone else including yourself) has some reason to believe that Tango supports conspiracy theorists (or anyone else) misusing Wikipedia, or would you agree that Mongo is begging the question? — CharlotteWebb 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, MONGO considers Basboll to be a conspiracy theorist that is misusing the website. MONGO dismissed Tango's misguided attempt to support Basboll.  Pointing out that Tango, using admin tools authority, was essentially supporting editors that were misusing the website and that if he continued doing it he should be de-adminned, is basically policy.  I assume Tango wasn't supporting conspiracy theorists so MONGO's statement should have been revelatory to Tango, not accusatory.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't believe warning Mongo to "remain civil at all times and to assume good faith" can be construed as an endorsement of Basboll's editing (or anybody else's) without espousing an "us" vs. "them" mentality.
 * Second of all, how could Mongo's comment be "pointing out" that Tango was inappropriately "using admin tools" in this situation, when his only use of "admin tools" that day (month even) was his block of Mongo after this comment was made. Now, if I squint really hard I can accept this as clairvoyance or, more likely self-fulfilling prophecy, but I also suspect there is some degree of conflation between "admin tools" and "admin status". Voluminous essays could be and probably have been written about whether or not the latter necessarily goes hand-in-hand with the former (and indeed, whether it should count for anything). In short I doubt the arbitration committee would agree with itself either way on that principle, not at face value anyway.
 * Supposing that "adminship" is the sum of "tools" and "status", one user makes an uncivil assumption of bad faith in direct response to a warning to be civil and assume good faith, while the other user misuses his adminship with personal motives in direct response to an accusation that he was misusing his adminship with personal motives. In the end, I can't tell the bull from the matador (exactly how I'd expect the final chapter of Animal Farm to read if printed in Castilian Spanish). — CharlotteWebb 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I used the word tools loosely to include all adminsitrator actions. I was talking about his official capacity warning that he issued using admin authority that he perceived he had from the previous Arbcom ruling.  You're presuming that MONGO's comment was intended to be uncivil.  It was perceived as uncivil, but I don't think it was intended.  The timeline was MONGO reverting Basboll's comment on his talk page, Basboll complaining on ANI about a 9/11 article and then throwing in the talk page revert as uncivil.  By Tango backing up Basboll's talk page civility complaint on ANI and, while at the same time saying his article complaint was meritless, addressing it can be perceived that Tango was reacting to MONGO's history, not the actual complaint.  I think that's backed up by Tango's comments on the MONGO blocked ANI thread.  MONGO telling him to get lost and pointing out that he believes Basboll is a CTer misusing the website and the original meritless ANI should have been a clue to Tango that he was off-base in his warning and to re-examine what he was doing.  MONGO wasn't going to start an RFC on Tango or an ArbCom based on the warning that Tango issued.  I'm sure MONGO simply wanted Tango to rethink supporting Basboll's complaint in any fashion especially since the main complaint was so easily dismissed.  I think it's clear that Tango waded into this with the belief that MONGO's behavior was "a massive and long-standing problem" and "it's time something was done about it."  .  Of all the AGF violations being thrown around, I think that was the biggest.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * reply to Tango above: I paraphrased your reply from here. --DHeyward (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No complaint was about content. Tango, you basically said there was nothing on the article talk page that violated the arbcom decision.  That was Basboll's original complaint.  You threw out the article complaint and said there was nothing actionable on the article.  Then you went to go warn MONGO about actions that MONGO took on his user talk page.  Basbolll had two complaints: the first was the article civility which was meritless, and the second was MONGO's talk page reversion.  I don't think there is any misunderstanding.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gravity
4) Comparing the gravity of the two comments (directed at Tango) in MONGO's edit summary, "get lost" and "if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned", it is reasonable to conclude that the latter comment was a greater factor than the former in Tango's decision to block MONGO.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I can only give you my word, but it wasn't. --Tango (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BusterD: I maintain that a reduced tolerance is appropriate to the situation. We generally tolerate mild incivility on the grounds that people sometimes make regrettable outbursts because they're not thinking about what they're saying. In this case, the incivility was in response to a civility warning, so that excuse doesn't hold, therefore we should not tolerate it. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Pay-dirt. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See what Tango says above. This sounds like "leading the witness", were this a legal case (or at least, an episode of Perry Mason).  --InkSplotch (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can lead a witness to the water, but I can't turn it into wine for them. I've included this because it feels like everyone and their landlady are arguing that (a) the phrase "get lost" is not uncivil (b) therefore Mongo's comment was fine (c) therefore Tango should not have blocked Mongo. While I agree that Tango should not have blocked Mongo, there are some logical holes which I am trying to patch. To me it is incongruous that telling someone to "get lost" could be more offensive than implying that they "support conspiracy theorist[s] misusing this website". Even had he said "go fuck yourself" that would, while blatantly uncivil, still be yards short of a character attack. I believe the finding above is a reasonable interpretation of the situation. Others may exist. Maybe the question of which comment had a greater effect on Tango's psyche is a moot point when determining the outcome of this case, as the block would be considered inappropriate in either situation, but I thought it was worth taking a closer look at this, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. — CharlotteWebb 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to address your point about Mongo's behavior, simply Tango's reasons for acting. It seems odd to suggest these as reasons since Tango hasn't (before now), and he has been quite open about his thougts on this up through now.  I just don't think this would fly as currently worded. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the second statement of MONGO's is close to a summary of the arbcom ruling of 9/11 articles if you replace "deadminned" with "banned".  The second statement taken alone is policy as misusing the website to push WP:FRINGE and POV is prohibited.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the previous "nutshell" box a significantly distressing assumption of bad faith. