Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Workshop

General discussion comment
Initial thinking, not yet set in stone. I'm going to listen hard to the comments and evidence provided before I decide the best way forward. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses to warnings
FloNight says, "A snarly response from a warned editor is a normal reaction, and nothing that warrants a block." While I think that as an observation this is mostly accurate, I think that accuracy is only because the standards for decorum have slipped very low. What collegial environment would have the property that, when someone warns you not to do something, the expected response is for you to insult them? Who would respond to an email from a colleague at work with "Get lost!"? If someone receives a warning that is genuinely inappropriate, they have numerous avenues for discussion to resolve the situation. Giving no response at all is better than responding with incivility or an assumption of bad faith. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To an extent, I agree. However, it is reasonable to expect a knee-jerk reaction, whether as a result of current low societal standards or simply normal human response. In an ideal world, I think CBM would be completely correct. I don't think that ideal has ever existed in practice, however. Sustained negative response would be a different matter, but a knee-jerk statement of less than proper language is probably to be expected in most places after one perceives oneself as being insulted or otherwise seriously criticized. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment comes from my experience working on Wikipedia as well as my real life experience dealing with people that are upset. Often, people do not react well to criticism. If someone is already upset, then a unfriendly reply is even more likely. To achieve a long term change in conduct, we often need to ignore short term responses until some good dialog between users can happen. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're correct about the need to work towards resolving disputes and fostering dialogue. But I think it's ill advised for us to enable people who routinely respond inappropriately to criticism here. I completely agree that occasional remarks can be attributed to stress or human failing, and I am sure I have made some remarks myself that I would regret to see widely advertised. But the situation in this case does not appear to be an isolated incident of incivility, and indeed the remarks in question are a rejection of dialogue. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that standards of decorum keep slipping downwards. It is integral that they do not, for the project to effectively (and successfully) achieve its purpose. Perhaps we are not putting enough emphasis on its importance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's crucial that we have consistency in this area. The current practice is that admins generally ignore immediate negative reactions, at least from regular editors. But Wikipedia is getting very big, and perhaps there is no longer enough interaction between the admins close to the vandal front and those who mostly deal with regular editors and actual content. Consistency does not necessarily mean that all editors are treated in the same way. Consistency means that whatever our standard is, it is enforced against those admins who cause disruption because they are not willing to learn about its fine points or to stay away from the areas they don't understand. FloNight has explained why we need the rule that (except in IAR situations) admins must not use their tools in reaction to a personal insult from a regular editor. The problem is that if we extend it so it applies to new editors and vandals, it will not be followed because in those situations it's generally safe to ignore it and everything else would break the "war" metaphor. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I understand this correctly? Are you saying that there is an officially declared (albeit metaphorical) "war" on against vandalism? And this war has been expanded to include POV-pushing? If so, I think WP:NOT needs to be radically reworked. It would have spared us all a great deal of trouble if I had known that I was working in a no-man's land beyond the "front lines", ultimately working alongside "the enemy" and therefore not covered by WP:CIVIL, etc. It certainly explains a great deal if that really is the case. But isn't the point of Wikipedia that no such battlelines exist?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not saying it is officially declared, but the metaphor is clearly in use. Also, I have been in an argument with a very experienced vandal fighter who spam1-templated a new user who had replaced a redlink concerning a Spanish think tank with an external link to the think tank's homepage. He added a link to, where   was the original link, but no personal words. The problem is not within WP:NOT WP:VAND, the problem is that the entire anti-vandal infrastructure seems to ignore WP:NOT WP:VAND and the spirit behind it. I have also been in an argument with an admin who is currently defending Tango in this matter. He literally made the equation "knowingly disrupting Wikipedia = a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia = vandalism" to defend his block of a user who had left polite (IIRC) but unwanted messages on an admin's talk page (no other "disruption"). I am worried that these people are repeating very unconstructive behaviour in good faith, because they mostly communicate with others who do the same. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My previous comment made no sense because I confused WP:NOT and WP:VAND. Sorry for the confusion. I think my point was relatively clear, it just wasn't a direct response. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification. Yes, the metaphor is very much in use (note also "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" and the "endless war to rid Wikipedia of ...", well, you name it.) There seems to be a general willingness to use labels like "POV pusher", "troll" and "vandal" as insults, intentionally applying the wrong description for effect (i.e., intending to offend). So someone whose opinion one loathes becomes a "POV pusher", and a POV-pusher becomes a "troll" or even a "vandal". It's like any other war. Your adversary becomes your enemy, then your enemy becomes a monster, etc... What is it they say about war?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Labeling any good faith edit as vandalism is taboo. When this happens in the heat of the moment (by editors in a dispute) or in error, experienced editors or administrators step in and correct the person doing it. If you see it happening, politely correct the person by explaining the meaning of the term vandalism as Wikipedia uses it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it the same goes for "troll" and "trolling"? In this particular case, an experienced user/adminstrator (Tango) politely reminded the person doing it (MONGO), knowing that this breach of decorum did not really need to be explained since MONGO is a very experienced editor. Still, "doing it by the book", he referred to the ArbCom decision that had emphasized the need to discuss things constructively. It is now Tango, not MONGO, who is defending his actions in front of AC, while the alleged "troller" (which I am supposed to understand is not quite the same thing as being called a "troll") is banned from editing the articles. I think it is a bit unclear right now just exactly what one is supposed to do "if you see it [inappropriate labeling] happening".