Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision

Protection removed by MONGO on September 11, 2001 attacks
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but the article talk page had moved into discussion regarding specifics from outright edit warring. A main source for the edit warring, User:Cplot, has been found to be using sockpuppets, was blocked, with the block noted on WP:ANI for review. More recently, people have been discussing on the talk page if/how to mention the Iraq War and War on Terrorism in this article, whether or not to include a particular link, and other specifics. I had tried semi-protection back on November 29th, and another admin quickly came in and gave it full protection. I think semi-protection is fine, as it protects from sockpuppets and blatant vandals while allowing other folks to edit. MONGO didn't explicitly ask on the talk page if it was time to unprotect it, but could sense that it was time (from seeing the talk page discussions) to allow folks to edit the page. I have been gradually working to source the article better, and am glad to be able to work on it again. --Aude (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
From workshop talkpage

Looks like a lynching, not a just settlement...I was never seeking a desyopping of Seabhcan and all I wanted was a NPA and civility settlement. I would be more than happy to have the same applied to me. Three of the "reason" I am supposedly have abused my sysop tools are ridiculous:
 * On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing.
 * As I mentioned in my evidence, I did this to PREVENT Cplot from going over 3RR...I protected the page on a version I didn't even like! There was an edit war that I was not currently involved in...I thoiught at that time Cplot was just a edit warrior...not the abusive troll he turned out to be...if I had known earlier, I wouldn't have protected the page on HIS version and just let him instead violate 3RR. The material being argued about between Cplot and others wasn't even things I was involved in...the diffs demostrating I had edit warred are from six weeks PRIOR to my protecting the article.


 * On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks, which was protected after a dispute he was involved in.
 * I removed the FULL protection and instead changed it to semi-protection since the persons who had been edit warring had either been blocked or had moved on...it's that simple. There is no abuse here...what on earth are they talking about? I haven't even edited the article since I reduced the full protection to semi...


 * On November 13, MONGO unprotected Operation Gladio, which was protected during an edit war involving Seabhcan, with whom MONGO was in a dispute.
 * This wasn't done maliciously! I didn't do this to adversely impact Seabhcan and I don't think I have edited that article much at all...not once that I can see in the last 500 edits...going back to the beginning of 2006!--MONGO 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned clearly in my evidence that there was an Rfc regarding my 48 hour block on Pokispksy76. I agreed with most of those that stated I shouldn't block anyone I could be seen to be in a content dispute with...I agreed with the majority of persons who stated this...I didn't sit there and blatently disagree with them. I also stated in evidence that my threat to block Salvnaut was a poor judgement...and after seeing the commentary at AN/I...I didn't block him. Had CBD and others been unsatisfied with that Rfc, they could have brought it to arbcom then, not six months later.--MONGO 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply think you are not suited to be an administrator. Please don't take this personally, it is an opinion reached after an evaluation of the facts. It is clear that you unblocked yourself in a dispute, misusing your blocking tools, that you protected to your preferred version in a dispute in which you were involved, misusing your protection tools, that you repeatedly used rollback in a content dispute, misusing your rollback button, that you were even edit warring in the first place, causing doubt as to your administrative judgment, and that you have yet to recognize that any of these behaviors were wrong.
 * Dmcdevit seems to have much lower tolerance than other arbitrators for admins who (in his view) misuse their authority
 * and has proposed desysopping in other cases. Usually he is outvoted by the other arbitrators and some form of warning or caution is voted instead.  Since Fred has withdrawn the case from voting, presumably he intends to add additional proposals setting up a foundation for his split vote on the dual desysopping and/or adding some additional remedies like civility parole or probation.  The remaining arbitrators will vote on everything, and may even make their own alternate proposals.  Thatcher131 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing Dmcdevit of anything, only asking he reexamine his evidence of desysopping based on protecting pages. In the three instances I see there that list that, not once is there evidence I have violated the policy...I have commented on this above and on the evidence page.--MONGO 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can remember (and there have been a lot of cases) I have only supported two failed desysopping proposals (recently, Bucketsofg and back in April, MarkSweep). (Your quote is about the passed desysopping of Fys.) Statements like "Usually he is outvoted by the other arbitrators and some form of warning or caution is voted instead" tend to distract from arguments about the actual merit of the proposal. I don't disagree that I'm generally more proactive about administrative misconduct than others on the current arbcom, but I think it does us good, and I also wouldn't have proposed these if I didn't think they had a high chance of passing. (And just to note, I will comment on MONGO's response as well.) Dmcdevit·t 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done thousands of admin actions, so in my case, we are talking about a "screw-up" ratio of less than a few tenths of a percent. Out of 430 something blocks, I get not even 5 "wrong"...so a better average than 99% right is grounds for desysopping? In those extremely few times when I blocked someone and another admin overturned it, not once did I wheel war with them, not once.--MONGO 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After seeing partisans in this case go after each other with the long knives (although not necessarily MONGO and Seabhcan themselves), I wasn't at all surprised to see your proposals to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan. I was trying to offer some historical context for those who do not follow arbitration cases extensively and may have been shocked by your proposal.  I think your comments about not having confidence in someone as an admin are useful and instructive, and give insight into your proposal here, which I why I brought them up for the parties.  I suppose I mentioned the fact that previous proposals have not passed to in some way reassure the parties, but of course, each case and each proposal should be decided on its own merits, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the desysopping proposal was in any way out of bounds.  I apologize if I overstepped in any way. Thatcher131 12:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From my vantage point, Arbitrator McDevit is desysop-obsessed. In my case he proposed desysopping immediately and on the basis of actions which were not the subject of the case. Nor did I ever 'wheel war' (an overused phrase). In other words, he was perfectly happy to form conclusions without ever asking about the circumstances. Does it "do us good"? No it bloody well doesn't. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cplo ... Airline ... whoever
'''Mongo, does not have even the rudimentary skills to understand that everything here on Wikipedia is archived for everyone to see. Therefore it is clear to anyone who wants to check the record that everything Mongo says is a lie. Just as an examplee, look into the edit warring with Cplot. Cplot was blocked for violating the 3rr rule after only 3 reverts. The second violation was for maintaining an POV tamplate on the September 11 2001 attacks article and nothing else. Clearly it was a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia policies to join in a tag-team to edit war with Cplot to stop a POV template from being placed there. Finally, the claim that Mongo protected the Steven E. Jones article to prevent Cplot from violating the 3rr is nonsense since Cplot was edit warring to keep defamatory material out of the article which is not subject to the 3rr.''' Mongo and his chorot are simply a menace to Wikipedia. They should all be permanently banned. I can think of no other suitable solution to these problems plaguing Wikipedia''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirlineToHeaven (talk • contribs)


 * Protection of cplot ... "cohorts" ... fan of Steven E. Jones ... extreme view ... I wonder who this is. How is it you even bumped into MONGo if you only made this one edit? There is also the tell tale tripple capital. --Nuclear Zer0 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A question about the history of dispute resolution
I have a few questions about where this is going. Premise: To me, the most important distinction between MONGO and Seabhcan is dispute resolution - both editors have had some problems, but when an RFC was initiated for MONGO, he listened to the comments, agreed to try to be more civil, and, as far as I can tell, was in fact more civil. In response to his RFC, Seabhcan was only willing to agree to be more civil or to avoid misusing admin privileges as part of a global settlement with other editors. (This seems obvious to me from the existing evidence page, but if anyone wants me to add diffs here, let me know).

Given that premise, I have the following questions/suggestions


 * 1) What is the scope of review of the Arb Comm proceeding? The conclusion regarding MONGO's misuse of his admin tools rests in part on his treatment of PokiPsy76, an issue that was successfully resolved through dispute resolution. The Workshop also contains proposals relating to MONGO's dispute with Miltopia, which is, as far as I can tell, a leftover ED dispute that has never been through DR.  I know that ArbComm scrutinizes the behaviour of all parties to a dispute, but is it really beneficial to sanction someone for behavior already resolved through DR, or never taken to DR?
 * 2) Desysopping: Assuming that Seabhcan and MONGO are otherwise productive admins, it seems to me that a more narrowly tailored remedy might be preferable - is it possible to put both editors on probation against using their admin tools on any 9/11 related articles? There's a little slack in the "current conflict" policy that allows both editors to argue that at least some of their admin actions were not related to a "current conflict."  Without pointing fingers, they're both closely enough identified with the general subject that a general subject limitation would probably remove some of the drama.  Thanks, TheronJ 16:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you, Seabhcan asked for a larger group to be involved in the dispute resolution, the problem was not based on issues involving 1-on-1 confrontations, hence 1-on-1 solutions make little sense. It should also be noted that the person who brought forth Seabhcan's RfC as noted in my evidence section, did not want to engage Seabhcan to find a solution, the RfC was brought so Seabhcan would stop doing XYZ, not so everyone actions can be evaluated or that a resolution can be worked out. For example I proposed a middle ground a set of rules everyone can work by and Tom simpyl dismissed them out right without wanting to hear it, basically stating that Seabhcan had to stop doing XYZ, no interest in counter arguement or hearing what others were doing etc. I have already written, this should have never gotten to this step because the RfC was fake, its not that it was a failure, its that it was never an attempt to resolve anything. --Nuclear Zer0 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are not credible. Ganser is a by no means unique case of a once respected academic who has embraced the fringe. The extent to which Wikipedia lends credence to his, and similar, ideas brings descredit on those of us who edit here. I think that is the consensus of Wikipedia editors, most of whom are like me and have no desire to become embroiled in the conflict over the content of those articles. MONGO has endeavored to maintain some balance in these articles and, as such, has been the target of savage and sustained attacks. I'm concerned that the result of this arbitration may be to encourage those determined to impose their fringe beliefs on Wikipedia to provoke those in opposition until the arbcom rules against them. The result may be an increased level of incivility and conflict and a degradation of article quality.
 * I think that the desysoping remedies are disproportionate, especially with regard to MONGO. They could have a chilling effect on administrators who might choose not to bring their concerns to arbcom, if they thought that a likely outcome was desysoping. I encourage the committee to consider more narrowly tailored remedies as TheronJ suggests above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I came to my position regarding MONGO reluctantly. Put simply, he has consistently reacted immaturely. This is not acceptable behavior from an administrator who regularly attempts to grapple with controversial matters. He was never alone in his struggle. We simply cannot accept poorly sourced information. If we do, there will be more nice little articles in the New York Times like this one. And they won't be quaint criticisms about the Chinese Wikipedia; they will seriously attack us as an unreliable source. If those who he struggled with are encouraged, they are quite mistaken if they think the road is open for poorly sourced information. Fred Bauder 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I pointed out that Miltopia was stalking my edits to the admins who overturned my block without asking me first why I had blocked him. My indefinite block was severe...but indefinite, as a number of admins have pointed out, is not the same as permanent...had the other admins stepped back and said, gee, maybe we should just reduce the block to 24 hours, then I would have had no problem with that. Instead, when faced with the evidence I provided deonstrating his stalking, they decided I was incorrect. Miltopia repeatedly told me to not stalk him and I never once was doing this...he was. Subsequent to my block of him, he has also shown up on a few other things I worked on, including to cast an oppose vote on a Rfa for one of my nominees...he never voted on an admin nominee before and the only way he would he would be doing so that I can see is if he was stalking my edits. I did thousands of admin actions and got several wrong...my ratio of something like 99.7 percent decent actions is rewarded with a desysopping because I wasn't always nice when people refused to help me defeat harassment and trolling. As far as maturity...well, I can proudly state that I never once made a comment as you did here.--MONGO 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, but see some more: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO. Fred Bauder 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seabhcan doesnt add poorly sourced information just because you do not agree with it. You have been asked to prove that accusation and instead ignored Seabhcan after pointing him to an irrelevant location. --Nuclear Zer0 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but a lot of noise in that direction. Done now anyway. Fred Bauder 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of apologizing you make excuses, very nice. Sounds like someone I would want writing proposals in my ArbCom hearing, someone who fails to apologize or admit being wrong. --Nuclear Zer0 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Mongo desysopped
I would like to urge ArbCom to reject the proposed decision to desysop Mongo. The evidence page has a lot of diffs that claim to show a large amount of abuse, but much of it is refuted there (and on this page ) and some of the evidence is quite old. In addition, as you can see from his talk page he still has substantial community support and more over there does not seem to be a great deal of general support for this remedy. I understand that Arbcom doesn't need the communities consent for it's decisions but I don't believe that the evidence rises to the level needed for this desysopping. In fact, there's has been little in the way of actual admin abuse on his part.

It also seems to me that because (imo) there isn't a watertight case for it, Mongo's willingness to admit fault and take criticism should show Arbcom members that desysopping is too strong of a measure and see that it borders on punishment. Mongo does a lot of heavy lifting here, and has suffered a lot of abuse. That does not excuse his (self-admitted) mistakes, but his willingness to (slowly but surely) learn from them makes this proposed decision much too severe at this point and threatens to drive an editor away that has considerable community support. Probabtions if you must, but not this punishing desysopping. Rx StrangeLove 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC) It looks like administrative parole became an option as I was writing this. Rx StrangeLove 19:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it did. ;) Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Except, it's being defeated an ArbCom is now 6-0 in favor of desysopping. I strongly concur with Rx StrangeLove. This "remedy" isn't a remedy. It's a beating based on flimsy evidence. --Durin 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit's position on administrative parole
I don't follow the argument that administrative patrol amounts to punative blocking. The point of the blocks seems to be to be to stop disruptive behavior in the form of bad administrative actions. How is this different than any other block for disruptive behavior? I would think that admins are already subject to being blocked for disruptive admin actions, and this administrative patrol remedy is inline with the other types of remedies commonly proposed in arbitration cases. —Doug Bell talk 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Disruptive admin actions tend to result in desysoppings in the past, actually, if my memory serves me right. If adminship is no big deal, then it should be no big deal to take it away if it is determined than a sysop is using their tools in an improper manner. Cowman109 Talk 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That entirely fails to address my question. My question is why it would result in punative blocks in the case of administrative patrol but not in the case of blocks for say civility patrol.  There is a logical disconnect here in the reasoning. —Doug Bell talk 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way: blocks for administrative activities are punitive because they prevent administrators from editing, when editing has not caused a problem, and they could still do useful editing. That is punishment. The proper preventive measure would be a 24 hour desysopping rather than a 24 hour block, but that is not technically possible. Civility blocks are fundamentally different because it is edits that are in violation, and edits that are blocked. Dmcdevit·t 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Temporary desysopping is something I'm sure could be added to the software if supported by a suitable policy discussion. 67.117.130.181 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand that reasoning. However, there is precedent for admins being blocked because of their admin actions.  Are you saying that those were punative blocks?  Also, can you explain why a bureaucrat could not desysop and resysop someone to facilitate a temporary desysoping as a remedy?  Seems like what you are arguing is that because the automatic resysoping is not implemented as a feature of the software that there is no middle ground for remedies relating to misuse of administrative abilities. —Doug Bell talk 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats cannot remove the sysop flag - only stewards can, actually, if memory serves me right once more. Cowman109 Talk 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, blocking an administrator for an administrative action strikes me as inevitably punitive. I think we've only made a remedy like that once before (and it wasn't my first chice, but compromise was necessary). I don't think there is much room for middle ground in adminship. Neither administrators nor bureaucrats can desysop, only stewards, global users not involved in this project, could enforce, which is unworkable. Consider the effect of probation or parole or article ban measures for editorial concerns: the disruptive behavior like personal attacks or edit warring is already prohibited for everyone, but the remedy is a way of ArbCom giving it's authority to administrators to enforce the prohibitions against habitual violators with blocks or bans that might normally be against policy. That approach is impossible with administrators: true, admin miscunduct is already prohibited for all admins, and the only viable solution for habitual misusers is desysopping. Dmcdevit·t 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the logic. Disruption is disruption whether it's an admin in a wheel war or an editor inserting nonsense or 3 reverts in 24 hours. Why is the parole approach impossible? Already adminsitrators have the ability to overturn their blocks for editing and wheel war if they so chose but it doesn't happen frequently because it is on their honor not to do this. We don't need stewards to desysop admins while they are blocked. Admins are the most respectful of the rules. I suspect that if you simply left a note on their talk page that they are prohibited from admin actions for 24 hours, it would have the same effect as actually desysopping them. I find this lack of trust in an honor system is not supported by the facts and actions of the overwhelming number of admins. --Tbeatty 05:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way to adress Mcdevit's example: civility violations rarely happen in edits to articles. They are on talk pages and user talk pages and Wikipedia space. Yet we block for civlity violations because of the damage civility violations causes to community. It is not considered extra-punitive because it prevents an editor from editing articles. I personally think a warning on an admin's talk page to not use admin tools for 24 hours would be sufficient. Disregarding that warning would be followed by a block. Yes, a blcok prevents an admin from editing just as incivlity on a talk page prevents an editor from editing article space. --Tbeatty 05:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Desysopping
I have noticed in other desyopping cases, those that were desyopped were allowed to reapply at a later date, yet I see no provisions as such here. Is there a way to get rid of the current arbitrators? If there is, I would like to know how this is accomplished...does one complain to the foundation or Jimbo Wales directly?--MONGO 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You may apply again at any time. Arbitrators serve at the pleasure of Jimbo and may be removed at any time. I suppose the Foundation could overrule Jimbo should he decline to remove one or all of us. I would start with Jimbo, the Foundation is a very long shot. Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just asked the same question on Arbcom-L. I have a thought or two about this, but not being an arbitrator, should probably let them speak for themselves. Thatcher131 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mongo, Seeing that your policy of 'applying to a higher authority' as gotten you into this much trouble already, don't you think its time to stop digging? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This much trouble? What is this kindergarden? What "trouble" am I in? I see a number of arbitrators who apparently fail to see the merit of enforcing even recent past decisions they have made, ie: "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves" .--MONGO 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I don't care about such things, the phrase "What is this kindergarden?" might be seen as being 'incivil' by those ultra-sensitive editors who hang around this place. Just a bit of advice for when/if you are put on 'probation' of some kind. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps I neglected to apply that principle. I'll take a look at it again. Fred Bauder 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, look, I know your jobs are thankless...much of the time, being an admin is as well...but the point is, I brought this case here to resolve via higher authority issues that were unresolvable in the Seabhcan Rfc. Where does it state that admins are to be perfect? I do thousands of admin actions and I am to be desyopped because I argued with other admins rather than wheel war with them? I want someone to show me an admin of recent that has been in the trenches dealing with the vandalism and harassment on a level I have and let's see if they too are perfect. I make a couple mistakes and am desyopped?...Seabhcan has been an admin for a year and a half, makes a couple mistakes and is deadminned? Where is the justice here. I am not put on probabtion for incivility, yet I am to be desyopped for partly the same reasons?--MONGO 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering about that as well. An explicit arbcom ruling that administrators may use their powers in combatting harassment, followed by a recommended desysopping of an admin who did just that is bizarre. I have, from time to time, used my admin powers to deal with harassment aimed against me and some of my wiki-friends &mdash; when a newly-created account would post links to sites that gave personal information about us, I'd block the account and would carry out a deletion and selective restoration of the page. Sometimes I've used page protection. When I have reported such incidents at admin noticeboards, I've always been supported. I've also sometimes reported such incidents to arbcom members and to Jimbo.