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen so much bad faith assumption on this page it makes me numb. undefinedUntil  03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you find it's bad faith? Editors don't get to misuse the website for their own agenda.   This is policy.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two assumptions of bad faith. The first is in considering some class of editors "conspiracy theorists" who are "misusing" the site. We have an NPOV policy, but that doesn't mean that people who don't share the dominant point of view must be escorted to the door. The second assumption of bad faith is against administrators who try to apply policy evenhandedly; the idea that they are "supporting" an unwanted group of editors, and thus should be desysoped, might be appropriate if this was a war zone. But WP is intended to be a collegial environment. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IT is no such thing. Please see WP:ANI if you think that there are not editors that intend to misuse the website.  We wouldn't need the ability to block people if we were so naive as to believe there are people out there that are bent on misusing the website.  Indeed we are not so naive and and it is not an assumption of bad faith to oppose editors that want to misuse the website.  I don't particularly care about personal points of view but injecting them into articles is not allowed per policy.  The person MONGO dismissed is currently under ArbCom topic ban for pushing specific POV into those articles.  Admins should not enable those editors to continue under some misguided notion that WP:AGF is ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.  We are here to write the encyclopedia, not build social utopia's.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In this diff, Tango admits reduced tolerance at the time. In another comment in the same thread, Tango said it was time to do something about MONGO's behavior. BusterD (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the above entry I didn't intend to unduly characterize Tango's behavior, I just hadn't seen the phrase "reduced tolerance" used in this process, and I recall my reaction (which I posted in that thread) which did unduly characterize user's behavior and used similar wording. BusterD (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor judgment
5) Tango exercised poor judgment in blocking MONGO. As Tango was the target of MONGO's acrimonious comments, it was not appropriate for Tango to decide whether MONGO should be blocked. It was not reasonable for Tango to expect such a block to be upheld by the community, or that it would be considered preventative rather than retaliatory.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * You want a reason for my absence? I was asleep... I blocked shortly after coming back online (I spent a short amount of time considering and re-reading the ArbCom ruling to make sure I was acting correctly, but that didn't take all that long). I really don't see what the time before the block has to do with anything. Had the block been for a comparable amount of time (such that it would have expired already if it had been done straight away, for example), there that would be an issue, but I blocked for a week - an 8 hour delay is insignificant. --Tango (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with proposal. Orderinchaos 10:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have presented evidence to mitigate this. In the discussion immediately after the block, Tango gave plausible explanations why he considered the block preventative, why he chose a 1 week block, and why he felt he was "uninvolved" per the enforcement criteria of the previous arbitration case. It is not unreasonable to view MONGO's response as a continuation of a pattern of incivility; that viewpoint would favor a preventative block, especially given the previous arbitration case. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge the information does mitigate the appearance of poor judgement. Having said that, I do believe that poor judgement was exercised in any event. Tango's history with MONGO is such that one could reasonably think that his judgement might be less than completely objective. I can and do think that he would have been better advised to seek out another admin in this instance.
 * The delay between comment and block is also a troubling matter, although I acknowledge Tango could have had good reasons for his absence, up to and possibly including giving himself time to consider the possible block. However, a request to a fellow admin would have gotten results more quickly.
 * I don't myself think it makes sense to desysop anyone on the basis of somewhat understandable isolated misjudgements, which might be what happened here. I do think that acting on the basis of pre-conceived prejudices and emotions is another matter entirely. If Tango is found to have simply acted in poor judgement with unfortunate consequences in only this one instance, I think advising him to seek another admin in future such situations would be enough. If Tango is found to have had a significant enough history of similar poor displays of judgement, that might be sufficient for either desysoping or a voluntary "confirmation" !vote. "Significant enough" would be of course a matter for the arbitrators to determine. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Having to get some sleep would be a good reason too. We of course would prefer if everyone were to edit 24-7, but that don't seem real likely somehow. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango
1) Tango is admonished to exercise sounder judgment in issuing blocks. Specifically, he is cautioned to refrain from blocking users in response to comments directed at him, and to more carefully consider the effect of his blocks.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support this one. Orderinchaos 09:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * — CharlotteWebb 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I might add something to the effect of seeking out another admin to perform the block if he were to question his own judgement or believe others might question it in a particular instance. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to append something to that effect, or to strengthen the wording above. — CharlotteWebb 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO
2) MONGO is admonished to remain civil at all times and to assume good faith, especially in relation to September 11. Specifically, he is cautioned to avoid making accusations of impropriety without supportive evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is not particularly stronger than the decorum finding from the previous arbitration case. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since half of it was copied from the "discretionary sanction" issued by Tango to Mongo, so maybe that gesture was equally pointless? More so? Worth considering whether this could ever possibly have done any good (though Tango obviously believed it would, as surely did others) as it seems to have been the catalyst for the escalating chain of events leading up to the present. — CharlotteWebb 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that, since MONGO didn't heed the finding on decorum from the previous arbcom case, a stronger remedy should be considered in this case. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to append something to that effect, or to strengthen the wording above. — CharlotteWebb 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement
(T.B.D.)