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think that there is the same taboo against labeling someone a troll or calling someone's edits trolling. While I personally do not think that it is helpful, there is a significant minority opinion that it is ok to call someone out it if they are "acting like a troll". FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is reflected in essays like WP:SPADE as well. I can appreciate that after a long pattern of behavior, it may be necessary to treat someone as a troll. On the other hand, we have to avoid the negative turn of mind that views editing as a war between the "good guys" (meaning: "established editors who agree with me") and the "bad guys" (new editors with a different viewpoint). That sort of us-versus-them mentality is opposite to our principle that all people are encouraged to edit, and it makes neutral point of view more difficult to achieve by filtering out views not held by the established editors. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, the AC ruling that was invoked in this case established, to my mind, at least temporarilly, a norm for decorum that would make us treat words like "shill", "crank", "troll", and other non-taboo terms of abuse more like "vandal" in discussion of articles related to 9/11. That ruling should have raised the bar for WP:SPADE, which is already not a recommended strategy.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The key point here isn't that he called it trolling, it's that he incorrectly called it trolling. Perhaps the user in question had been trolling in the past (I haven't studied it closely enough to judge), but that particular edit was a courtesy notification, nothing more. Calling a spade a spade is fine, but it has to really be a spade. In my view, there was no way that notification could be considered trolling by any reasonable person, so I considered calling it trolling to be uncivil and issued the warning. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed my concern in a very recent ArbCom case that many editors call things 'trolling' even though it isn't actually trolling, whether it is deliberately misrepresenting, or as a result of genuine misunderstanding or not having read, and comprehended the essay well enough. There must be a better way for the ArbCom to refer to trolling, without using a term that is so broad, and quite clearly, widely misused. I also see no positive benefit out of actually calling something trolling. I think these issues may need to be addressed by the ArbCom in future relevant cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably true, but the issue being discussed isn't ArbCom calling something trolling, but MONGO doing so. Perhaps ArbCom should lead by example, but that's not really the point. --Tango (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango being eligible for recall?
I've noticed the discussion about the various ways to either make Tango undergo reconfirmation, being de-sysop'ed with the potential of filing another RfA in the future, etc. Personally, I get the impression that many or most of these could be effectively dealt with, without all these steps, if Tango were to just make himself eligible for recall. Would Tango agree to that possiblity, as a possible alternate to all those other steps which have been proposed? John Carter (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Tango, but I know that I decided not to be open to recall to avoid pitchfork and torch justice. I would far rather an independent committee look at evidence than go through a popularity contest. undefinedUntil  14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, recall is about letting people know you are eligible, and then, if there are those who think you are maybe acting oddly, to request another admin who is respected and regarded as neutral to review the claims and see if they are valid enough to justify recall. It isn't particularly a popularity contest, as the final judgement, if any, would be made by another admin who is hopefully generally respected. If that party were to say there wasn't just cause for recall, then there would be no recall. And I'm sure that there would be any number of admins whose neutrality and judgement would be trusted enough to be able to offer a non-controversial opinion. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think recall is not the way to handle this, especially if the admin did not choose to put themselves up for recall. Orderinchaos 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While individual criteria for recall do vary, the recalls that have actually been witnessed by me have been just awful events and more often than not spurious. To put it another way, more consideration was given to spin than evidence. undefinedUntil  15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's when it gets so far as a formal recall/reconfirmation, which generally means that at least one generally trustworthy admin, the one called in to review the situation, has said that there is sufficient basis for a recall/reconfirmation. I don't know if this would necessarily get to that point. If it would, though, then it could be another debacle, though. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Until(1 == 2) has pretty much summed up my views on recall. By the very nature of the job, admins have enemies (whenever you block someone or delete something, you're likely to annoy at least one person [the blockee or the author, respectively]). In the past when past or present admins have gone through RfA following some controversy, they've pretty much always got a large number of oppose votes with no real reason behind them (obviously, there are cases where some/many of the oppose votes have been well reasoned) and crats have ended up promoting at controversially low support levels. I doubt many (if any) admins that have been involved in any controversial decisions (whether they were right or wrong) could get 80% support in an RfA, and I wouldn't want to be the subject of another Carnildo RFA. The discussion here and elsewhere clearly shows there is no consensus to desysop me (not that ArbCom are obliged to follow consensus - that's kind of the the point of having an ArbCom), but I also doubt there would be a consensus to resysop me if I were desysoped (or recalled - it doesn't really matter what order you do things in). Generally, in cases with no consensus, we favour the status quo - that's what I think ought to happen in this case. --Tango (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will say this, sometimes you have to stick to your principles even when the pitchfork crowd come clamoring for your head. I give credit to Carnildo for standing up to the absurd moral panic and staying to true to the idea that Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia That ANYONE can edit." That he refused to back down from this belief during those troubled RFAs is a testament to his courage and leadership. While I disagree strongly with Carnildo's stance on Intellectual Property and Fair Use, he continues to be an exemplary administrator who still stands for what he believes in. It is sad that we continue to turn a blind eye to well intentioned, yet highly inappropriate harassment of individuals we don't like and then refuse to allow any discussion of their sanctions in the light of day. Perhaps that will change with more time, but as this case shows, allowing emotions to enter into administrative decisions is probably not a good idea. OTOH, I once believed strongly in recall, but now that I've had an extended wikibreak and re-examined old situations, I no longer care for it much. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to clerks
I've placed my comments in the "parties" section as I believe without a clear statement to the contrary it would be unsound to place my comments in the "others" section due to my action on Mongo's block at the time. Clerks are welcome to move my comments into the "other" spot if I am not a party to the action. Orderinchaos 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)