If the arbitrators didn't actually mean what they said in the previous ruling, or if they worded it so that it could be open to too liberal an interpretation, then surely they should go back to that case and issue a clarification, rather than punish someone who followed it. (Oh, and please don't say that desysopping isn't punitive.)

As for judgments about admins who deal badly with harassment being unsuited to adminship, are the arbitrators sure that any administrator is suited in that case? Where are all the administrators who have been harassed at the same level as MONGO and have dealt with it in the "right" way? If I think of administrators who have suffered severe harassment, I see some who left, like Katefan0, some who got angry and resorted to bad language, like Jtdirl, and one who was given an overwhelming amount of support from fellow admins and users &mdash; myself.

As one who probably knows more about harassment than any of the arbitrators, I strongly urge the committee to think again. AnnH  ♫  19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, and my comments are less important than AnnH's) I do not support the proposed remedy against MONGO (which is not, of course, to say that I agree with every word he has every written or every action he has ever taken). However, in response to his questions above and consistent with Fred Bauder's response above, I understand that a desysopped administrator is generally free to file a new RfA at any time. (The best timing for such a request is another story.) As for replacement of arbitrators, we know that four incumbents will be leaving the Arbitration Committee and at least six new arbitrators selected within the next few weeks. I would estimate the odds of having any of the remaining ArbCom members removed as minimal to non-existent, especially if the only basis for the request were disagreement with the merits of a decision or series of decisions. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Having followed the case from the beginning, it is worth noting that Fred originally opposed desysopping MONGO for the reasons originally proposed by Dmcdevit. After further reviewing the case, he reversed his vote, citing this and this, and adding this finding of fact. The problem is not that MONGO blocked trolls who were harassing him, it is the comments he made to other users and admins who questioned his judgement.  Reinforcing the principle that admins may ban trolls who harass them will not change this aspect of the case. Thatcher131 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the problem is not that MONGO blocked trolls who were harassing him (use of admin tools) but the comments he made to other users and admins who questioned his judgement (CIVIL, NPA), then why would he not be sanctioned under CIVIL and NPA, and given the appropriate block. If he did not abuse the admin tools, he should not be desysopped. If MONGO had not been an admin, what would the punishment have been for the comments that he made? - Crockspot 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See my response below. It appears that Dmcdevit and Fred Bauder have different reasons for supporting desysopping.  The other arbitrators who have voted have either commented or not. Thatcher131 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the other admins were not interested in doing anything other than reverting my block of Miltopia...they should have reduced it, not reverted it. Not once did they ask me why I had blocked him. Concerns for my ability to edit the website without being trolled were ignored. My reaction was to NOT wheel war, yet my strong objections to their efforts to not support me when I was being stalked are questioned.--MONGO 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


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

I see that Tony Sidaway was placed on admin 1RR in the arbcom case naming him. Why is that a suitable remedy for him and myself and Seabhcan are desysopped for no worse offense than he did?--MONGO 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That question deserves an answer I think...Rx StrangeLove 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The apparent answer I've read is that ArbCom decisions are not to be used as precedent, and that they feel an error in the past does not mean they should commit the same error in the future. That logic might be sound if the reasons to desysop demonstrated a pattern of admin abuse. That hasn't been done. --Durin 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One other comment. It seems odd that this RFAr has devolved into a referendum on how MONGO has dealt with ED trolling and harassment. It seems that MONGO's involvement in any RFAr makes him a target from certain groups. Travb wasn't originally part of the RFAr. NEither was Miltopia. This is a terrible precedent to set. It seems that in a fit of mud slinging, Travb, CPlot and Miltopia became relevant in proceeding that didn't involve them. If this is sucessful, I feel sorry for anyone they dislike who brings an ArbCom action as it will devolve into a referendum on them. --Tbeatty 07:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the way it always has been. ArbCom actions commonly envelope people who want nothing to do with it, and commonly end up restricting the person who brought it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by SalvNut
Excuse me but I don't know where should I make comments to this so I make it here. Please move it to a proper place, thanks.
 * I feel very very sorrow because of this part: "...with Seabhcan and a number of other editors advancing conspiracy theories from an anti-American viewpoint". I've never taken, and never will take, anti-whatever-nation stance. I'm here for what I consider to be truth and and I always be. I think that I'm helping American people. I know many excellent people from USA, I work with them. This is very upsetting to hear things like that, and I think that many other editors mentioned think this way too. Consider me "lunatic" or whatever, truth will come out anyway, but do not slander with such accusations. All the same applies to Seabhcan edits, I can assure that because I've read most of them. He is sarcastic and often tells harsh words but that does not make him in any way anti-American.
 * When I see such statements I don't know what to say. Is it me who sees things in distorted fashion, or some people from America can't just look at things in neutral fashion? And how would this support the discussed statement??? The making of the statement seems to confirm what Seabhcan said. Can't you just acknowledge that some people have different knowledge and different belives on what has happened on 9/11? And that it has nothing to do with nationalities, etc? I know many bad people in my country's and others goverments, too. I feel very sorry for USA because I feel that some of 9/11 conspiracy theories are true.
 * Trying to find out what the truth is about the most important event to the whole world of the last decade cannot be considered anti-American. SalvNaut 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell: The United States is low hanging fruit for world-wide criticism. I believe my country is the most generous, not just with $$$, but with human lives in the form of our military. We defend nations such as Kuwait, liberate others (Saddam Hussein is sentenced to die by his people). And yet people insult the lives of those who were killed on 9/11 by writing cruft crap such as "(I’m paraphrasing here) The planes were holograms and it was missiles from the American gov’t that took down the towers. Those people in the planes are actually gov’t employees working in a conspiracy organization" Tell that to someone who lost a loved one on 9/11. Keep on adding crap like that to this encyclopedia. It is disrespectful to the American victims. And yet so many users want to fill our pages with this crap to make the US look bad. My country is not perfect, but then again, what country is??? This encyclopedia is loosing respect as we speak. because of the crap and the nature of this project. And BTW, people keep telling me we are not in the truth business. Very good- I guess we are not.  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of those who lost a loved one on 9/11 question 9/11 official account. Just watch 9/11 Press for truth, they feel that US goverment failed them in many ways (with investigating and explaining what happened exactly, and with being culpable) and I understand it more than very well. And I've never added "crap" to Wikipedia so stop "paraphrasing" and stop using 9/11 victims to support your pov. I think, you should read more about present US international politics. Your country is a great one in many ways, but "it's not perfect", as you said it. So, tell me - what is the rationale to hide this unperfectness? Your views on Wikipedia are different than mine. First step to making yourself better is to acknowledge your flaws. The same applies to countries. US goverment is the most powerfull and yet so untransparent. Instead of great ideals, big money plays terrible role there. SalvNaut 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, you've posted a link to an article. Do you agree with it? It so stupidly simplistic. Wikipedia is not an oracle and never will be. Anyway, what source of knwoledge you would consider to be an oracle? Knowledge lives it's own life, it evolves and changes. What was truth 100 years ago is no longer close to it. As the circulation of information speeds so much these days, previous sentence is much true if you put there 25, 10 or even 5 years. Wikipedia is a great place to start looking for knowledge and it should stay like that. SalvNaut 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the main point of Kim’s statement. But go ahead and think what you want. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


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

Comment by User:Crockspot
It seems that the "violations" that MONGO is being desysoped for were actions that he believed to be proper when he took them, because their justification was based upon a previous (October) ruling of ARBCOM. There was no mens rea to the actions at the time that they were taken, therefore, he should not be punished. If the actions were indeed wrong (which I am a bit confused if they really were, due to the contradiction between the previous and current rulings) he should be warned, and have the violation explained. To desysop him now would be a complete contradiction of the previous ruling, and result in a serious degradation of the reputation and credibility of the ARBCOM in the eyes of the community. What will follow will be an exodus of good editors, and general chaos at WP, as those editors who are keeping a lid on things grow fearful of taking a stand. Sometimes a "chilling effect" is useful to the project, but the type of chill that would spread from this decision would be hazardous to the project's health. We need MORE admins like MONGO, not fewer. - Crockspot 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look at finding of fact #5 (proposed by Dmcdevit) and #6 (proposed by Fred Bauder). These are the basis for the desysopping proposal.  It doesn't have anything to do with blocking trolls, per se, but with other misuse of the admin position (in dmcvedit's view), or with MONGO's treatment of other admins (in Fred's view) (assuming I have read the tea leaves correctly). Thatcher131 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO and Seabhcan's value as admins
Before MONGO or Seabhcan are desysopped, I would recommend that the Arb Comm at least consider whether they are productive admins outside of the areas in dispute.

From what I can see, MONGO and Seabhcan are both guilty of (1) a few relatively minor misuses of their admin tools; (2) a few apparent threats to misuse their admin tools; and (3) a fair amount of incivility as editors. (MONGO also used his admin tools and used incivil language in "self-defense" against the ongoing ED campaign of harassment against him). I hope I'm not contributing to the drama, but I can't tell if the Arb Comm considered their value as admins - if MONGO and Seabhcan are great admins for 500 admin actions a day, and lousy admins for several admin actions over the past few months, maybe some kind of warning and probation will be more productive for the Encyclopedia than de-sysopping them. On the other hand, if they're solely using their sysop bit to promote their POVs, then I agree that it's no great loss. (MONGO has presented some evidence on this question, and I haven't seen any contrary evidence). Is that a question that the Arb Comm has considered? If not, should it be? Thanks, TheronJ 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some statistics. MONGO has performed:
 * 435 blocks/unblocks.
 * 151 protects/unprotects
 * 3035 delete/restores
 * From this, ArbCom has raised five bullet points of admin abuse, four of which have very shaky grounds not supported in policy. Even assuming all five are valid, that's a rate of .14%. I.e., 99.86% of his actions have yet to rise to the level of abuse significant enough to warrant desysopping. No pattern has been shown of abuse of tools. --Durin 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Work
I think it is great editors are flocking to MONGO and Seabhcan in support. I also think the ArbCom Admins have made the correct decisions in this matter. MONGO and Seabhcan have been unchackled from a nasty dispute that really had no resolution. They are free to contribute constructively again, and I see this as a win for the community. Abe Froman 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A few more wins like that and we are screwed. Tom Harrison Talk 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that way. Quite the opposite.  Abe Froman 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tom, with friends like these....Rx StrangeLove 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Tom. If this is the direction ArbCom really wants to take us in, I shudder at the potential outcomes. I would not want to be an admin under such absurd restrictions as this RfAr warrants; don't use your admin functions on anything you've ever edited before? You can't be serious. --Durin 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also concur with Tom. --Aude (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO and Seabhcan are excellent contributors to the project. As admins, some of their actions made it clear their strengths are in editing articles, and adding content.  I believe this decision is the best for the community.  Abe Froman 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This 'remedy' is not only unjust, but inexpedient, since expedience seems to be the only coherent argument. The message it sends speaks more loudly than all the protestations about how it's not punitive and what great guys everyone is. If Mongo doesn't enforce policy on these pages, someone else will have to, and who ever does will be used in that capacity for a while and then discarded. The only good thing I can say is it was done quickly. It's remarkable how fast arbcom can move to desysop (at least when there is no wheel-warring,) and how slow anyone is to do anything about trolling, attacks, and harassment. I guess that's another example of expediency at work. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering leaving the project as well
It was suggested that I repeat comments I left on MONGO's talk page here regarding my views on the desysoping of MONGO. Rather than cross-post, I'll just leave a link. It's not my opinion that my view is going to matter since everyone seems to have pretty much made up their minds, so take this for what you will. —Doug Bell talk 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm not considering leaving the project, I must say to one and all that this process has not served the Wikipedia community well, in spite of its correctness and precision. I'd like assert that desysoping User:MONGO seems a very disproportionate and impetuous remedy to what has been an enormously long chain of events. User has proved his usefulness and loyalty to the project over and over again, as many users can and have attested. User has NOT been shown to use his tools for any reason other than to protect the community (of which the user himself is a valid part). User has admittedly developed a more harshly reactive tone during and since the ED process (in which User was given the impression of full validation), partially because of the wikistalking and wikirevenges perpetrated on- and off-wiki against him during that time and afterwards to the day (and including this process, IMHO).
 * I'm not fully conversant with wiki policies but I'd like to assert that User:Dmcdevit is possibly brushing up on violating WP:POINT. User has very clearly stated that admin review process is broken, and that it appears this has provided an opportunity to desysop an admin basically for an occasional harsh tone. User has pretty much acted as prosecutor in this process, by my reading.
 * I'd like also to point out that this is a pretty drastic action to take at a moment with less than a full slate of arbitrators.
 * If admins are going to be provided so little support from the process community, it does make one indeed wonder whether the process has failed, and for an ordinary editor like me who has witnessed the daily abuse heaped on User:MONGO, wonder whether being an administrator on this pedia is a worthy aspiration. BusterD 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to say "me too", but I fully concur with BusterD's remarks. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?
First, a disclaimer that I am not involved in these proceedings, nor have I been involved in the disputed articles concerned, nor ever been in conversation with either subject of this case. I have merely been following the evidence presented and the proposed decisions, particularly the disappointment in both subjects at seeing de-sysopping being proposed for the other, and the near-departure of MONGO.