User conduct
1) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From a recent case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think more emphasis is needed on the second sentence, so I've made my own proposal 1.1 below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators
2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From recent case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. Orderinchaos 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Perfect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Know yourself
3) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From recent case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I've added a little bit to the list in my proposal 4.1 Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking
4) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From recent case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tweak wording. Still not exactly how I want it worded. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed with sentiment. Any tweaking is unlikely to change the intended meaning. Orderinchaos 10:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to work with the philosophy on these things that if ArbCom go with a proposal they will put a version of it which is in line with their own parameters so wording issues don't matter if the meaning is unambiguous. Orderinchaos 11:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Have made a minor tweak in my proposal below, but ok. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Ok. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reversal of administrator actions
1) If it is known that the administrator who performed an administrative action does not agree to its reversal, the action should not be undone by another administrator without a clear consensus to do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A discussion in another place, such as AN/I, can obviously override an administrator's judgement, and a clearly ridiculous decision without sufficient justification can logically be overturned by anyone so long as they take due care to inform all concerned (I'm not saying this one was in that category, by the way - but this proposal would nuke several very good overturns I've seen in times past). I think collegiality extending into groupthink territory is a real risk with this one and one we can well avoid. Orderinchaos 09:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is not a matter of wheel warring, it's a matter of collegiality to respect decisions of others when no consensus on the matter has yet been established. In this case, the early unblock ended the discussion of the appropriateness of the block itself, turning all attention to Tango and making it more difficult to find resolution on ANI. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how groupthink enters here; the proposal is only that consensus must be plain before someone is unblocked. In this case, because of the hasty unblock, the discussion about the block on ANI did not have time to come to consensus. A few more hours of discussion would have been helpful. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to questions
2) Administrators should respond in a timely manner to questions about administrative actions they have performed, but are not expected to remain active on Wikipedia for 24 hours each day. Those who ask questions of another editor should give him or her a generous amount of time to respond before assuming he or she is inactive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again must be mitigated by the unfairness to the blockee that would result if the entire process has to wait for half a day or longer just because the person who chose to block them is unavailable to discuss the block. If the block is reasonable, it's likely that others can defend it. Orderinchaos 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What happens if someone is blocked for 24 or 31 hours in what turns out to be a bad block, and Wikipedia is unable to unblock them before it expires so at a future time an unfair block is sitting on the person's block record? (I ask this as I have seen this happen on at least one occasion in the past.) As for consensus - there was certainly none to block either - a split emerged early and persisted throughout. Orderinchaos 11:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Another matter of collegiality. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A delay of 24 hours before being unblocked, in order to discuss the block, it perfectly reasonable. A block prevents someone from editing, but doesn't impair them otherwise, and they can certainly find something else to do for a little while. There's no hurry on Wikipedia that makes an unblock after 4 hours better than an unblock after 24 hours. In this particular case, there was no consensus for unblocking at the time MONGO was unblocked... &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, if a block generates ANI discussion that is against the original block log summary, or unclear, and the block expires before the discussion concludes, then it would be best to do a dummy block (or short, 1-second block) to record in the block log the conclusions (or lack of conclusions) of the discussion, along with a permalink URL. It is annoying, when reviewing a block log, to have to scramble around in archives and talk pages to find out "what really happened". Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor judgment (B)
1) Tango demonstrated poor judgment in blocking MONGO. Additional discussion before blocking was warranted. A 1-week block could not be reasonably justified from MONGO's recent edits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, looking at the comments about the block, there was very little (if any) support for a block of this length. If discussion had occurred prior to the block, then Tango would have gotten this feedback. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Is that poor judgement in blocking, or poor judgement in blocking for so long? I think it's an important distinction. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In some instances, it is difficult to separate out the block itself from the length of the block, when the block length is seen as excessive. In this instance, I think that both the block and the block length have been legitimately questioned by different people for different reasons. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they've both been questioned, but I think they are separate questions. Whether to block is usually determined by policy, how long to block for is usually a matter of admin discretion. Bad judgement in implementing policy is very different from bad judgement when using one's discretion. --Tango (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with CBM's proposal and Flonight's subsequent comments. Orderinchaos 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Short and to the point. Allows for mitigating factors to be considered elsewhere. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated, it might be seen to apply to poor judgement for blocking and for blocking so long. If one were to support only one or the other option, the phrasing might reasonably be adjusted. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO admonished
1) MONGO is admonished to edit with appropriate decorum and assume good faith at all times.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Unnecessary as already covered by an earlier sanction, and the overstep here was not so egregious as to warrant a mention. I would support a general reminder to all users along the above lines, however. Orderinchaos 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A personal reminder for decorum, following the general reminder in the previous arbitration case. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this remedy goes through, one should be written regarding Tango. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why? No evidence of incivility by Tango has been presented. This case was precipitated by MONGO's comments; if he had just removed the warning without comment a block would have been much less likely. Any comprehensive solution to the dispute needs to address the cause of the block in addition to the block itself. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily need to be about incivility; what about the indefinite restriction he placed on MONGO, for instance? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This case was not precipated by MONGO's comments, rather it was precipated by Tango's meritless block. Consensus seems to  be that Tango excercised poor judgement and this particular remedy seems to say "don't provoke Tango's poor judgement."   --DHeyward (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the evidence I presented shows, there is no consensus that Tango's block was meritless. But I am sure we can agree that, had MONGO not commentd as he did, he would not have been blocked. We shouldn't ignore those who escalate these sorts of conflicts. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe your estimate of "no consensus" is incorrect. The fact that we are here in ArbCom and this wasn't resolved as "no concnsus" on ANI is prima facie evidence that indeed there was consensus that the block was meritless and that there was consensus that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing that it should be reviewed by ArbCom.  If an admin becomes a "random number generator" in terms of what comments will set him to block an editor, I find it difficult to support any kind of sanction on an editor that didn't correctly guess the days random number.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope Arbcom is not also so willing to ignore when numerous editors speak in support of a block. I think it would be a mistake to focus on Tango's action apart from MONGO's; both editors need to change in some ways. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are off-base, though you are entitled to your view. Mongo served his time (16 hours blocked), and unless there is evidence that Mongo's disputed behaviour continued/continues after the block, then this proposal is not necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User conduct
1.1) Editors are expected to maintain an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms. Occasional mistakes or misjudgements are compatible with this; perfection is not expected. However, editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct. Strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators
2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Per FloNight. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility
3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake. They must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner, and should refrain from such an action that cannot be justified.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. I do think that, except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism or other "hot" issues where immediate and clear action is needed and provided for, the onus is on admins to justify why they act. Orderinchaos 11:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Know yourself
4.1) It is therefore important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their capabilities, agendas, feelings, passions, and overall state of mind. Administrators are expected to deal with them appropriately; avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A well-worded proposal which captures the odd situation admins find themselves in rather well. Orderinchaos 10:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking
5) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators must exercise extreme care when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. Blocking should be a last resort move in the event of failure of dialogue or other means of addressing the issue, especially when the actions upon which the block is based are not causing harm to the encyclopaedia or its editors. Orderinchaos 11:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Per FloNight. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact
tbn = to be numbered

Evaluation of the block
tbn) There was insufficient evidence to justify blocking for a week.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. Orderinchaos 10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template
tbn) {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.

Tango is prohibited from blocking editors
1) is prohibited from giving final warnings and/or performing blocks on any editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Still working on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {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
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement
1) Remedies: The 9/11 articles are placed under the mentorship of three to five uninvolved administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Given the tremendous public interest in these articles and the perception of Wikipedia as to some degree a reference source by many, I don't think such a stiff remedy would actually have the desired effect and could risk backfiring. Also I could foresee those 3-5 admins having a very hard time and coming under a lot of fire simply for doing a job. Orderinchaos 09:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Solution from Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Inclusionist (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The CTers add CT stuff, not revert.  This would be a greenlight to add any BS as it couldn't be reverted.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors talk pages
1) Unless explicitly noted in the ruling, editors talk pages are not part ArbCom article sanctions. Editors cannot bait other editors into violating an ArbCom article sanction by making inflammatory posts on an editors talk page.  Editors have the right to can revert warnings and comments on their talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed --05:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Civility and decorum findings ought to cover all edits. The last sentence is no good. There aren't rights on wikipedia. Ignoring that, the issue was not the removal of the comment but the edit summary accompanying it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was for user talk page comments unrelated to the 9/11 Arbcom case
1) Tango blocked MONGO for two comments on MONGO's talk page. Tango improperly justifed the block with the 9/11 ArbCom ruling.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