My reason for posting is this: In Proposed findings of fact #5, "MONGO misuses his admin tools", five infractions are listed. Two of these are for unprotecting pages he was involved in, even in a dispute. Concerning admins and edit conflicts, policy says this: "2. Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Is unprotecting a page one is involved in also a violation of this policy?

If so, it certainly ought to be specifically mentioned. I have only had admin tools for about two weeks, and in that time I have found that extreme distaste is often the reaction to many admin actions. In trying to avoid that but yet also be helpful and put the tools to use, I have found it, in some cases, near impossible to decide what is right and what is wrong. This sort of ambiguity should either be removed from policy, or be explicitly unacceptable as evidence of "misuse" of tools.

In addition, and more as a matter of opinion, it doesn't seem to me that unprotecting a page should cause a violation of the same policy (at least when it is not part of a wheel war), since by nature it does not give the acting admin any advantage over editors without the tools (which seems to be the very definition of "abuse"). That this (un)policy is the grounds for two-out-of-five pieces of evidence supporting desysopping of a long-standing member of the community is unacceptable.

Add to this the claim of violation for protecting Steven E. Jones, which evidence lists MONGO as merely having been "active in editing", and this decision has implications for every other admin out there. Are admins to only protect (and even unprotect!) pages they have never visited before, and only block users they have never had problems with before? So much for using watchlists to prevent vandalism, edit wars, or other trouble. The principles in place to avoid admin abuse are one thing; extending those principles to find violations where they didn't exist is a solution looking for a problem. -- Renesis (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the items evidenced as violating the protection policy, they have no merit. I unprotected one article which I had never edited (Gladio), yet because the person I brought the arbcom case against (Seabhcan) was an active editor, I have somehow, not sure how, violated policy. The Septemeber 11, 2001 attacks article was changed from full protection to semi-protected by me so everyone could resume editing the article...no further major issues were apparent, so I ddn't see what harm it did to change the protection to semi-protection...there was zero opposition to me doing this on the talkpage and I had consensus to do so. I protected the Steven JOnes article on an edit that I didn't approve of, and kept an editor (Cplot) from going over 3RR, which he likely would have. Cplot has been demonstrated to be an abusive account, but I didn't know that at the time. I doubt if I warned him about 3RR he would have listened to me...he had been warned a number of times in the prior week and yet still violated 3RR twice and was blocked. My reward for protecting that editor is to have that protected page be used as evidence that I had somehow done something wrong.--MONGO 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG CONCURRENCE with what Renesis13 said above. I've been conducting my own independent review of this RfAr and reached the same conclusions as Renesis. With this in mind, I have been intending on constructing a detailed breakdown of each of the five points used as evidence against MONGO for "admin abuse". I have not yet concluded this work, but strongly encourage the arbitrators in this case to carefully consider what it is they are doing and why.
 * Desysopping an admin is a serious matter. It has only rarely been used as a corrective measure to protect the interests of the project. Based on this history, to desysop someone should be based on strong evidence of continual administrator misbehavior. There simply isn't such a case here from my reading of the evidence so far. If there is blatant evidence that MONGO abused his administrator abilities, that evidence should be clearly stated in #5. Yet, these five points contain at least four points that are weak at best. If this is the best that ArbCom can come up with to remove sysop functions from MONGO, they have not made their case in my opinion (nor even close). The apparent response from ArbCom is "well we can't trust him because of this error, so rather than attempt to correct the behavior we'll just take way his adminship". Have some courage and address the issues instead of using a howitzer when a fly swatter would do.
 * The arbitrators voting to remove MONGO's status might not like MONGO. They might not like his brusque manner, and easy dispensing of trolls and vandals, they might not like how he handles POV warriors, and how he is quick to label them with pejorative terms. But, these issues are not why he is being desysopped and have no bearing on his desysopping since the basis of his desysopping supposedly has nothing to do with these issues. If this DOES have something to do with these issues, then include it as major points to his desysopping. But, to date, that hasn't been done.
 * This action has implications elsewhere, as Renesis noted above and I also fear. Even though officially ArbCom decisions can not be used as precedent, in reality they affect community behavior and are cited on a regular basis. The ArbCom can not treat this case in isolation. I myself am now fearful of using my admin functions because where I primarily use them is in areas where I have previously edited. If this RfAr is approved, the message that is being sent is clear; don't use your admin functions on anything you've ever edited or you could lose your admin functions.
 * Is losing admin functions itself a big deal? Of course not. You can go right on editing. However, to have them forcibly removed casts an extremely harsh light and public outrage at the admin in question. MONGO will always have this mark upon him. He is justifiably upset that this turn of events has happened, as should any admin in good standing who uses their admin functions in areas they edit. --Durin 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More to come on this as I conduct more in-depth research. But, this needed to be said to stop the train-wreck that is this RfAr from reaching what appears to be a seriously ill-advised foregone conclusion.


 * I'd also like to note that in at least one location the ArbCom has stated they feel the community has lost faith in MONGO. If the ArbCom feels this is the case, perhaps they'd be amenable to a straw poll to garner the community's opinion regarding his adminship and/or ArbCom's intention to desysop him. Personally, I haven't seen a bunch of people dancing around on graves yipping for joy that MONGO is going to be desysopped. In fact, VERY much the contrary. There are a number of people quite angry about this decision from a number of angles. Taking a straw poll to support/not support this RfAr is (I think) unprecedented, but I think perhaps warranted in this situation. --Durin 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment from the "truthers"
I have halted my work on articles in my area of expertise. In order Wikipedia as a whole to be respected and worth my time, articles such as what we have on 9/11 must be a priority. They are consistently among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. The 9/11 articles constantly attract hardcore "truthers" who are extremely persistent, loud, and determined to spread the truth and use Wikipedia as a tool in their efforts. Some of the hardcore truthers hangout on the Loose Change forums. I have even seen Seabhcan over on the Loose Change forum, as fairly involved. If that's what he chooses to do off-wiki, that's okay. But, to bring their tactics and incivility to Wikipedia is unacceptable. The tactics used by the truthers sometimes constitute harrassment, with them even going after 9/11 victims and witnesses, yet alone folks here like MONGO. (See some examples) I'm not specifically accusing Seabhcan of going this far, but his incivility combined with the constant stream of truthers that come on Wikipedia really tests our patience. We try not to, but sometimes we may say or do something that crosses the line. I don't see anything so egregious done by MONGO that is grounds for desysopping. It sends a chill to all admins, making me uncomfortable using my stick to help enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines for reliable sources, WP:V, etc. --Aude (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If this RfAr goes through with the desysoppings, I think I'll have to stop editing contentious articles for fear of losing my adminship over similar issues. Let the chaos begin; no more standing strong against unreliable sources or unverifiable claims. The descent into gibberish articles... --Durin 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


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

Comments on proposed decision
Having reviewed the Proposed Decision in this case, I concur with much of Durin's analysis above regarding its conclusion that MONGO should be desysopped. Several of the cited instances of "misuse of administrative tools" do not rise to the level of misconduct or warrant the Arbitration Committee's attention. In other instances, genuine errors of judgment on MONGO's part have been identified, but while significant, they do not warrant the drastic remedy of desysopping a committed, dedicated, and longstanding editor and admininstrator under all the circumstances of this case.

The paragraph of the Proposed Decision that would desysop MONGO also cites his "failure to relate appropriately with other administrators" as grounds for desysopping. Strikingly, however, the Proposed Decision contains no finding that MONGO failed to interact properly with other admins. It is unclear what evidence could be relied upon to support such a finding. MONGO's disputes with Seabhcan are not alleged to have involved Seabhcan acting as an administrator, rather than as an editor. The only other basis for such a finding could be the "Miltopia incident," in which MONGO used words he should not have, but it is not even clear that this incident is part of this case and the committee has said virtually nothing about it. The fact that one of the two asserted bases for desysopping MONGO is unsupported by the committee's findings represents a further weakness in the Proposed Decision's analysis and conclusion.

With respect to User:Seabhcan, I am not as familiar with his work as an editor or administrator as I am with that of MONGO. On a personal level and as a resident of Manhattan, I am thoroughly familiar with the events of September 11, 2001 and the evidence concerning responsibility for the terrorist attacks on my city. I find many of Seabhcan's views and theories as well as much of his rhetoric to be grossly inconsistent with the truth and frankly upsetting to me. By a narrow margin, however, I believe that the evidence cited in the Proposed Decision supports a remedy short of desysopping with respect to him as well. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Brad is clearly correct here. How can you desysop somebody for a finding that there is no evidence for? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Newyorkbrad's statement. I suggest 1RR parole for both parties, as per the sentence on Tony Sidaway. They behaved badly, that's clear, and tools were misused - but finding that and 1RR would be sufficient. We can desysop them later should they break parole. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Brad and Zoe, I fail to see on what grounds Arbcom based their decision. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we speaking into a vaccuum?
Now there's a motion to close with a support vote. Apparently nothing on this page is being read by the arbitrators. How do we stop this train wreck? --Durin 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If MONGO is desysopped, I will immediately re-nominate him for adminship (with his permission, of course). User:Zoe|(talk) 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think two better courses of actions would potentially be:
 * Making an immediate request for clarification asking what policy the decision was based on, since there does not appear to be any for four of the five bullet points. Also request clarification if admins are not to use their admin buttons on articles they have previously edited. If that is not the case, then why was MONGO desysopped?
 * Start an RFC against ArbCom for a faulty decision and refusal to consider ongoing discussions at the proposed decision page. There are a number of people here and on the mailing list that are quite upset at this decision, and a number of them are also admins...yet there's been no recognition of any kind by ArbCom to this, and the train wreck is blithely heading down the track into destruction. RfCs regularly start for similar sorts of situations where one side of a dispute refuses to consider or discuss with the other side. Thus, outside opinions are sought and it usually forces the non-communicative party to at least read the opposition (even if they don't agree).
 * --Durin 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely support #2. As for #1, I wouldn't support only for the reason that I think the answer to that question should be a community decision, not an ArbCom decision. -- Renesis (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Six arbitrators (one more than needed for a majority) have voted to remove Mongo's sysop status. I'll see if I can ask one to comment here, but I think we're all too caught up in the culture of thinking adminship is a big deal - it's specifically meant not to be a big deal and if one loses their sysop flag then they can still of course edit the encyclopedia, so there seems to be much more overreaction here than there needs to be. He can also run for sysop status in the future unless arbcom says he cannot, so if the community thinks he's fine re-obtaining his sysop status then he will be able to get it back. I'll see if I can get clarification to see if there are any restrictions on being re-nominated. Cowman109 Talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, adminship isn't a big deal. I agree. Having your admin privileges forcibly removed, most especially without basis in any policy, is a huge deal. Attempting to fall back on "but this isn't a big deal" in this case is faulty reasoning. The flag itself isn't a big deal; losing it under these circumstances is, both to MONGO and all admins who use admin functions on articles they edit. --Durin 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He can reapply at any time. See . further up this page. Thatcher131 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Cowman and Thatcher131 seem to be misinterpreting what is being said here. Given the animosity toward the ArbCom over this case, I wouldn't be surprised if they are dismissing the discussion similarly.  The problem is not at all that sysop is/isn't a big deal.  It is that the ArbCom is imposing a penalty for actions which do not violate policy, and in the process are creating a sort of "unwritten" precedent for future actions from all administrators.  This is the big deal. -- Renesis (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I offered no opinion on whether the arbitrators are, are not, should, or should not read what is being written here. I merely stated that Fred noted above that MONGO and Seabhcan may reapply through RFA at any time. That has also been clarified to me in e-mail by one of the other arbitrators. Thatcher131 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful to outline what exactly from Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision is incorrect so the arbitration committee can see how it is incorrect in its ruling. Cowman109 Talk 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done above -- Renesis (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Durin's detailed analysis, and the second paragraph of my comments above. Newyorkbrad 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on decision to desysop
It is apparent that the decisions to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan are going to go through. Both proposed remedies have 6-0 support, with the passage bar being simple majority. There is a motion to close now, with two supports to close with four needed to close. The RfAr is about to close in favor of desysopping.

Discussion related to this straw poll should be elsewhere on this page, and not on the poll itself. Please add any comments to the "Comments" section and limit your additions to the agree/disagree sections to your signature.

Two questions are asked (and presume the decision will be instituted):
 * 1) ) Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop MONGO?
 * 2) ) Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Seabhcan

This poll is of course not binding, but intended to gauge community support for the decision.

Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop MONGO?

Agree
 * 1) --Abe Froman 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) XP  · 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Gamaliel 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Ral315 (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Mujinga 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Martinp 13:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Badgerpatrol 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree
 * 1) --Durin 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Crockspot 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) —Doug Bell talk 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) KillerChihuahua?!? 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) --  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) --rogerd 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Renesis (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) AnnH  ♫  20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Rx StrangeLove 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) --Elar  a girl  Talk 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) -- BusterD 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) --PTR 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --kizzle 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) - TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) --Aude (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) --Geologyguy 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Sarah Ewart 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) —bbatsell  ¿?  23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Guy (Help!) 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) --Morton devonshire 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Alex Bakharev 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) --Jersey Devil 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Antandrus  (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) --Aaron 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) --Dual Freq 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Vsmith 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32)  Bishonen | talk 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
 * 33) --Tbeatty 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Donald Albury 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Calton | Talk 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Guettarda 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Samir धर्म 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) --Nuclear Zer0 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) --Strothra 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) --Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) --Str1977 (smile back) 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Seabhcan?

Agree
 * 1) --Abe Froman 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) XP  · 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Jersey Devil 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Ral315 (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) SuperMachine 12:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Badgerpatrol 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree
 * 1) -- Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Elar  a girl  Talk 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --PTR 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) - TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) —bbatsell  ¿?  23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Antandrus  (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) --Tbeatty 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) --Nuclear Zer0 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) SalvNaut 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --<font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Adminship is no big deal. Anyone not interested in participating via editing articles and expects to be more, or expects adminiship as a lifetime appointment, is here for the wrong reasons, no? Abrcom enforces the will of Jimbo per policy, and IS oversight for admins. Also, we elected ArbCom. This is our way. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've not read the discussion on this page. To summarize very briefly, people are concerned that the decision to desysop is based on a faulty premises; that this remedy is not appropriately measured; and that it sets the wrong precident/sends the wrong message on use of admin powers.  It's not whether adminship is a big deal, but rather that the ArbCom process is a big deal. —Doug Bell talk 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read it all. Also of concern is that when an admin previously tore into the stewards (see: Geogre, Giano I/II), that whole mess, there was outrage by many over the "treatment of the stewards" and so on. However, it is alright to deride the decisions of the ArbCom here instead? The affair seems to be all double standards in this sense, like a popularity contest. The community has spoken, and Jimbo's recent statements on courtesy seem to be that the previous 'free passes' to some admins are now relegated to the past. Now I presume everyone per Jimbo and this decision is expected to be on the same courteous tone. If someone is a troll, block them as such, but why insult? And so forth. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing or agreeing with your comments. However, they are irrelevant. MONGO is not being desysopped for incivility. --Durin 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO is being desysopped for purely made up reasons. There is no evidence that the reasons for his desysopping has even occurred.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We are also very respectful of the decision of the arbcom; they do hard work, and it's not an easy job. We merely disagree, and hope it can be lightened. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 100% spot on. ArbCom members have a very difficult task. All the more reason to expect they will occasionally make errors. If it were easy, everyone would do it and there would not be many errors. With so many ArbCom members not active, gaining the best decision is even more difficult. --Durin 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Overkill. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Overkill, and unwarranted, on both counts. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Disproportionate and impulsive. I believe that if this decision is upheld as currently written, it will cause a warranted dissention among current (especially new) admins. BusterD 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with much of the above, I'm hearing that being an admin is no big deal in this context. But the thing is that being an admin is not the same as being de-sysopped and censured. That is a big deal...and what makes it worse is that there's been a shortened line drawn over which you can't chase committed troublemakers. No one ever claimed that Mongo is perfect but nothing here rises to this level of punishment. Rx StrangeLove 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Substitute any random admin, and randomly selected subject area, and we would likely not even be having this discussion; it is hard not to conclude tha MONGO and Seabhcan have done wrong, it's the remedy that's the problem, and whether it is (a) proportionate and (b) adequately considerate of past history. Notice how Seabhcan is barely discussed.  In my view, the real failure was a long time before ArbCom - MONGO is (was) a defender of the breach, and we are now fighting over how to honour the body.  Whatever the outcome, MONGO's rep and his commitment to the project will have been damaged massively and quite possibly irreperably.  we should not have got here in the first place, and we need to work out where we went wrong and how we can guard against its happening again. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree and see my own comments above -- Renesis (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a Finding (3) Seabchan edit wars, whereas the term "fight" in Finding (6) miscolors MONGO's effort to perform his Admin duties. Nobs02 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I for one don't think for a second that the two situations were the same as has been stated by some above. MONGO may have perhaps lost his temper once and a while but Seabhcan was consistent in his personal attacks and incivility throughout most of his time as an administrator. I think it is a good thing that the AbrCom put an end to that and my only complaint on that side is that it didn't come sooner. With regards to the desysopping of MONGO, I think it was done to compensate for the desysopping of Seabhcan in what seems to be an attempt to make the judgment seem "even-handed".--Jersey Devil 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(moved comment) Adamantly disagree. Questions of the lack of specific policy violations, the lack of consideration of parole (especially given Tony Sidaway), in addition to weighing against Mongo's absolutely tremendous and stellar contributions to the project. Arbcom needs to tread carefully in this matter in order to avoid setting such a dangerous precedent. --kizzle 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO has indicated that he is not interested in being re-nominated, so my proposal above is moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour of quick renominations, because I think they have a greater chance of failure (not that they should have, just that they have), and can therefore increase the stress and humiliation of the nominee. However, if this case closes before the ArbCom members come to their senses, I would very much hope that MONGO would change his mind when a couple of months have gone by. AnnH  ♫  22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(moved comment) I agree that MONGO has taken some admin actions that are inappropriate, but don't agree that all of the actions identified by Arb Comm are clear violations, and think that some cautionary instruction/probation is preferable to desysopping a largely productive admin, particularly where at least one of MONGO's bad acts was successfully resolved through dispute resolution. TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(moved comment) Don't see anything so egregious to warrant desysopping. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think straw polls second-guessing the ArbCom on the ArbCom's own pages are rather absurd, so I shall not participate in it. --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Cyde. If the community feels the need to resysop MONGO, then go to RFA; otherwise, community consensus (see Stevertigo) has showed that the community prefers to defer decisions on whether an admin should retain adminship to the Committee.  Personally, I believe the Committee has it right here, but in any event, I find it entirely stupid that people are voting on an issue to which they don't (and shouldn't) have any major input.  Ral315 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think that just because ArbCom can desysop, that th community feel its best its up to them to do it. The community didnt assign powers to ArbCom. Further if you followed this whole thing, the idea of desysop'ing Seabhcan appeared before he even got to present evidence. Quite absurd. --Nuclear Zer0 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the place for a straw poll. However, both Seabhcan and MONGO are good admins and good editors. I'll support future RFA's for both, should they be needed. It's unfortunate that this arbitration is taking down constructive editors while leaving the warrior likes of Morton Devonshire, who essentially created the Gladio conflict, untouched. An opportunity has been missed to address the wolfpack behavior of the Devonshire gang, which is the underlying cause of so much of the conflict. Derex 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many issues in too short a time. However, Mongo should be free to submit himself for adminship again and the community can decide if he is still a suitable candidate for the post. Gamaliel 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO has shown that he is a controversial admin that has made too many major mistakes. Ral315 (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tentative agreement. It would be enough to ban MONGO from editing or administering those pages where he demonstrates an inability to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Those are pages that nearly always deal with political issues. His presence as an editor on less volatile pages is generally well regarded. If, however, such an arrangement is impossible, then i support eliminating his administrator privileges. Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Looking through the evidence, one is clearly left with the feeling that Mongo has made many controversial admin actions in a short time and has frequently been uncivil. He may have been provoked, but two wrongs do not make a right and Mongo's behaviour is contributing to an unfortunate atmosphere on wikipedia. As an admin, he is part of the public face of Wikipedia and this should not be acceptable. We are finally starting to act on reigning in admins who behave in this way, and should continue to do so. (No comment on other remedies from me - I spent 10 mins looking this over since so contentious but am now again logging out.) Martinp 13:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Per, which confirms what my gut reaction told me. MONGO has done things for which he might justly be criticised, but these are not the things on which this remedy is founded. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence and arguments, not straw polls, should sway arbitrators. But the evidence and arguments against the proposed decision are strong, and the straw poll is here, so I add my name. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While I generally avoid polls, I feel strongly enough about this to list my name here; desysopping MONGO harms the project. We need admins like him. Anyone here read, or even better seen, Coriolanus? Pay close attention: it even includes an "RFA". Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In a word  NO , and if anything, if this bullshit monkey show goes through, there should be an immediate RfAdmin to make Mongo an admin again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Newyorkbrad said, this should be decided on arguments and evidence, but since the poll is here. Samir धर्म 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Same as for MONGO - IMHO, Seabchan crossed the line, but desysopping is overkill, assuming that he's otherwise been a productive admin. TheronJ 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my comments above, though [Seabchan is] a closer call than MONGO. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To give them both a second chance here. Antandrus (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very fond of Seabhcan's approach to editing Wikipedia. He has a great sense of humour and accurately points out bias in other editors. Because some editors have no sense of humour and can't look at themselves from different POV than their own, it doesn't mean that Seabhcan should be desysoped. SalvNaut 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Seabhcan has become the target of a malicious cabal of editors who consider his political observations and opinions to be "anti-american". On this basis, they have spent many months provoking him towards incriminating acts. Despite this considerable time and effort, the evidence they have accumulated is scanty and weak, resulting in the fabrication of evidence through purposeful distortion and inuendo. Upon factoring in the environment in which Seabhcan has been working, i consider his conduct more laudable than condemnable. Stone put to sky 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the case for abuse of admin powers is convincingly made for either. However, there is little doubt that both have engaged in incivility, sillyness, and various other activities that I a least consider "conduct unbecoming an admin" (if you like...sounds a but haughty I know...). If either were editors asking for the mop today, then their respective actions detailed in this case would surely kill their RfAs stone-dead outright. On that basis, if nothing else, I reluctantly agree with the original arbcom decision to desysop them both (judging from a quick scan, they may have changed their minds about this sanction anyway, I'm only adding my opinion). Adminship is (nominally....) no big deal. Provided both are free to stand again at some stage in the future, I see no reason not to remove them from the admin ranks for now and let the community decide in the normal way later (although I think it's very clear that at least one and perhaps both have forever scuppered their chances of re-promotion due to some very rash use of language which a large number of editors are likely to find offensive...). I certainly don't think a lesser sanction (e.g. admin parole or similar) is appropriate- one either has the decorum, calmness and common sense to be an admin, or one doesn't. There is no middle ground. Whatever happens however, I feel the evidence of both abuse of privilege and incivility is equally strong against both parties here. I certainly would not support unequally weighted sanctions- if one goes, they both go, and if one stays they both should stay. Badgerpatrol 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Further commentary on the state of events
Clearly, this entire subject is fraught with very high emotion for everyone. I have Notepad open where I'm making a copy of all the uncivil, NPAviolating things I've almost typed in and stopped myself from doing. (See, Firsfron, progress!)

That being said, I wish to make a point that may or may not matter, but that isn't readily shown by the discussion heretofor.

I admire several members of the ArbCom, in particular Fred who puts up with entirely too much crap, and SimonP. I think the ArbCom usually does an admirable job of finding a solution to a horrific set of problems that is hurled at them ,and they are almost never thanked for such service.

However, I also think that in this particular case the ArbCom is making a mistake. If I, alone, a relatively new editor with a history of incivility and known dislike of ED, 9/11 truthers, and trolls, was making this assertion, it would be (rightfully) discounted as screed. But I'm not alone, there are a LOT of people upset about this here, on MONGO's talk page, on the mailing list, in email, offwiki sites, and in various talk pages. They are more than upset, they are angry.

I'm not happy at desysopping for MONGO or Seabhcan, and I cannot remember why I used to believe Wikipedia process meant something, or that the fact that Wikipedia wasn't a bureaucracy was comforting. This is not a calm, considered decision based on the needs of the community. This is not even a good attempt at railroading. This is, to me, a message being sent to other admins.

Behave, or you'll lose your bit.

I can fully understand the idea behind such a message, but I disagree with it, strongly. Has Seabhcan messed up? Yes. Guess what? He's got spine, and I'm pretty convinced he's mature enough to face up to any wrongdoing. The same goes for MONGO. Do I like Seabhcan? No. But that doesn't matter. Right now, I like him more than I like the ArbCom, and that saddens me. I used to naively think the ArbCom was some of the Wiki's best, the most fair minded, the most even tempered, who put up with bullshit to fix what wasn't working. I used to sneer at people who suggested ArbCom was broken. Now? Now I don't know.

No one here, least of all me, is attacking the ArbCom or your dedication. But we are confused and hurt and upset and angry because your decision doesn't seem to make any sense or serve any purpose except to send a message. We ask you to reconsider. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur, and sending the wrong message. --Durin 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only concur, but also add that ArbCom should be considering the full ramifications of this action and not act in haste. Listen to the community: the right decision is needed here, not a quick one. —Doug Bell talk 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur. Despite all of my angst over what is happening, I don't want anyone to take any of my comments to mean that I disapprove of the ArbCom or any of its members, but only that their proposed desysopping here is not appropriate, and I hope they will reconsider.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to comment that I have appearantly topped 450k in uncivil comments in my notepad "review before opening mouth" thing, so I probably am becoming dangerously close to incivility, but I'd like to add one small thing without editing the above: If there is something that is being used to come to this decision that isn't being released to the public (back-channel discussions, evidence not on display) now would be a nifty time to show it. Perhaps I'm just not seeing how this all ties into "desysopping two admins will fix the problem". --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The message is...if you're "wrong" 1 percent of the time, you can get desysopped, especially if you argue with other admins who don't care that you are being stalked. When admins aide and abet harassers in an effort to assist in "outing" me, then there is definitely reason to believe that the result of this situation will bring them no disappointment.--MONGO 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the above is a harsh judgement on ArbCom, I find much to agree with in the findings of fact. But I am puzzled.  To go from Requests for arbitration/MONGO to this in such a short space of time indicates that something much more fundamental is wrong.  MONGO was, back then, opinionated, brusque, occasionally downright rude, and willing to make the tough calls and stand by them.  MONGO now is not much different, as far as I can tell.  It would be good to know why the remedies are so different that in one case he is pardoned his excessive zeal and in the other he is bitch-slapped for it seems to indicate that somewhere along the way someone forgot to fix a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Zoe above. I regret that I may have spoken more harshly than I meant to. I would hate to attack the arbcom for the same thing Mongo is being attacked for: enforcing policy. But I don't understand what policy they are enforcing, and I allowed that to frustrate me into using a hostile tone. Tom Harrison Talk 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Laying out my personal opinion here
I have voted to desysop MONGO based on the fact that I personally have doubts about his judgment in future, entirely because of the stress and harassment he has endured. It's understandable, and it excuses his behaviour, but it makes me worry that if nothing is done, he'll be back before the arbcom in short order and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands. A number of times, the arbitration committee has, indeed, let people off with a warning because they are productive editors that we like. A number of times, this has come back to bite us, because our failure to act has let the situation only escalate.

Believe me, I am not blithely voting for this without regard of the consequences. The consequences in both directions trouble me. I fear that there is no good and right answer; I'm left between two bad choices. Desysopping MONGO because of my gut feeling that more trouble will result breaks from the existing way of things, in that we have historically waited for someone to totally burn out and break things before desysopping. On the other hand, we've all seen the chaos that can result from that.

I am most emphatically not speaking for the rest of the arbitration committee here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "To govern is to choose between two bad solutions" ~ Pierre Mendès-France. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As one of the ArbCom members said about admins before, it's a question of temperament. Swallowing your beliefs and surrendering to policy, come what may, is not for everyone.  And it shouldn't be.  Abe Froman 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Desysopping someone on a reverse faith that you know they are going to cause problems in the future seems rather poor logic to me. This is akin to convicting someone of theft and sentencing them under murder guidelines because you think they're going to kill somebody. Wikipedia isn't a democracy or a free society. Neither should be it be a lynch mob. Show me evidence that MONGO has a significant pattern of abusing his admin buttons and I'll gladly reverse my stance. I don't see it. Preemptively desysopping him on a belief that he'll do wrong and based on earlier histories having nothing to do with MONGO is wholly improper. If this is decision is put into place, subjective analysis will rule rather than review of objective evidence. I'm not going to be the first person to stand up and say MONGO is a saint. But, desysopping him on flimsy evidence and a belief that he'll abuse his admin powers is flat out wrong.
 * Thank you for voting to oppose the motion to close. I have some faith that this train wreck will be averted now, and at least one member of ArbCom is reading this page. --Durin 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I have voted to desysop MONGO based on the fact that I personally have doubts about his judgment in future, entirely because of the stress and harassment he has endured." This is just about the creepiest thing I've ever read on a Wikipedia talk page, and is extremely persuasive evidence as to why ArbCom should be dissolved entirely. Would you mind explaining to us at what point your position evolved from Arbitration Committee member to Department of Precrime Enforcement? There's also the question of how screwed Wikipedia must be if admins can now be desysopped purely because they've been harassed by others. --Aaron 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not 'purely because they've been harassed by others', but because of the way of reaction to it. Because I believe it is affecting MONGO's judgment when using his administrative tools.  Because not much changed from the last time he went through arbcom, which does not encourage me that anything will change THIS time if we decide circumstances excuse his behaviour.  Because we have in the past allowed users we feel sympathy towards escape without much in the way of consequences and seen things only escalate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The last time he went through ArbCom he was not found at fault. How do you expect anything to change if you found no fault? Again, this is going from 0 (MONGO is fine) to 100 (MONGO is *really* bad) with nothing in the middle, and little or no evidence that he has done anything wrong worthy of being de-adminned. MONGO escaped without much in the way of consequences the last time he went through RfAr because YOU (ArbCom) failed to put any remedies in place, not because MONGO willfully ignored the remedies. If this RfAr were to pass, you might as well forget about any intermediary remedies. Just de-admin and/or perma ban anyone that's found at fault on RfArs, even for minor infractions (which is precisely what is happening here). So far, the apparent "strongest" arguments for de-adminning MONGO that I have seen from the ArbCom members participating here are that 1) You (ArbCom) have faith that MONGO will do something bad in the future and 2) He didn't correct any behaviors from the last RfAr (because you didn't ask him to). These arguments do not make the case against MONGO to de-admin him stronger, they make it weaker. --Durin 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blaming the victim (he shouldn't have worn that provacative dress). Nobs02 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And a dissent
Two thoughts:


 * 1) If this were isolated (like, say, Requests for arbitration/MONGO), maybe the hollering for nothing to happen to MONGO might make sense. But this is the second round of people pointing out his consistent incivility (and I could easily toss a pile onto the already amazingly compelling evidence on the evidence page already) and abuse of his administrative tools.  This isn't isolated, and it's not left to only trolls, but to people who disagree with him, people who have a separate point of view, and anyone who dares cross him.  It's conduct unbecoming of someone who really should know better.  As someone who nearly quit due to his conduct toward me in particular, I don't quite understand the opposition to this proposal, but I'm used to being in the minority.


 * 2) If ArbCom changes their decision not based on evidence, but because of public outcry because people don't think that this is "justice," this is a very dark time.  I do hope that the relevant arbitrators continue to act based on fact and not on the emotional pull of the supporters of one of the parties involved.


 * 3) I'm amazed at the love for MONGO, yet no love for Seabchan, who's got a fairly good record in comparison. If anything, not giving him probation of some sort on his "first offense" is much more imbalanced than saying "We've had it with your consistent abuse" to MONGO.