Tango is desysopped
1) is desysopped.  He can regain his adminship after a year and standing for reconfirmation.  Adminship is no big deal.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * John, could you at least try and assume good faith? If not towards me, then at least towards the fairly significant portion of the community that aren't too fond of MONGO. It is perfectly possible to behave fairly and rationally towards someone you don't like, so unless you have a reason to assume otherwise, you should assume people didn't let their feelings from past events get in the way of their decision making. You can accuse me of whatever you like, I'll live, but accusing everyone that's been annoyed by MONGO in the past of being out to get him at all costs is just a step too far. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While Tango's conduct in general was well below par for what we would expect of an admin in this situation, and I am reasonably convinced that he was unable to separate his personal feelings from the process, I think a suspension or mentoring would be a more acceptable remedy. I remind people of the Jeffrey Gustafson ArbCom a year ago which suspended the admin bit for 30 days in response to a case of poor judgement, then restored it to him automatically. Orderinchaos 09:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think obligating him to wait an entire year before re-applying would imply that it is a very big deal. — CharlotteWebb 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Overly harsh, given evidence that a significant number of other editors supported Tango's block of MONGO and Tango's reasonable behavior in seeking review after the block. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Carl, without passing comment on the suggested remedy were those editors who supported the block uninvolved and had no previous issues with MONGO? From my understanding he is well-known and many users do not like him such that they'd probably support any block made against him for any reason whether it was valid or not. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I expect that some of them have interacted with MONGO before, as have some of the people who argued against the block. In general, well established editors will have interacted with a lot of people, so we can't expect everyone to be uninvolved in an absolute sense. For example, 247 editors, presumably including many admins, participated on MONGO's recent RFA. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Way over the top. -- Naerii  17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about a desysopping for one month, upon which his rights may be restored automatically, and/or he must undergo a reconfirmation RFA? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Far, far too harsh. Neıl ☎  13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick general comment. Adminship is a big deal, otherwise we should hand it out on an "autoconfirmed" basis.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango is desysopped
1a) is desysopped.  He can regain his adminship after a month and standing for reconfirmation.  Adminship is no big deal.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed per suggestion. The time off isn't the issue. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, if you're going to propose something like this, I think the best approach would be no de-sysoping per se but rather a fairly immediate "confirmation" vote. If he were to lose that, using whatever percentage is required (I don't know), then maybe desysop him. But I'm personally not at all sure that this is cause enough for desysoping. And while I agree "adminship is no big deal", having it taken away from you is something else entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango to undergo reconfirmation
1b) is to undergo a reconfirmation RFA, following the conclusion of this case.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a resolution of which the outcome would be dead certain, and I'm not sure it'd be fair. Orderinchaos 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per above. Several people (including myself) called for recall on his talk page; however, he was not open for recall. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that I added text on enforcing this, which is directly linked to this remedy. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The last time this was tried was here and turned RFA into a lynching contest rather than a popularity contest. The case was quickly sent back to the ArbCom, and the idea of automatic reconfirm RFAs has never been tried since. For good reason. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango is prohibited from enforcing ArbCom sanctions
2) is prohibited from enforcing ArbCom sanctions.  After a year he can petition the ArbCom committee for reinstatement.  Violations will result in Tango's block pending review by ArbCom.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Would support if the wording included "...against editors with whom he has any past involvement or engagement". Like CharlotteWebb says, this would be a separate consideration from desysopping. Orderinchaos 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be considered as an alternative to de-sysopping, rather than in addition to it. If he is de-sysopped in this case, but gains enough of the community's trust to pass a new RFA in mid-2009, he should not be obligated to petition Arbcom. — CharlotteWebb 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting alternative, DH. I think it's fair, though I don't know whether that should be the only remedy or just one of several. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango is prohibited from sanctioning editors
3) is prohibited from sanctioning editors.  He still do AfDs, page protection and other admin tasks that do do not require blocking or warning editors.  After a year he can petition the ArbCom committee for reinstatement.  Violations will result in Tango's block pending review by ArbCom.