I only became aware of this case last weekend, and didn't plan on getting involved until I saw this nonsense. Unless people are okay with admins running roughshod on them, I really wish a lot of people here - including a number of folks I respect highly and am completely puzzled about - would rethink their position on opposing the proposed remedies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the point here is not questioning whether MONGO has been uncivil or not. The desysopping is not based on that. There is very limited evidence, even if all five bullet points of Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision are assumed to be valid reasons, to desysop MONGO. That is the issue. If a motion was passed to put MONGO on civility parole, it'd be a different matter entirely. But, that is not what is at the crux of this current debate. This is a tightly focused dissent of desysopping MONGO and Seabhcan based on the points raised to desysop them. Civility concerns are a separate matter. --Durin 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's "limited evidence" in your mind, you're simply not reading it. I can't argue with people who can't see the facts clear in front of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As it now stands, any admin can apparently be desysopped at the whim of the ArbCom despite a complete lack of evidence that they have violated any administrative rules.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Admins serve at the pleasure of the community and of Jimbo. Your bit is not guaranteed. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, there's plenty of evidence. Why can't people see it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Popularity, fear of their own bits being at risk. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Any evidence not explicitly listed in proposed decision #5 is purely subjective, and is bypassing defined process for these matters. It is the evidence listed that has caused the concern here. -- Renesis (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict x2) Exactly. It seems like the evidence supporting MONGO's desysopping is entirely unrelated to the reasons the Arb Com members voted to support that measure. -- Renesis (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the ArbCom is removing MONGO due to a history of unrepentant incivility and brusque behavior. Review recent comments by Jimbo, who is -THE- finally authority for all things Wikipedia, and his repeated reemphasis of late for all admins to be respectful and courteous. MONGO is the unfortunate antithesis of this, so this ArbCom decision is in line with Jimbo's will. Also, it sends the correct message: do not be rude, intolerant, or allow your personal beliefs to shine through your admin work. As an admin, any personal beliefs need to take a back seat to the policy beliefs as trickled down from Jimbo. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then they should say so. Their reasons for desysopping don't say that. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ArbCom as stated previously does not work under precedent, they adjust constantly. This may be the new thing, or these is private evidence perhaps. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Private evidence = Star chamber. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Private evidence = personal info. If you were in an arbcom yourself, and your Real Name were at stake for evidence, would you want it publically out? Your IP? Employer? · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the decisions makes any mention of such a thing. Even if there were information they couldn't divulge, they could at least say that.  With no comments on that, we have to assume that "private evidence" is not the case, and as such, theie decision is backed by no evidence.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about policy "beliefs" set forward by the community? I'm not about to step into a "Jimbo-worship" debate, but your comments are out of line.  This is a community, not a dictatorship, nor some strange cult where we receive inspiration from one source. -- Renesis (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo sets policy, or adjusts it. It is what it is. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped would show you that the ArbCom is clearly saying that admins have to give other admins deference. Wouldn't this be admitting that admins are somehow superior to run of the mill editors? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Jimbo said you all have to be courteous, to everyone. That's everyone. An admin is a user with buttons, and carries no more weight or inherent value to the project. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * that's my point. The arbcom's wording of their decision gives undue weight to MONGO's supposed inability to relate "appropriately" with other administators, which makes the decision seem to say that it's his dealings with admins as admins that's wrong, and yet, where do we have any evidence of this, and why is it more wrong to deal inappropriately with admins than it is to deal inappropriately with non-admins?  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, Zoe. AnnH  ♫  23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know and arbcom if they decide to will need to answer that. From my encounters with mongo and rereading all the history leading up to this all I can surmise is that a community within wikipedia that is in charge has grown tired of antics; the patience of the community is exhausted? 3 rfcs, 3 arbcoms, etc., in a year. But I could be wrong. I don't know. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it worth pointing out that MONGO is similarly poor at dealing with 'non-admins' appropriately? Proto ::  ►  01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, the proposal to desysop MONGO is expressly based on two things: (1) alleged misuse of administrative tools, and (2) alleged failure to relate properly to other administrators. Durin (above) and Radiant (below), among others, have pointed out that the evidence of the first of these is thin. I (above) have noted that there is no finding as to the second of these and no evidence has been adduced to support it.

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

History of ongoing peer conflict, inability to play 'nice'

 * It is of no relevance except if past behavior or overall behavior of involved parties is to be considered. It would be folly to not take a user's entire career history into play. If someone behaves in a problematic way not compatible with Jimbo's stated direction 25% of the time, but for months on end, there would be ''no' assumption plausibley believeable that the negative behavior in question would change, short of severe and repeated disciplineing. It is apt to compare it to a spoiled child--give an inch, or turn a blind eye, and the problem will grown and escalate over time until the behavior is ingrained as acceptable, and you end up with a situation that becomes a sense of entitlement to continue that negative behavior.


 * MONGO has a defined history going back to his beginnings on Wikipedia, upon further review, of negative, abrasive, and at times downright hostile behavior to his peers. This is going back to early 2005. If anything, based on editing patterns and escalation of confrontation with his peers, the problem is gradually worsening, as he appears emboldened by his last ArbCom decision (which is relevant here). Barring repeated ongoing discipline to recondition his behavioral patterns, I can't see MONGO learning how to play well with the other kids.


 * I recommend ArbCom proceed based on this. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth
An analysis of the alleged admin abuse. . ( Radiant ) 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An excellent analysis. I hope all the ArbCom members will read it, and if they decide to disregard it, that they will at least give us a point-by-point rebuttal. I will go so far as to say that I think they owe that to the community. AnnH  ♫  23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Excellent analysis. I think your conclusion sums up the problem here perfectly. -- Renesis (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Radiant!'s analysis independently corroborates Durin's and my conclusions above. Newyorkbrad 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And Renesis13. That makes four of us independently achieving the same conclusions. I hadn't reviewed the block of bullet point one though, and Radiant! has. I concur with his assessment. --Durin 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to Radiant!'s analysis, which is easier to read than the diff. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So what makes that flimsy at best? Keep in mind, that's only some of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also concur with said analysis that evidence of User:MONGO's alleged abuse of admin powers is thin. I expect a response from Arbcom as suggested by Ann above. I would add an assertion that MONGO's combative attitude (an admitted failing for which he must yet face appropriate remedy) has been conflated with a report of abuse events (which by itself barely clears the minimum standard for this process). BusterD 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here. Only the first two items have any merit, and of those the second seems to be a misunderstanding, and the first one happened 6 months ago. The presented evidence seems to show that MONGO stopped abusing admin tools 6 months ago, so I don't see how desysopping him now will help the project. Zocky | picture popups 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be required reading. I knew I voted for Radiant for ArbCom for a reason. —Doug Bell talk 02:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? He maps out exactly why this needs to happen, and then says "we shouldn't do it," and this becomes "required reading?"  I said it elsewhere, I'll say it here - I didn't need a second reason to oppose him, but I've got it now.  I really wish I could understand where some people were coming from here, because I simply do not get it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, if you think there is better evidence to support desysopping than that picked out by Dmcdevit in his proposed findings, you can propose your own findings of fact on the workshop page. The case actually saw less use of the workshop page than is typical, since Dmcdevit went straight to the proposed decision page.  (I hasten to say there is nothing wrong with this, and some cases never use the workshop page at all.)    It would possibly be a useful excercise to offer some findings of fact to support your view and see if the others can find holes in them. Thatcher131 02:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See, that's the issue - it's plain as day to me that the evidence presented is more than fine. I have no qualms with what's there, I simply don't understand where the howling is coming from. There's not much else that I could add, or feel compelled to, currently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there isn't as much outright howling. No one is saying that Mongo or Seabhcan are brilliant administrators and examples to the community. They did bad. However, most of it was incivility rather than tool misuse, much of the incivility was directed towards each other, and they did a lot of admin stuff otherwise. Most people are saying their good outweighed their bad, and a more limited response is preferred. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You did read the parts where Radiant says "This is not abusive" or "I fail to see the problem here" on each point, didn't you? Did you read the same analysis as I did, because it didn't seem like Radiant "mapped out" why it needs to happen at all. -- Renesis (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. His analysis is faulty and incorrect, thus the problem.  I can easily come up with the same result if I misrepresent evidence, too.  Why that occurred, I don't know, but that's that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seemed like you were saying that Radiant was contradicting himself. In what way do you feel his analysis is faulty and incorrect, and in what way is it a misrepresentation of the evidence? -- Renesis (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By, for instance, saying that it isn't abusive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, the sky is red because it is red. Good answer. -- Renesis (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I have a question. Hypothetically, let's assume that you've never heard of or observed MONGO as an editor or an administrator, and you came across this RfAr and read the justification/evidence presently provided by the ArbCom for desysopping MONGO.  MONGO has performed over 4,000 administrative actions, and the Arbitration Committee has provided 5 of these as evidence that MONGO has a continuous history of administrative abuse.  I personally believe 4 of these can and are explained by something other than admin abuse, especially in light of how productive he is.  It seems to me like you're long on, "There's plenty of evidence," and real short on actually providing said evidence.  It certainly hasn't been provided by the Arbitration Committee.  That is what is being protested here.  If there is a valid reason that he should be desysopped, then EXPLAIN IT.  Citing 5 diffs over a 6 month period, 4 of which are flimsy at best and have valid explanations is NOT reason enough in my book, and I would hope that it wouldn't be enough in yours. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is more than just admin abuse. There is the insulting conduct and the disruption to the project from his heavy-handed approach. Individual ArbCom members may have voted the way they did for one or several of these reasons. I haven't gone over the charges of admin abuse - but for me the abusive and insulting conduct goes over the edge and has been documented since he first logged in, on his RfA, since his RfA, through two RfCs and now two ArbCom cases.  MONGO refuses to even acknowledge that he's ever insulted anyone.  It's a different bunch of "trolls" everytime.  You've got to ask "why is it always MONGO?"  His actions are as disruptive to the project as the "trolls" he is always fighting. SchmuckyTheCat 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, first, in the evidence section, there is overwhelming evidence of continued abuse. That ArbCom chose to highlight 5 is their choice, and does not invalidate the rest.  Note the general findings of fact.  The evidence is clear as day on the /Evidence page, and that's that.  Would I prefer ArbCom fill the proposed decision area with diffs to make it explicitly clear?  Sure, but I don't think they have to, because I'd like to think reasonable people can read the evidence page.  So, given the evidence provided alone, combined with prior rulings, I think it's rather cut and dry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, anyone can put anything on the evidence page. We should and do expect ArbCom to present the evidence on which it bases its findings of facts, and to base remedies on actual findings of facts. 3 of the 5 exhibits are just normal admin work. As it now looks, the ArbCom is saying that 1 inappropriate block (even if 6 months have passed) and one unfulfilled threat based on a misunderstanding is grounds for desysopping.
 * This doesn't have much to do with MONGO personally. This sort of shoddy work is not how we expect ArbCom to work. Zocky | picture popups 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think that is a useful and legitimate criticism. It looks somewhat shoddy on the surface, but I don't think it's inappropriate to expect people to look at the wealth of evidence presented, either.  The problem isn't the result as much as how they're presenting the rationale, maybe? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The only way I can judge whether the result is good is by evaluating the rationale, and this one sucks, especially as it sets a bad precedent. (I know some people claim that ArbCom doesn't work by precedents because it sometimes reverses its previous stances, but that's exactly how courts in common law systems work, and nobody is claiming they don't work by precedents.) Zocky | picture popups 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, my username alone may be a magnet. If I fed the trolls by my actions, then I need to adjust my responses. As far as my handling of Camperstrike and Cplot, in light of especially the latter's efforts, which included attacks made from a serious of sock accounts on myself and numerous others, I believe my reaction was very reserved. I don't consider myself "burned-out" or on the edge of going off on some wild spree of policy violating admin actions. I do recognize I have insulted others and for that I do apologize.--MONGO 06:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do you understand how you've insulted others? Do you retract some of the rotten accusations you made? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, can you possibly step back from your ED history and view the MONGO RfA dispassionately? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm appalled by this.  I've deleted four rather nasty responses to this, and I'm not inclined to make it a fifth.  Completely disgusting statement.  So much for good faith.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thoughtless and inflammatory. Badlydrawnjeff hasn't edited ED, other than to announce his absence, since February.  Looks like Zoe is aiming to provoke here.  Milto LOL pia 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Precedents for Retaining Admin tools
Tony Sidaway retains adminship despite Wheel Warring and reversing more than a dozen admins. Placed on Admin probbation of 1RR.

Everyking on his 3rd RfAr retains his adminship becuase it is deemed his incivility is not relevant to his role as admin. He was banned from certain admin duties. In each of the 3 ArbCom decisions, his desysopping was discussed and rejected. Note that Everyking was desysopped 10 months later for an unrelated incident.

Here arbitrators agree that enforcement by block is appropriate for adminstrative abuse contrary to the ArbCom parole ruling (i.e. a adminstrative rollbacks). Arguably this would interfere with "normal administrative duties" but it appeared to be an acceptable solution. This ruling, indeed the opinions of the same arbcom members, appears to be incongruous with the reasoning presented here.

While not bound by precedent, it appears that the logic of refusing admin parole/probation is flawed as it appears that at least the previous two times it has been successful. --Tbeatty 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And you don't find it significant that both of your cases were later desysopped (or de facto desysopped) by ArbCom? They weren't successful. Probation doesn't make sense for administrators, because it's about judgment as much as specific behaviors. I am still convinced that administrative probation will cause more strife than either desysopping or lack of remedy. I felt this at the time, and still do. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree wholeheartedly with Dmcdevit. Ral315 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it significant that both cases allowed probabtion and that probabtion was workable. If your argument is that it failed because they later were desysopped or relinquished sysop status, then there is no reason to ever let people reapply.  Both editors continue to contribute.  I don't believe either desysopping was related to their probation.  Their probation was workable and effective.  --Tbeatty 11:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You either trust someone, or you don't ... you can't "slightly trust" someone. Admin probation has never worked out well.  Proto ::  ►  09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that means since some prisoners go back to jail we should just start executing them. That makes complete sense. How about we remove probation from Wikipedia all together and just start banning users on first offense? --Nuclear Zer0 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's would be a good analogy if that was what was happening. But nobody's being banned, they'll just maybe be desysopped. It's more like firing officials for petty corruption than like executing petty criminals. Zocky | picture popups 12:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would also be a good analogy if this were a court. All this talk of precedent and procedure... couldn't time being spent here developing bitterness be better spent elsewhere?  Milto LOL pia 12:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I find myself in agreement with Zer0. No case has been made that MONGO is worthy of desysopping. Myself and three others have analyzed the case made against him independently of each other and reached the same conclusion; it's baseless. If you move ahead with desysopping him on the grounds so far presented, you effectively state that no intermediary corrective actions are worthwhile. The effect is, make a mistake and be de-adminned. And yes it does extend to users; if you don't trust a user to play nice, then why slap a civility parole on them? After all, it doesn't work, right? Just permaban them. Don't bother with attempting to correct the behavior, just assume they can't correct the behavior and they are not worthy of trust.
 * ArbCom, you can't believe this current set of decisions is the right way to go. This debate has spawned nearly a hundred messages on the mailing list in the last 24 hours and more than 250 edits to this page in the last 48 hours. At an absolute minimum, you must recognize this decision is extremely controversial. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to step back and re-evaluate? Don't you think this would be a reasonable step? --Durin 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reapplication
There has been some question, so this is how reapplication for adminship in either of the two cases here should work. I'm not speaking for all of arbcom here, but I think this represents what the full Committee would agree with. In either case, there is no mandated time frame, and there is no automatic resysopping (it is based either on the support of the community or arbcom). Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no restrictions on reapplication for adminship at WP:RFA. Either can apply as soon as he wants. The only restriction here is the candidate's good sense in not running when he's likely to be clobbered. A successful (or unsuccessful) re-RFA won't be overturned by arbcom, since that is a community process.
 * Also, one may appeal a ruling to arbcom (or Jimbo) at any time. ArbCom has in the past repealed sanctions that proved to be no longer necessary, due to good behavior, and we reserve the right to reverse any of our decisions when it is decided that is the prudent thing to do. Again, if arbcom thinks it is prudent to desysop someone, it's not likely to change its mind after a few days, but after a months of good behavior, it might due so.
 * We are asking to reverse your decision now, BEFORE you implement it. The straw poll is of course not binding, but it is strongly indicative that ArbCom is making an error in this case. Four different people, acting independently of each other, reached a conclusion that the case to desysop MONGO is baseless. I'm also quite shocked that apparently ArbCom put forth the suggestion to desysop Seabhcan before Seabhcan even had a chance to present evidence. Good grief! Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. It's time to take a step back and re-evaluate what it is you are trying to do here. --Durin 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All it is is strongly indicative that people disagree with the remedies, not necessarily that they're actually making an error or that the situation is baseless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then show where there is basis for MONGO to be desysopped. Four people (including myself) analyzed it independently and reached the conclusion that it is baseless. You keep bringing up incivility, but incivility is NOT the reason he is being desysopped. That has nothing to do with it. --Durin 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But incivility could easily be. Check the evidence page.  Also, check the evidence page regarding his continued abuse of page protection, blocks, and threatening of blocks.  After you're done digesting the numerous instances that have occurred regarding civility and admin tools, contrast it with past remedies applied to MONGO, most notably that he was not held accountable for any possible/probable abuses in his previous ArbCom case - the "excessive zeal" finding.  Considering he was left alone for the abuses the first time and failed to change his behavior, arguably getting worse, this should be open and shut. I don't understand your consideration - or anyone else's - that this is "baseless."  Read the evidence page if you think it's baseless, and if you still think so, read it again.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not contesting the incivility. I am contesting the desysopping, which has not been tied to the incivility and to which at least one member of ArbCom said it is not tied. If you want to tie it, then you'd better show a strong connection between incivility and admin tool usage. Some vague assertions have been made (something like "he gets more agitated when using tools") but nothing concrete. The past remedy applied to MONGO, that regarding his zeal, was not a remedy at all. No corrective action was asked for. You're finding fault with him for not changing his behavior when he wasn't requested to change his behavior. Might as well go beat your dog because he came when you called. I'll read the evidence page a thousand times and draw the same conclusions as three others have as well; the current base on which MONGO is to be desysopped lacks basis. It's as if RfAr is saying "Whoops, we should have slapped him last time" and is now trying to retroactively correct that into "Ah, we'll get him now!". Wikipedia is not a lynch mob. --Durin 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me ask you this: looking at the evidence page, can you or can you not see a clear case of MONGO abusing his tools, being incivil, and violating numerous policies and guidelines.  A simple yes or no answer.  You can disagree with the ArbCom's choices in how they presented the rationales in the proposed decision, but watching a number of numerous cases and being the main complaintant in one in particular, this seems no different than how they've ever handled these situations before.  The question is simple:  can you see a clear case based on the evidence? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection, leading the witness. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can lead hostile witnesses :). Yes, Jeff, MONGO has been incivil numerous times in the past.  Personally, I was against his RfA (although I decided not to vote either way in the end).  However, he has shown me to be incorrect in my presumption and has been a fantastic and prolific administrator.  Incivility has NOTHING to do with one's mop and bucket.  I fully support remediation of incivil behavior in his case.  There has been no case made in the findings of fact for administrative abuse, which is the reason cited by the ArbCom for desysoping him.  That's (my) complaint with this whole situation.  I'm not saying that the entire case against MONGO is baseless, that's obviously not true.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Incivility does have A LOT to do with "the mop and bucket". If you're a newbie and an administrator BITES you, you'll leave.  Incivil administrators drive away contributors. Admins should be examples, not exemptles, of our civility rules. SchmuckyTheCat 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Finding of Fact: MONGO misuses his admin tools
"On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing", as a general matter:

The wording of the provision is too general, especially considering the level of activity on that article in this particular case. Semi- or full-protection of articles can both be warranted on articles one is actively editing for a variety of reasons, including edit warring in which the admin is not involved.

In this case, MONGO's protection could be wrong not because he was actively involved in editing the article in general, but because the sentences that were the subject of the edit war appear to be sentences he had previously added and reverted in the listed revisions from two weeks earlier (compare and ). Note also that the revision that MONGO protected,, would appear to be somewhat contrary to the revision to which he reverted two weeks earlier, (same revisions as above); also, the version he protected was the version preferred by a user he later banned,  (who appears to continue to be abusive with sockpuppets, ). In other words, it seems that the admin protected what he would himself consider the Wrong version; the admin did not protect a favored version, and appears to have protected in the manner in which any admin would have, faced with an edit war. There may be other reasons why a protection in the circumstances of this case were wrong, such as general passionate involvement in a POV issue, etc., but the provision as currently written does not demonstrate misuse of admin tools. See also: Note: I am commenting specifically and only on this provision of this finding of fact. —Centrx→talk &bull; 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Protection policy: "Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection." (emphasis added); and "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." not "active in editing", and the intent of this is to prevent an admin gaining advantage in a dispute by the use of admin tools; in this case the use of admin tools disfavored or ignored the admin's content preference.
 * Administrator's noticeboard section concerning the issue of page protection in this case
 * I made this edit for clarity: . I think it addresses your valid concerns about the vagueness. Dmcdevit·t 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dmcdevit, you say you made it for "clarity", but you "clarified" it in a way that seems to add some justification to the proposed desysopping. You changed from:


 * Version A On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing.

to:
 * Version B On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, after continued warring over the same content he had already been involved in reverting.

I suggest:
 * Version C On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, after a new edit war broke out concerning content over which he had been edit warring seventeen days before the protection, but had not edited since. He did not protect it in his "own" version, but in that of a user whom he was subsequently to block indefinitely. MONGO removed the protection after one day, and made no further edits to the article except for two minor corrections of typos..

I would very much like to hear from arbitrators as to whether they think there is anything inaccurate in Version C. If there is not, can someone explain in what way Version B could be considered to be fairer, or what advantage it has other than that it gives some justification for a block which some members have already decided on?

And by the way, I don't mean this with any sarcasm. I am genuinely concerned at what I see as a serious injustice and harmful decision, and do not know how to question it in a way that will definitely not come across as argumentative and defiant. AnnH  ♫  11:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Musical Linguist/AnnH that the changes made by Dmcdevit are not a neutral clarification of the facts and support her proposed change. —Doug Bell talk 11:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So your version is designed to muddy the waters further? The problem isn't his "own" version, or that the edit war began before he arrived, or that he eventually removed the protection, or that he left the article.  The problem is that he a) protected an article he was involved in, and b) blocked someone he was involved in an edit conflict in.  End statement.  Both of those are very straightforward abuses, and your version doesn't change that.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, look at and . Incidentally, I just made a similar edit after the text I find superfluous was inserted again . Now let's imagine an edit war starts on that page in 2 weeks. I notice it, since it's on my watchlist, step in, protect the page on whatever version it is at the time and unprotect it after things calm down. Grounds for desysopping or not? Zocky | picture popups 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, according to ArbCom, yes. Under such interpretation of policy (for which, I might add, there is no basis) any admin stands a decent chance of losing their admin bit for using their admin tools on articles they have edited. --Durin 14:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, apparently, according to the ArbCom, you may not protect or unprotect an article which you have never edited, so long as somebody else is editing it with which you have, at some point in time, had a disagreement. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the standard they want to make; do not use admin functions on articles you have edited, and do not use admin functions on articles you have never edited but which editors you've had any disagreements with have edited. So, now an admin must check editing histories and keep some kind of a black list of people they've had disputes with to compare against so they don't accidentally perform admin functions on articles they should not have. Wow. --Durin 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. I cannot remember every editor I have ever disagreed with, and usually when there is a disagreement we've worked things out and continue editing together. Now it seems that if I ever, ever, protect an article on which anything like this has ever happened, or even an article on which I've fixed a spelling or syntax error, or even where someone I've had any type of difference of opinion with has edited, I'm guilty of... what? Being an Admin? And this is bad precisely how? No. Apply a little common sense here. Under this very bizarre interpretation, he longer one has been on WP and the more articles one has contributed to, the less useful one can be as an Admin. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Workshop
Stuff's getting chaotic with these proposals by outside parties. It might be a good idea to use the workshop page, isn't that what it's for? Milto LOL pia 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Remedy 7 "MONGO suspended as an administrator"
This remedy has been added today. I'm flummoxed. The traffic on this page in the last 48 hours has shown the dramatic lack of support to desysop MONGO based on the current supporting arguments. Suspending for six months is little different. If there's no case to desysop, how can there be a case to suspend for six months? ArbCom, you've got to rewrite this whole thing, come up with better evidence, and provide a very strong argument why MONGO should be desysopped. If you can't do that, you can't support a suspension either. You want to talk about Remedy 4 or 4.1, fine. But, your case for desysopping is virtually non-existent, and likewise non-existent for suspension. --Durin 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a case to desysop. Fred Bauder 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should reign in your criticism of ArbCom a bit, or an admin ought to reign you in. This is exactly the level of activity (if not more) that happened with Geogre/Giano/the Stewards. You are trolling. Let ArbCom do their work; the process has worked quite fine all these years. MONGO is one user, who has demonstrated historic difficulties in being a civil person. I note also nearly all of the people that "support" him are people who are of the same political mind, ilk, and bent--far right wing conservative. Their patron saint is being depowered for crass incivility, and that means they would need to endanger themselves now as admins to "step up" in intolerant comments as he did, perhaps, or they are perhaps unhappy with ArbCom putting a long-needed leash on rouge admins. Either way, cease trolling. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but this appears to be a broad-brush personal attack, and an assumption of bad faith on the objects of that attack, myself being one of them. Not a good path to saunter down, considering the circumstances. Crockspot 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He's doing fine. I appreciate the feedback. Fred Bauder 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Please do not bow to political pressure, and stay true to what is right. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see. You call me "ilk", in need of being "reigned in", "far right wing conservative", and view MONGO as my patron saint. And *I'm* trolling? I think I'll choose not to respond to your comments in the future. --Durin 14:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * XP - I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make those kind of sweeping generalizations about people you know nothing about. You don't know my "political mind, ilk or bent" and I can assure you that you would be surprised to find that some of the people who are against this ridiculous de-sysoping come from a variety of backgrounds, not that it is any of your business --rogerd 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Fred is trying to explore ways of resolving an evident problem without losing a valued admin and contributor. I respect him for that>  I would like to see civility parole tried first, with maybe a review in six months or if abuse of tools is documented before then, but we should at least allow the arbs to explore creative ways around the problem.  MONGO needs a break from the firing line, how we as a commuity achieve that without hurting him or the project is a non-trivial problem. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO's value is an editor, not as an admin, as demonstrated by this case and many previous ones. Anyone who feels entitled to adminship is wrong, as per Jimbo & ArbCom it's an irrelevant tool to building the encyclopedia. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So 3,030 uncontroversial actions performed by MONGO as an admin amounts to no worth as an administrator. I only have 2,175 such actions. I'm sure I've made a few mistakes here and there, and probably more than MONGO. Maybe I should step down as admin since I have no value either. I'm wondering what your metric is for determining value, when 99.86% of MONGO's admin actions were fine. --Durin 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3,030? You're not counting the protections and blocks, which would put the number north of 3,600. —Doug Bell talk 21:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Civility is the difference, and the fact no one has complained. 99.86% of all the admin related drama in past... 18, 24 months approximately has swirled around just 0.14% of all the admins--specifically, MONGO, Carnildo, Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, Ed Poor. Perhaps the community that was elected by *US* has decided that enough is enough. I support any excessive zeal ArbCom and Jimbo pursue to make Wikipedia a drama-free zone by de-empowering the troublemakers. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do you get your figures from? 99.86% of all drama?  I think not.  0.14% of all admins?  The figures you use work out to something closer to 0.5%.  You need to get a new calculator as you math and statistics have yet to be correct. —Doug Bell talk 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * XP, I can only agree with your goals. But ends don't justify the means, and excessive zeal is going to produce more drama, not defuse it. If MONGO is getting deadminned for incivility, ArbCom should say so, not wrap it into supposed admin tool abuse that it failed to show. Zocky | picture popups 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are problems with XP's statement above. I've had my share of drama (though not on the same scale), so have lots of others, and I still think Tony Sidaway is a loss to the admin community because in my experience he was, however abrasive, almost always right because he referenced everything - everything - back to "does this help build a great encyclopaedia".  Oh, and let's not forget the dramas caused by Danny and Jimbo either.  Or any of the parties in the Great Userbox War. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom: implore you to stand fast
Apologies to those my brush was bit too wide on. My specific feel on this above all is that this is another angry response by a variety of admins--in fact, a REVOLT and borderline coup de'tat--against any perceived reigning in of their "authority". An important note is that admins have no authority, but what Jimbo, the Board, the Stewards, and ArbCom deem they have. The time is past due for true quality control/"above admin" oversight over administrative action, and I (and many) readily welcome what feels to be the sweeping new direction of this. The message as read--unless I am 100% off base--is that shenanigans will no longer be tolerated, endorsed (vocally, or silently), or supported by the Powers That Be. Good. I implore the ArbCom to not bow to rouge admin/MONGO partisan pressure on this. While you may piss off an EXTREME minority of the 1,000+ admins out there, the project long term, historically, will look back on you as people willing to take a stand versus excess. Draw the line in the sand, to begin cleaning up the mess, and the other troublemakers will toe the appropriate line of civil behavior and discourse going forward. Even more importantly, it will send a 100% clear message that "adminiship is no big deal", and that we are not here to strive to be admins. We're here to make an encyclopedia and add content. All else is fluff, extraneous, and counter to our goals. Please stand fast versus the rouge admin/MONGO partisans. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey there- First, who are you calling a coup? Second, I personally am not striving to be an admin. I am a straight-forward contributor here. Third, I don’t think the admins out there appreciate these kind of remarks. Just something to think about. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A veiled threat to <font color="#0518A7">XP for speaking his mind,  JungleCat ?  Sounds like it.  Abe Froman 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear from some of the admins he is calling the EXTREME minority on this. I see those comments as uncalled for. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see them as essential. No one gets a free pass. We have 1,077 admins. I'll be liberal and say that 25 have endorsed MONGO here. That is 0.0232% of the population of admins. That is an extreme minority. If I go more liberal and say 40 admins endorsed him, we're still at 0.0371% of the population. MONGO is only supported thus by his close associates/partisans, and admins in general opposed to any curtailing in general of administrative authority or clout. My hypothesis is supported by numbers, facts, and editing histories. Perhaps we should all start calling facts as seen rather than dancing about cutely. We're wasting the community's time with games. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's some pretty horrendous math there. What you meant was 2.32% and 3.71%, respectively. —Doug Bell talk 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a mighty fine spin job there XP. How do you explain that onle FIVE (5) editors voted in support of the desysop in the straw poll? How many of them are admins, and what percentage does that come to? Yes, I'm spinning in the opposite direction, but my spin appears to outspin your spin. People of my ilk are pesky little spinners, eh? - Crockspot 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or everyone else is afraid of retribution. Someone has to take a stand versus the people hurting Wikipedia, even though I'm now suspect by people who will hound my edits. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 17:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be conjecture on your part, not based on any evidence. Unless you have some collection of communications such as emails from those who are "afraid". But you have hit upon the core, someone does have to take a stand against those who are hurting Wikipedia. MONGO took such a stand. Perhaps the problem is the difference in perception of who exactly is hurting Wikipedia. Crockspot 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and arbcom shall decide, as elected by us. We do not get this priviledge to decide in this case. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 18:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm curious where in your numbers, facts and editing histories you find support for the accusations that I am "ilk", a "rouge admin", in need of being "reigned in", and "far right wing conservative"? Some cites perhaps? --Durin 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where were you during Carnildo? Everyking? Ed Poor, etc., with strident defense? Basically, all the arguments pro-MONGO are either by people who from editing patterns and history have either a strong friendship relationship with him, significantly similar editing patterns/tastes, or are arguing from the perspective that adminstratorship is an entitlement. Nonsense. Having it granted is trivial, as should be having it removed. You do not need to be an admin to build the encyclopedia. Those who feel they do are not here for the right reasons and are misinformed. Anyone who feels entitled to power should be shown the door and swiftly. Also, It's curious that MONGO draws such support, being the "admin's admin". ArbCom, please ignore partisanship. Some chose to live by the sword, and if they do not do it correctly should lose their bit by the same sword. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So by this I am "ilk", a "rouge admin", in need of being "reigned in", and "far right wing conservative"? I have a relationship with MONGO only in that he and I have edited similar articles. Prior to this incident, I had edited his talk page a grand total of 3 times...the last in February of 2006. I guess that makes he and I best friends and me a partisan? Do you have any evidence that I am a rouge admin? I'd like to hear it. I'm always open to constructive feedback.
 * Adminship is indeed not an entitlement. Nobody here is arguing that it is. The point is that having it forcibly removed is a big deal; it casts a very harsh light on the editor in question. It's not the removal that makes it wrong, it's the manner of removal. --Durin 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which goes back to the question of why should people be seeing adminship as a big deal? Getting it, losing it, etc., should be no big deal ever. We microcosm so much into "personal bullshit" that we lose sight of things. A smudge on your block record, getting/losing the bit. NONE OF THAT CRAP MATTERS. Building the encyclopedia matters. If people have to make everything personal can't be detached to write an encyclopedia, then they just maybe shouldn't be here on one of the major internet venues. If an admin can't take the heat, surrender your bit (all of you) now. The point is that it doesn't matter if you or MONGO nor I have it, or lose it, or get it back four months later. WE DON'T NEED IT. If it casts a bad light on him, it was from a flashlight he purchased, loaded the batteries into, and handed to ArbCom to aim back at him. Also, it's past time for Admins to all understand that it's NO BIG DEAL TO GET OR LOSE THE BIT BY ANY MEASURE. It's one tool, and not an essential one to make articles. People here to just "admin" are here for the wrong purposes. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well guess what? The 25 people you refer to are spending their time to deal with this issue at hand. They are not wasting their time. You don't think the voice of 25 admins says anything here? JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Why did they not flare up on every borderline desysop? Popularity/partisanship. Simple as that. Lets end this and go build articles. MONGO is a harm to the community with his behavior. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The civility issues were from another user which is why this whole thing started. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)*
 * Actually, I'm quite right, and you're unaware of historically how ArbCom works. EVERY party is subject to review, even the person who brought the ArbCom. See MONGO's last ArbCom, for example, and others previously. Anyone named as a party in any fashion is subject to review and action by the committee. People thus who play with fire in a Wikipedia sense should tread lightly about ArbCom, but MONGO did not, and was thus subject to full review once more. This is the result, he is immently going to be desysopped for in short exhausting the community's patience. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that there are zero net votes to close this case, it doesn't appear that anything is imminent. Crockspot 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * XP, your perfectly entitled to your opinion but please do remember it is just that, your very own opinion. I happen to disagree with you and believe that MONGO was a very good administrator who is not guilty of the charges levelled against him by the ArbCom. In fact, ArbCom really doesn't deserve the power they are invested with, where they investigate, judge and sentence an editor all in one fell swoop. I'm really wondering if there shouldn't be an Arbitration Investigation committee which does all the investigative work currently carried out by ArbCom before referring cases to the Arbitration Committee proper that way we might stop the ArbCom from imposing a grossly excessive punishment through the use of grossly exaggerated evidence. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * XP, from what I have seen so far, the community doesn’t agree with you. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 0.0232%  disagrees with the ArbCom as it stands, an irrelevant minority. I implore ArbCom to not bow to their fringe alternative viewpoints and close. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some more horrendous math. The figure you're looking for is 2.32%. —Doug Bell talk 19:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * XP, I'm slightly confused here. Above you claim that Tony Sidaway was a part of the problem, and here you are using exactly the same kind of drama-fueling arguments that Tony used in a recent case. Zocky | picture popups 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm just WP:SPADEing spades. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Tony said he was doing. Zocky | picture popups 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that he did so by means of abusing his admin tools with blocks, hence his general departure. It is also telling that some admins, upon losing/surrendering their bit, stop contributing as much (Tony, Kelly). All who do so were here for the wrong reasons. Nothing matters but creating content here. Everything supports that. Adminship is not needed, and should be taken as easily as it is granted. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea that people who disagree are organizing coups and revolts and that ArbCom should indulge in excessive zeal to suppress them is what made Tony make all those inappropriate blocks and offensive remarks. Please don't perpetuate it. Zocky | picture popups 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On a lightter note, thanks, XP, for the first sighting of the term rouge admin in recent weeks, I was beginning to think we might have to go and fix the spelling :o) Guy (Help!) 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite true, Guy, we had this recent mention as well. Newyorkbrad 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yebbut that was cultivated, this was a sighting "in the wild" :-) Guy (Help!) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All rouge admins are in the wild, I've never met a tame one yet. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of those 5 diffs
Without taking a position on the merits, I'd like to suggest that placing 5 diffs into the proposed decision does not nullify the remainder of the evidence, and if the 5 diffs do not support the proposed remedies, that may be an indication of a poorly written and poorly explained outcome, rather than an invalid outcome. I would further like to suggest that those who remain in favor of desysopping MONGO and/or Seabhcan might find it more productive of their time to add new proposals and stronger diffs to the workshop page, rather than engaging in irresistable force meets immovable object argumentation on this talk page. Thatcher131 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ArbCom members reviewing this would do well to read this e-mail from an uninvolved party on the mailing list. If you're going to make a case to take the highly unusual step of desysopping not just one, but *two* admins then at least provide some very damning evidence of abuse of admin tools. This has not been done. --Durin 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * New proposal up from me. · <font color="#0518A7">XP · 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to give a tutorial on arbitration cases, but the problem is not with the remedies, it is with the findings of fact, which many have argued do not support the remedies. Thatcher131 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close is nearly passed
The ArbCom motion to close this case now stands at 5-2 in favor of closing with MONGO and Seabhcan desysopped. Though some members of ArbCom have engaged us on this page, most have not. The activity levels on areas where ArbCom can interact with other users on this case has been exceptionally low. I note the following traffic:

Of course, nothing requires ArbCom to engage on these pages. But, myself and others have gained the distinct impression that ArbCom is essentially absent from these discussions and is refusing to interact with the community present on these pages to bring about the best solution. More than 70 different people have contributed to this page alone in the last 72 hours. In the introduction of all requests for arbitration, it says "Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop" yet 5 of the 7 arbitrators who have voted on the motion to close have contributed nothing to the workshop page. Why do we even have workshop pages if the ArbCom won't use them? ArbCom is almost singularly absent from this work. It is as if there is a large meeting of concerned parties conducting work on this case in a large meeting room and ArbCom is off in another city in some private meeting room, with an occasional call in to say "Let's close this case. Bye!".

Does ArbCom have to bend to community will? Of course not. Does ArbCom have to listen to opinion polls to decide what to do? Of course not. But, when there is *this* much dissent, *this* much ongoing discussion, *this* much effort going into trying to bring about the best solution, ArbCom owes it to us to at least put up some measure of working in concert with the people here and elsewhere on this RfAr rather than acting in isolation.

At, Jimbo Wales said "last thing any of us want is judges making decisions not based on facts but based on opinion polls." This is true. He also said in the same e-mail, "it can be fine for the ArbCom to always be open to new evidence or arguments from trusted community members as a sanity check."

New arguments have been made. Four different people, acting independently, have arrived at similar conclusions; that ArbCom's case for de-adminning MONGO is without basis.

I am not suggesting that ArbCom close this in favor of not desysopping MONGO. I am suggesting that given that they take a step back from closing this RfAr and get back to the drawing table; the same drawing table where they are supposed to be sitting but most of them have not yet pulled up a chair to.
 * Their overall lack of involvement in this RfAR for which they have been put in place to do
 * The considerable ongoing discussion regarding this case in multiple fora
 * The work that is still ongoing at /workshop (which they have almost uniformly not been involved in)
 * The presentation of new arguments that (given so many people arriving at the same conclusions) deserve consideration per Jimbo Wales quote above

Respectfully submitted, --Durin 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And one arbitrator opposed closure, reviewed the facts, and then voted in favor of closure, saying nothing compelled him to change his stance. What, exactly, are you expecting at this point?  There's no question as to their involvement - they have reviewed the evidence and voted.  The lack of closure yet indicates that they have heard the cries of the masses regarding this.  Furthermore, the ArbCom does have a closed mailing list that Jimbo and all the members and clerks are involved with.  You simply do not know what they have or haven't discussed.  What is your purpose at this point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor correction; the clerks aren't on the mailing list. We can send messages without going through moderation, but that's all. Thatcher131 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I learned something new today, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly see it the role of the Arbitration Committee to get in long discussions with the community regarding current cases. They discuss these issues in-depth amongst themselves and look at all of our evidence and such. The process is already long enough as it is. I don't think it'd be feasible for the community at large to somehow get involved in trying to make or adjust their decisions. As far as I can tell the ArbCom is taking a strong stand against misuse of administrator tools, and they aren't letting friendship or bias cloud their judgement. I think, in the long run, this will be for the best. --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per the beginning of all RfArs where it says ""Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop" I am simply asking ArbCom to do their job. The majority of the ArbCom members who have voted on the motion to close have made no edits to the workshop page where they are expected to contribute. This has nothing to do with bending to community will, bias, friendship or the like. It has everything to do with them doing the job they were appointed to do. --Durin 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that while I disagree with the decision made, Fred is consistant in communicating on this page. I don't know or have any way of knowing how many of the ArbCom members looked at the page, but I can at least thank Fred for being polite and concerned enough to engage in discussion. Still think desyssopping either of them is flat out wrong. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict) I agree that arbitrators need not, and probably should not, get into "long discussions" with the community regarding the merits of a decision. On the other hand, because the arbitration cases are resolved on-wiki, this page can ensure the quality of the decisions by allowing users to point out any perceived errors of fact or analysis or other concerns raised by the Proposed Decision. In this case, the concerns have apparently led at least some of the arbitrators to give further consideration to the issues raised and to note that they have done so. I don't see how that can be a bad thing, whether or not it ultimately changes the result. In fact, if anything, it should lead to the community being more satisfied that the case was considered carefully and fully, whether or not a particular editor agrees with all or part of the final decision. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise, there need not be lengthy discussions with the community, but the ArbCom should at least inform the community of how and why they arrived at their various decisions and address concerns raised by the community. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Justice tempered with mercy
Some have noted above that past arbitrations did not impose de-sysoping for 'offenses' similar to those in this case. I think that is a valid observation, but rather than any sort of 'bias' I think this is indicative of increased severity. In many quarters there is a growing sense that Wikipedia is becoming more chaotic, more hostile, and more beset by destructive forces. There is a natural instinct to squash any perceived problem to 'stem the tide' or 'send a message' in hopes of protecting what we love about Wikipedia.

However, it seems clear that it was this same impulse which led MONGO himself to feel justified in taking strong action against perceived troublemakers. Stomp on the problem to protect the site. This is a common and not unpopular reaction. Yet the ArbCom has concluded (rightly IMO) that some of MONGO's actions were harsh and themselves disruptive and dangerous to Wikipedia. You are now taking strong action to stop that... but consider that you may be falling into the same trap which you condemn MONGO for failing to avoid. We can't continue to apply more and more severe 'punishments' for less and less significant 'infractions'... this provides the feeling of taking decisive action to protect Wikipedia while in fact often serving to fracture and destroy it.

There are times when we have no choice but to take drastic and potentially permanent action. If a user continues vandalizing after repeated warnings. If an admin habitually blocks users to 'win' content disputes. If it has become clear that there is no other way to stop them.

I do not believe that we have reached such a point here. Can anyone say that they are certain MONGO would not avoid incivility and questionable admin actions if strongly warned or enjoined against such? Can anyone say that they believe he has received such instructions in the past? The last ArbCom ruling said that he showed "excessive zeal". A daunting indictment it was not. Can we really say that if ArbCom had put MONGO on parole then (or there had been less support for his questionable actions in the RfC even earlier) that there would still have been subsequent problems?

I don't like the way MONGO goes about trying to 'protect Wikipedia' because I think he is sometimes unjustifiably harsh and unforgiving of users who make mistakes or simply disagree with him. Much of the evidence against him came (directly or indirectly) from me. I am not his biggest fan <tm>. However, I think this move to desysop him is equally harsh and unforgiving and introduces the same problems that I objected to in MONGO's actions. We need to stand up and say when things are damaging, but we don't need to take action to make it impossible for someone to commit that damage unless there is no other way. That may seem tiresome or 'inexpedient', but it is also less disruptive and dividing.

Note: I don't speak to the Seabhcan side of the case because I know very little about him. Some of the evidence I've seen here seems clearly improper, but I think the same principles apply. Unless we are (nearly) sure that 'rehabilitation' is impossible I think we do more harm than good in trying to 'prevent further abuse' by taking away his ability to do so rather than simply telling him NOT to and seeing if that works. --CBD 17:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Durin 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

desysopped vs suspended
re: Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision

User:Dmcdevit brought up some good points is regards to suspension.

What is the difference between being suspended and being desysopped? Are being desysopped vs suspended synonyms? I am rather confused, can someone explain this please? Travb (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although the wording (suspended vs desysopped) makes it sound milder, this remedy appears more harsh than the original desysopping. It excludes the possibility of a new community supported RFA and leaves only appeal to the committee (which also exists in the case of desysopping). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Reinoutr, do you have any wikipolicy pages on suspension? I couldn't find any. Interesting that the ArbCom committee is taking this route now. Travb (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was just my interpretation of the new remedy. I don't think suspension of an administrator has been endorsed before by the committee, so there will be not much precedent to refer to. Some information can be found here: Arbitration policy/Precedents. Suspension has been suggested in prior cases though (but did not pass), see for example:
 * Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision
 * ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see in that in the Stevertigo case you mention, here, that Kelly Martin wrote:


 * I do not think that a suspension of two months, or indeed any fixed number of months, will serve to restore community trust in Stevertigo, if it has indeed been lost (which seems likely given the response to his RFC). We have clear evidence of abuse of that trust, and enough evidence to doubt that he still has the trust of the community. We should let the community decide whether to continue to extend trust to him.
 * Here, in the same case, Fred writes:
 * Stevertigo is placed on Wikipedia:Administrative probation, for one year. Following restoration to the status of administrator following any suspension, he may be subject to removal as an administrator upon repetition of the sort of infraction shown in this case...
 * What is strange is when Kelly Martin and Fred mentions suspension in that case, they makes it sound like a  lesser  punishment than being desysopped, but you are under the impression it is a  harsher  punishment.
 * Also in the Stevertigo case, both Kelly and Fred seem to indicate that suspension is for a specific period of time, whereas the current proposal has no time limit attached. This lack of time limit appears to be an oversite by the Arbcom committee.
 * Now that I think about it:
 * Based on the definition of the word "suspend" (which is quite different than the word "revoke") and
 * the previous Stevertigo case...
 * I am willing to guess that "suspension" is a lesser punishment, to appease those who don't want to see MONGO desypoped.
 * Personally, I tend to agree with User:Dmcdevit why are new proposals being brought up when the ArbCom has been closed?
 * This is all rather confusing too me, being only the second Arbcom I have ever been involved in.
 * Thanks again Reinoutr...Travb (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The case isn't closed yet. It takes 4 net votes to close a case, and with 5 votes to close and 2 opposing, there are only 3 net votes. Thatcher131 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is a net vote? I see five votes to close:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision:
 * the Epopt
 * SimonP
 * Charles Matthews
 * Dmcdevit
 * Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * I am really confused now :( I guess I misread Dmcdevit comment too. Thanks for correcting this Thatcher131.  Travb (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Minus Jayjg and Fred, who oppose closure, makes 3 "net" votes. Each vote to oppose closure negates a vote in favor of closure.  The case can't close unless Raul654 votes to close, or Fred or Jayjg withdraws his opposition to closure. Thatcher131 12:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Thatcher131, I always find you so very helpful, and I appreciate it a lot. Have a great day--off to finals :(  Travb (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another kick in the teeth
It's bad enough that the ArbCom were considering desysopping MONGO, but to now suggest he be suspended without any indication of whether the community will be permitted to give MONGO sysop status in future is utterly infuriating. Are they trying to force the community to accept MONGOs desysopping by dangling this carrot in front of us. The fact is the evidence doesn't warrant desysopping let alone what appears to be a permanent suspension. Do the present ArbCom want to totally destroy what little credibility they're left with after the Seabhcan case ? <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The flaw with giving the option to restore through requests for admin is that should it fail, it will be difficult to lift suspension in the face of an expressed opinion rejecting adminship. Your assertion that there is no evidence is simply false. Fred Bauder 12:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point Fred. Presumably inspired by the whole brouhaha over the last re-sysoping after a 'failed' (by usual standards) RFA. If pursuing such a course it might be beneficial to say something like 'ArbCom will review the suspension after '... the candidate is free to stand for RFA again at any time, but if the RFA does not succeed that may influence any subsequent appeal to ArbCom'. Leave the choice to the user with the understanding that it is alot easier for ArbCom to say, 'ok the concerns we had previously have not been repeated so the suspension is over' than 'ok, we are going to over-rule the community and make this person an admin again'. --CBD 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you justifiably may have misread the above comments. User:Reinoutr is not sure if a suspension is harsher than a desyop and changed his comment to "appears".
 * I seriously doubt, after the uproar of the wikipedia community, the ArbCom would then turn around and make a harsher punishment. Travb (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People need to seriously 'chill out' and discuss these issues calmly. Intemperate comments like the above aren't helping anyone. Presumably there is some uncertainty as to definition of terms here which the ArbCom is working out. In most cases a 'desysoped' admin has generally been presumed to remain that way unless re-instated by a community approved RFA (with the ArbCom sometimes even putting limits on when the community could do that). A 'suspension' which is instead appealed to the ArbCom itself might thus be meant as a less severe penalty... needing only to demonstrate to ArbCom that there haven't been subsequent problems rather than requiring ~80% community approval. However, since there is also now some precedent for ArbCom getting involved in 're-sysoping' issues directly there is talk of appeal to ArbCom being a valid route for 'desysoped' admins as well. Semantic distinctions which need to be sorted out. Not cause for continued incivility and attacks. Finally, before invoking 'the will of the community' you might want to consider how that was expressed here. --CBD 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do hope I am wrong on this one and that the decision to suspend MONGO is for a period of time rather than a permanent suspension, but there's no indication and that's what I'm annoyed about. It's ArbCom saying far too little again which annoys me rather than the actual decision. I'm thinking there can be no doubt MONGO used his sysop powers unfairly, but at no time did he do anything more which could be considered blatant misuse of his tools, such as deleting content, unjustly blocking users or any other action which would be damaging to the project and it's for this reason I don't wish to see MONGO desysopped. A suspension of admin powers would be fine with me but if ArbCom does wish a permanent suspension of MONGOs sysop powers, I would rather they desysop and let us go do a new RfA in a few months time because simply, in my opinion, MONGO having sysop powers isn't a danger to the project and there's no need for ArbCom to nanny us over his ability to be an admin once again in the future. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 11:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I am rather surprised by the comments above. It seems clear to me that the idea of suspension is meant as a lesser punishment because of the often repeated charge that RfA is "broken" and is too harsh, especially on candidates requesting resysoping. Though perhaps this could be made clear by stating a specific time at which the suspension would be reviewed. This interpretation is supported, IMO, by the pattern of votes in the case. Not that users won't still have concerns about the remedy or that clarification of the potential role of RfA wouldn't be helpful, of course. Eluchil404 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is meant to be a lesser punishment, that why it appeared after all the discussion here on the talk page, at a time when another remedy already had passed. The question is if it actually will be a lesser punishment. Many people here who comment in favor of MONGO appear to suggest that there is consensus not to desysop. If that is true, a reapplication through RFA should be a formality (although I doubt it will be). With this new remedy, the RFA is excluded (suspension on one hand while allowing RFA on the other makes no sense). So the only means for him to reapply for adminship is by appeal to the commitee. Appeal to the commitee is always possible, also after a desysop. So while obviously meant as a lesser punishment, this might in practice turn out to be a more severe punishment. One way to circumvent that problem would be if the commitee would include a set period of time, after which they re-evaluate (e.g. every 3 or 6 months) if MONGO is ready to become admin again. That way, he does not have to appeal himself and there is not the suggestion that the suspension might turn out indefinite. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see, (regardless of many who have stated that the evidence to desysop me is weak), that either the community or the ArbCom will likely be interested in allowing me to become an administrator again. It's not that I assume bad faith, but the evidence is that I don't have overall strong community support...especially if you base it on my failed attempt to get on the arbitration committee. I don't think I deserve to have my administrative abilities removed, nor do I think Seabhcan should, but I don't get to make that call. I came to arbcom to seek binding resolution on matters of civility and that was all.--MONGO 13:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a new proposal for remedy over at /Workshop
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to offer remedy, but I've suggested administrative suspension for an as yet undefined period, followed by application to arbcom OR normal RfA, coupled with a suggested civility parole for both users. BusterD 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what normal policy is, but arbitrators are continuing to make changes to their decisions even though they have already voted to close the proceedings. Wouldn't it be better to oppose closure while an arbitrator is actively making changes to the proposed decision? I'm still uncomfortable about witnessing such a proceeding with such a small quorum of arbitrators. BusterD 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to catch you up:
 * Admin suspension has already been proposed. Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision
 * The vote is not closed, see Thatcher131 excellent clarifications above There are 7 votes, 5 to close and 2 to keep open. Those 2 keep open votes are a minus to the 5 open votes.  So 5-2=3 admins deciding to close.  There needs to be 4 admins deciding to close.  It is rather confusing. maybe this section of Proposed decision should be rewritten, where is the template for Proposed decision?
 * There are only 8 arbcoms, and 7 have made comments on this Proposed decision page.
 * I am learning this whole process too.
 * Travb (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, arbitrators, not admins. —Doug Bell talk 17:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I know my inexperience is showing here, but my intent was to pose the following: if arbitrator A has already voted to close, how can arbitrator A make a change on any proposed remedy tally without first changing his or her current tally on the closing motion? And doesn't it seem odd for this rather extreme solution to be conducted at a time when only a bare quorum of arbitrators are available to consider what has become a rather large and conflated discussion? BusterD 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your thoughts about voting on proposals while the close motion is pending is an interesting technicality, but the arbitrators are not really bound by technicalities. Arbitration cases have been decided this year with as few as 7 active arbitrators, and while desysopping two admins may seem extreme, imposing permanent bans on disruptive editors is just as extreme to the affected editors, and has been carried out with 5-0 votes with not a peep from the community.  The alternative would be to keep the case open until the new arbitrators are seated, and even then at least 6 of them would have to vote against in order to change the outcome. Thatcher131 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'd hate to see the committee unduly hamstrung by technicality, precedent or formality; it sort of goes against ignore all rules. At this late hour, it appears that rough consensus has slowed closure, but both admins will be desysoped, and then at least one battle over RfA will occur immediately. I'm not certain this will send the right message to the users involved or the community. This is very sad for everyone. If there were some way of quantifying the community injury, then the healing could commence over that remedy. BusterD 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, response to Thatcher) That (your last point) was quite correct as of a couple of days ago but I am not sure that it is true any longer. At the moment, I believe the remedy of flat desysopping of User:MONGO is the first choice of three out of six participating arbitrators and not the first choice of the other three. If the two active arbitrators who have not yet voted on the merits of the case were to weigh in, it could certainly affect the result. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's not a heck of a lot of difference between desysopped for 6 months, desysopped indefinitely pending appeal to Arbcom, and desysopped indefinitely pending new RFA. To completely overturn that would require a concerted effort by most of the new arbitrators.  The 3 remedies now pending are different drapes but the view out the window is the same. Thatcher131 00:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... there's a certain amount of truth to that. There's a critical difference among those proposals for those who have said they would renominate MONGO on RfA tomorrow, but I'm not at all sure he'd accept. Newyorkbrad 00:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My original point was to state there WAS a measurable difference between suspended for six months and suspended for one hour. By offering some benchmark, the negotiation could siphon some of the tension. But this process has long since exceeded the original scope of that intended instituting User:MONGO (who was in his first sentence open to the same remedies as those he suggested imposed on Seabhcan). Where this has gone wrong is in applying a very strained usage of "violation." User:Radiant's compelling point-by-point analysis remains unanswered, and many users await a better case to be made against MONGO pending drastic remedy. BusterD 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Buster, the original desysopping proposal is exactly what you proposed, just not clearly spelled out. Past decisions have determined that editors who lose admin status can regain it from the community through a new RFA.  This was confirmed by Fred above somewhere and by another arbritrator to me by email (which I also posted above somewhere).  And since the decision does not specify a time limit, the RFA could be done any time he though he had enough support to pass.  Both of the 6 month proposals take this away. Thatcher131 01:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal
The proposal to de-admin MONGO and Seabhcan appears not to have support on these talk pages, either because of the facts, or that such a decree from ArbCom is inappropriate. Admins serve at the will of the community. I've added another (in what is now a long list of) alternatives: they must immediately re-apply for adminship to judge the will of the community. SchmuckyTheCat 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The "will of the community" to be determined by what? RfA is not a vote, it is a discussion.  There are no hard pass/fail criteria.  Who is to judge the will of the community? —Doug Bell talk 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably bureaucrats. Wouldn't it be a standard RfA? (Please note that I'm not advocating an immediate reapplication as the best solution.) SuperMachine 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reapplication immediately or even in the near future would be disruptive.--MONGO 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It'd be contentious, but not disruptive. There is already a lot of minor disruption around this whole issue. SchmuckyTheCat 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Doug: The bureaucrats, of coures.  Just like they do for other RFAs.  Don't they decide the consensus themselves, or does someone else do it and then they merely have the technical means to implement it?  Milto LOL pia 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'crats decide on whether or not there is a consensus and promote as necessary. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although the crats have been known to promote without consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, please, let's not go there. Newyorkbrad 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:XP
Please note that XP has been blocked as being a sock puppet of the banned User:Rootology, who was banned in large part because of his repeated attacks on MONGO. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. - Crockspot 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! BusterD 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it's just a straw poll but shouldn’t user:xp vote be struck being that it is a sock puppet?▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡Talk 19:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Two cents' worth
Wow! I go a away for a week or so, come back ... and see that the Arbcom is close to desysopping someone whom I regard as a valuable contributor and admin, i.e. MONGO. The exposure of XP, above, as one of MONGO's past harassers kind of makes the point: MONGO has had a lot to put up with. Has his response been exemplary? No. But not many of us are saints, and it's not that long since an arbitration explicitly held that no action should be taken against him for any "excessive zeal". With all respect to the arbitrators - and it's a group of people whom I do greatly respect - it seems a bit much turning around taking such a drastic action now. Any evidence that his behaviour has deteriorated in some drastic way of late is surely very thin.

This looks to me as if we are only at that stage when an otherwise great contributor to Wikipedia should somehow be put on notice that he has to change by being more consistently civil. I could even understand some kind of cooling off period (i.e. desysopping for a fixed term that simply expires with the effluxion of time after some weeks or months). But just plain desysopping is too much an unexpected slap in the face for someone of this calibre in all the circumstances obtaining here, including everything good he has done as both a contributor and an admin. I don't say that MONGO should get a free pass, but please reconsider the appropriate remedy. Metamagician3000 07:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I believe we're now closed (fred just changed making it 6-1), and both are desysopped. BusterD 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Clerk hasn't formally closed it yet, and probably won't for a short while longer, but it certainly looks like that's where we're headed. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just a formality...I'll probably be minus the tools as the case is closed out...maybe the desyopping comes first.--MONGO 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t make sense. Can the decisions be appealed? JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They can be appealed to Jimbo Wales, but I won't do this and I ask everyone else to not do this either.--MONGO 19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We needed to shut it down, as we were deadlocked. Fred Bauder 19:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what that means, Fred. You were deadlocked so instead of working to resolve the significant issues that lead to said deadlock and an exceptional amount of community response, you close it with said issues well intact?  Surely that's not the way it should work... —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We were deadlocked after extensive discussion. Fred Bauder 21:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and I appreciate that extensive discussion must have been undertaken privately off-wiki. However, my question is, in the case of a deadlock, how is the appropriate action to go ahead with two drastic actions that lead to the deadlock in question.  I know that ArbCom is not a court of law and doesn't function like one, but if it were, in this particular instance, a mistrial would be granted, and the case would "start over".  I personally believe that's a much more responsible course of action to take.  Please note that I, and most other objectors, do not oppose administrative action against MONGO and Seabhcan for issues of incivility.  Attempting to tie a history of incivility to removing one's bit, with very little by way of findings of fact to support it, is irresponsible on the part of the ArbCom, as is the precedent that is being established by this decision (which has been outlined by editors far smarter than I in various places above).  I guess what it boils down to is that I, as well as many others, am confounded by the lack of communication and explanation coming out of those with whom we have entrusted the power to arbitrate matters such as these. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that proceedings have been voted closed (6-1)
Boy-o-boy I hope somebody writes a humdinger of a summary, because several admins have stated in this process there is inadequate evidence to support this specific remedy. I know MONGO has expressed no desire to create any more controversy with an early RfA, but I suspect we're not done here. Disproportionate and impetuous. BusterD 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the ArbCom will explain to us admins their ruling on protection policy
Are they really saying that it is inappropriate to ever protect or unprotect a page which an admin has never edited, so long as somebody else with whom that admin has, at some time in the past, had a disagreement with, is, or has ever, edited that page? User:Zoe|(talk) 07:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That hasn't been said anywhere. The message is don't protect when involved. It's a bad idea to use your buttons on a page when someone your involved in a dispute with is part of the reason fot the protection. You're not likely to be happy with the ruling if you try to distill it into hard and fast rules ad absurdium based on a particular piece of evidence with a particular set of context which is, in any case, only intended to be demonstrable of a pattern of judgment, not an absolute judgment or an automatic ticket for desysopping. Which isn't to say that it isn't still usually a bad idea anyway, but that arbcom has certainly not formed any rule liek the one you've suggested. Dmcdevit·t 07:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But MONGO was desysopped for unprotecting a page he was notinvolved in. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're conflating involvememnt with editing. You can edit (vandal reversions, etc.) without being involved, and you can be involved enough with the page, because of a conflict elsewhere with a party to the edit war, without editing. So he was involved. And, as I said, he wasn't desysopped for that, but it was evidence of his judgment. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Splitting hairs. Not one person has yet said that the unprotection was wrong.  User:Zoe|(talk) 09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am indeed a person. I assume my five colleagues are the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You six and apparently nobody else except for the sockpuppets who have been harrassing MONGO for months now. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently ArbCom looked at the entirety of the evidence provided, not just the single action you are focusing on. SchmuckyTheCat 10:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is several admins and many users have not been able to find any evidence which would support the ArbCom decision, and we're talking about experienced administrators and editors here, not a bunch of dubious sockpuppets who are in no small part responsible for MONGO being desysopped. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 15:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But the ArbCom has yet to explain their arbitrary desysopping based on the unblocking that they claim was not acceptable. All admins have to stop protecting or unprotecting any and all articles immediately, or risk being desysopped.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


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


 * I can't see that I ever edited the article (Gladio)...my unprotection was not done in malice...to believe it was is a massive loss of good faith.--MONGO 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Too late to argue now, Mongo. Just resubmit yourself for adminship. If you do it now you'll get lots of protest votes. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeff, how can unprotecting Gladio possibly have been wrong, there were no edits for 43 hours after the page was protected. Apart from removing the page protection and removing the template that says the page was protected, MONGO has never edited that page before or after the protection was carried out. Page Protection is very much against the whole ethos of Wikipedia so what exactly is the problem here. Are admins not supposed to protect and unprotect pages or something ? <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The continued inability of people to a) not be able to read the wealth of evidence for this case as well as b) our protection policy is not something I'm able to solve. I shouldn't have bothered commenting further.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where in our protection policy does it say that an admin may not unprotect an article that he or she has never edited? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


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


 * In other words, Heligoland, if we disagree that the evidence shows misuse of admin tools, then we must be too stupid to understand it, or we're deliberately ignoring policy. Nice. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 17:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems that way. What's worse is I feel that's the attitude of the ArbCom too. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very Well Done (to ArbCom)
- Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Wikipedia. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Wikipedia and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you are helping this situation at all, and really, who the fuck cares about what ED thinks? Their opinions shouldn't affect how we act one whit.  You're actually giving them power by suggesting that their opinion on this issue should've swayed the outcome of the decision.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  02:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous RfAr did that. They clearly have power over Wikipedia before there's a need to blacklist their links and for the various proposals which were passed at the last RfAr basically banning all mentions of ED. I'm concerned with the fact MONGO is likely to suffer more harassment because of this whole farce and it's already started at ED. It'll end up here, I'm sure, and that's the other point I'm trying to get across to ArbCom, even making what, in isolation, is the right decision isn't always the right decision for Wikipedia. If MONGO has to suffer just one piece of harassment over this whole issue, then the wrong decision was reached. The fact the evidence didn't support desysopping only compounds the misery ArbCom have brought to Wikipedia. <font color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what they put there doesn't matter one iota. Don't sweat it.--MONGO 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would just like to say that I think you are showing a lot of class in this situation. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)