3a) (reworded for vagueness cited below) is not allowed to block any editor or leave block warnings on user talk pages.  He is restricted to those admin functions related to process and housecleaning including protecting articles, closing AfDs, rollback, page move/deletions and the like.  He may use ANI and the vandal reporting pages to request blocks and warnings.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sanctioning" is too vague. If by "sanctioning" you mean "issuing discretionary sanctions based on an Arbcom decisions which authorize them", it is probably redundant (as a sub-set) to being "prohibited from enforcing ArbCom sanctions". Maybe you meant something broader than that, but still narrower than "prohibited from blocking, except for obvious vandalism", but it ought to be clarified. Whatever it means, this too should be waived if he passes a new RFA. — CharlotteWebb 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Charlotte that this is too vague - it needs to be more specific. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, thank you for the clarification. The added context makes it obvious that you meant "don't" rather than "do" in the first version (see strike-through and bolding above). — CharlotteWebb 13:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the only issue has arisen with sanctioning MONGO, this should be restricted to "Tango is prohibited from sanctioning MONGO". There has been no evidence provided regarding Tango's interactions with any other editor; I can only presume this is because they have been wholly uncontroversial and valuable. Preventing such interactions in future would be wasteful. Better to target the remedy toward the area where an issue exists. Unless of course this is intended solely to punish Tango for enforcing an Arbcom ruling stringently. Neıl ☎  13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some others on the evidence page in my section and I think a few more. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think it is safe to say he is already under the sanction of being prohibited from sanctioning MONGO, --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango is prohibited from issuing blocks more than 15 minutes
4) is prohibited from issuing blocks that exceed 15 minutes in length.  He may not block the same editor more than once every 30 days.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Making it similar to 1RR restrictions placed on editors.  Per propsed decision talk page.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmation of adminship

 * 1a) Following the conclusion of the case, Tango is to undergo a reconfirmation RFA on Requests for adminship.
 * 1b) Following the conclusion of the case, Tango is to undergo a reconfirmation RFA on Requests for adminship. Should he refuse to do this, he will be desysopped, pending reconfirmation.
 * 1c) Following the conclusion of the case, Tango is to undergo a reconfirmation RFA on Requests for adminship. Should he refuse to do this, any three uninvolved administrators may request his desysopping by a steward on Meta, pending reconfirmation.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with CharlotteWebb - 1c is unnecessary, it would be much easier for ArbCom to request the desysopping in the same way they usually do (whatever that is). --Tango (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think drama tends to overrun reconfirmation RfAs (either pile-ons by people with little knowledge of the case who see the word "ArbCom", or a quasi-referendum on the entire subject of reconfirmation RfAs) and they should be used in very limited contexts, of which this is not one. Orderinchaos 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed enforcement. 1a is the base enforcement, 1b and 1c are variations to that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The hurdle added in "1c" is trivial enough to make it functionally identical to "1b". — CharlotteWebb 12:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reconfirmation RFAs are of dubious benefit, as Sjakelle mentions above, frequently causing more problems than they resolve. Neıl ☎  13:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Vested Contributors
1) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Taken from the Durova case. I think it's fitting here too.  Kwsn   (Ni!)  00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's needed here. However, the last line is very important to all cases, so I have included it in my proposal 1.1 Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {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:

Template
2) {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.

Template
2) {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
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arbitration enforcement guidelines be changed
Arbritration enforcement can often be a very touchy subject, and one which could very easily become divisive. It is in no way a criticism of admins in general, or of any admins involved in this particular dispute, that it may often be the case that, for whatever reason, certain admins, who may well be extremely effective and valuable in other areas, are, as it were, not cut out for arbitration enforcement, possibly in general, possibly only in particular circumstances. It is proposed that arbitration enforcement policies and guidelines be amended in such a way as to limit enforcement actions to admins who are clearly not involved in a given dispute in any way, and who have no prior history with a given editor being considered for AE sanctions which might be seen as being potentially problematic.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. Just as some very good editors are not cut out to be admins, some very good admins are not cut out to be enforcers. The meaning of "uninvolved" seems to have been the issue of contest here. Orderinchaos 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Preventative not punitive
The ability to block users exists as a means to prevent damage or harm to the encyclopaedia, and should be used only when damage or harm is likely or anticipated by the editor retaining the ability to edit. It should not be used in a punitive manner.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Orderinchaos 09:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Adminship suspended
Tango's adminship is suspended for a period of 30 days.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied from Gustafson case concluded 21 August last year. It anticipates that the admin bit will be restored by a bureaucrat on the 31st day. Orderinchaos 09:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Interesting idea. I might suggest 2 months simply because a month isn't that long - but after a month (with the same amount of time coming up) things might change. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {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:

Template
2) {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.

Template
2) {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
2) {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

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:

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:
 * If our rulings, including our newish discretionary sanctions rulings, are going to be successful then need to get our administrators on the same page with the Committee. While it is true that blocks can be over turned, damage is already done on several fronts.


 * Perhaps we need to make it common practice that user's specifically named under our sanctions are not blocked outside of our sanctions without consulting with the Arbitration Committee first. And additionally, blocks done under discretionary sanctions ruling, need to stick to the spirit of our other common practices such as an admins ignoring heated comments on an user's own talk page, especially about a warning from the admin. In some ways, I see this as returning to a previous time when it was highly unusual for established users with many good edits to be blocked with out a really really good reason.


 * However, I see the situation with single purpose accounts somewhat differently. These new users need to have Wikipedia policies explained to them, but if they continue to be unable to contribute within our core policies, including our content policies, then admins need to use discretionary sanctions enforced by blocks. On these controversial and high attention articles, there is a continuing influx of users with the same point of view. I see the articles getting overloaded with editors that are not able to follow our content policies. This causes the discussion pages to be focused on dealing with new user issues at the same time that they are dealing with issues related to chronic pov pushers. This mix causes the content discussions to never reach a satisfactory conclusion. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I am hopeful that it is only the one or two admins of the overwhelming majority that are not on the same page as the ArbCom - if this is the case, then it is perhaps not necessary for admins to consult the ArbCom first before performing the block. It is, after all, not unreasonable for the ArbCom to expect all admins, at all times, to act reasonably, and within Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and :) norms. This includes that where admins are expected to ignore heated comments that are directed to them on their talk page after they gave a user a warning. I will (when I find the time) say a lot about the next paragraph (agreeing, disagreeing and adding extra), and even narrow it to some extent to cultural and ethnic content disputes, but I don't think this is the place for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I've changed my mind after a recent ArbCom request - I think it may be necessary for admins to consult the ArbCom first before enforcing any discretionary sanctions or blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it might be acceptable to do as FloNight suggested, and make it a general procedure (always allowing specific exceptions for completely unacceptable behavior) for no blocks to be made against established editors who have been placed on restrictions to not be made without prior reporting to AE. Many/most of us will have gotten a few enemies over our time, and it would make sense to ensure that we aren't, as it were, judged by our enemies. Defining "established" for these terms might be a bit of a problem though. And I would also agree that these wouldn't necessarily apply to SPA or new users. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid of an "us versus them" mentality that requires new users to follow a higher standard of conduct than established users. If any group of users can be expected to know our norms and act with decorum, it's the users who have been here the longest. This is underscored by the foundation principle that invites all people to edit our articles, whether or not they read our policies first. Established editors who are uncomfortable with this principle should avoid participating in articles that attract many new editors. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not—we should encourage more competent users to edit in these areas, not less. Hence, I think Flo's comments are good ones, and agree with Ncmvocalist and John Carter above. The current system is too haphazard and gameable. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In this context, though, "competent editors" means those who can cope with and work with new editors. In practice this means exceedingly placid, calm and experienced editors, who can sidestep the rhetoric and incivility, and move things forward. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not unreasonable to expect editors to be as competent as possible. Indeed, it is a necessity to encourage competent editors to participate as much as possible in these areas, if we want the project to follow its intended purpose. There are several problems with 'established' - certain editors (having been here for so long and contributing to several dyks or a few fas) are claimed to be, or claim that they are 'established'. This somehow has provided immunity to them, even if they have had a strong tendency to engage in disruptive editing and/or unseemly conduct, which can include inflaming disputes and/or gaming the system (and they constantly get away with it based on their contributions for example). Such editors do more harm by deterring several editors from the project, and should not be tolerated. So, we need to change the requirement. By 'competent', there is a meaning that editors are not merely contributing to the project, but are at the same time, following the principles of Wikipedia, whether it be in the form of policies, guidelines or norms. Encouraging competent editors to participate is the only way this project will more effectively (and successfully) achieve its purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a point to that statement. Clearly, as I think we all know, there are at least a few editors who are very good in their field, and make several valuable contributions, but whose tempers or conduct are such that they may be less than completely "positive" to the project. My guess would be, if an established editor has a history of dubious conduct, possibly including somewhat regular warnings or comments to that effect, RfCs, or similar, then they might reasonably be subject to more regular penalty than they have necessarily received to date. However, this statement, I believe, is intended to only address editors who have already been involved in a case which ArbCom has ruled on. I would imagine in most such cases even somewhat regularly disruptive experienced editors might be subject to such restrictions, and all such decisions would require a previous ArbCom case and ruling of some sort. I very much doubt a long history including borderline conduct would be sufficient for even a long-term editor to be free from the possibility of being sanctioned on the basis of extant rulings, which is I believe what is being proposed here. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Flonight, I agree with everything you say, except the "single purpose accounts" statement. Your suggestion favors established editors over new ones. I strongly plead that any arbcom decision be universal. That there is no exceptions for anyone and everyone be treated equally.

There are so many arguments about what a "single purpose account" is. Adding the SPA statement to the decision will not only cause disputes about what a "single purpose account" is (like on the 9/11 arbcom), but it will unfairly advantage established users and admins over new accounts. PLEASE reconsider.

"These new users need to have Wikipedia policies explained to them" This will not happen Flonight. Admins will block without warning or consultation, as they have already done despite the Sept 11 arbcom enforcement.

I suggest a similar remedy as Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine:
 * Remedies: The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage.

How about:


 * Perhaps we need to make it common practice that user's specifically named under our sanctions are not blocked outside of our sanctions without consulting with "the mentorship of three to five administrators" first.

Arbcoms are busy, better to have three to five uninvolved administrators be named to police these articles. These three to five administrators can then more deeply view the evidence.

I find that usually admins and arbcoms rubber stamp the decisions of other admins and arbcoms, with shallow investigation. This gives established editors an extreme advantage over new and inexperienced users. Inclusionist (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only ArbCom ruling necessary here is to forbid Tango from sanctioning MONGO in future. The rest of Tango's work (99.9% of his admin work) has been exemplary, and inhibiting this would only harm the project. The root cause of this case is antagonism (perceived or otherwise) between Tango and MONGO; if this is suppressed by a targeted ruling, both can go their separate ways and this will be done with. Neıl  ☎  13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Neil on this. Though the larger issue of enforcement of discrecionary sanctions does need attention.  I'm not generally infavor of codifying a double standard of behavior.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that Tango is prohibited from sanctioning MONGO at this point. And there are concerns about other actions Tango has committed.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One minor one regarding the extension of a 3RR block, and one from way back in 2006 about using rollback appropriately, both raise by yourself. Nothing particularly major. If there are other concerns (I don't think there are), they need to be posted to the evidence page.  As it is, I think if Tango is willing to refrain from admin actions involving MONGO, and make a statement as such, this whole case would become moot. Neıl  ☎  07:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom is not necessarily limited to merely forbidding Tango from sanctioning Mongo ever again, as he exercised such poor judgement that was so clearly and utterly unacceptable. If there is any doubt that he may lose self-control again from following such core principles as an admin, against ANY editor, then a tighter remedy will need to be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "such poor judgement" ... "clearly and utterly unacceptable" ... "lose self-control" ... exaggerate much? Neıl ☎  17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the MONGO and the 3rr incidents show an overly punitive character, and the protection of Rachel Marsden's user page on an explicitly preferred version last month raises questions about judgement. His failure to acknowledge any problem with these actions to date suggests that there is a problem bigger than simply the actions themselves - had he apologised I would probably have advocated little more than a slap on the wrist, as people do have bad days. Orderinchaos 21:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See, Ncmvocalist, that's how to keep the debate grounded. I still believe Tango's actions were within the relevant Arbcom ruling.  He should have exercised better judgement in getting involved with an editor he has had run-ins with in the past, yes, but was a block of some kind for MONGO warranted?  Yes.  Was it overly harsh?  Probably, yes. Neıl  ☎  17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No exaggeration, which is why I suspect the proposed principles and decision is as it is. I don't believe his actions were within the relevant ArbCom ruling - the ruling did not specify, or even imply that core policy can be disregarded (see the reasons why 3 arbitrators accepted this case). I am a little concerned that you hesitate in your assessment whether a block of this length was harsh. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A month would clearly have been harsh. A week isn't that long for blocking an editor operating under Arbcom restrictions who had just repeatedly breached them, then responded incivilly to a politely-worded warning.  If it had been me dealing with it, I probably would have gone for 24 hours, not a week, but a block, yes.  Although I have a feeling I wouldn't have needed to - I believe MONGO only responded incivilly because of who the warning came from - again, this goes back to the sole ruling this RfArb needs to make, which is for MONGO and Tango to play in different places at all times, as their's antagonism between the two. Anything else Arbcom decides to slap Tango with will be punitive, and wholly non-preventative. Neıl  ☎  09:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The core principle (I was referring to) needs to always be kept in mind by all admins: "administrators are expected to refrain from issuing blocks in response to personal attacks directed at them." Then to the length of a block on MONGO if there was to be one: if I'm not mistaken, many admins agree that about 24 hours would be the length - 7 times that amount (or so) is manifestly excessive. Had the block been a month or longer, (at minimum) a very lengthy suspension would need to be considered (as a break for him to think, and adjust his approach accordingly so that this sort of thing doesn't happen in the future). Given that, I think the 4-7 arbitrators who've voted have got it right. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)