Case Opened on 11:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party at 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tango (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
MONGO (talk · contribs · count)

Requests for comment

Statement by Bishzilla

Request ArbCom promptly desysop Tango temporarily before does more harm. Incivility block of established User:MONGO demonstrate Tango flouting of common sense. Tango demeanor in block discussion demonstrate contempt of community opinion. Not good attitudes in admin. Tango need admin mentor if remain admin. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Added points by Bishzilla

Little arbs reject before community has chance to add other instances. Please reconsider in light of Giano's examples and highly telling ANI thread here. Note Dmcdevit's blunt critique, conclusion Tango lack sound administrative judgement. Thread indeed 16 months old, but suppose useless to look for intermediate scandals with mad dash to judgment exhibited by arbs in this case. :-( What is hurry? Why some cases sit for weeks while material come in from all directions, while this case so quickly rejected? Is caused by bad rep of problem user Bishonen? Bishonen nothing to do with this! 'Zilla liberated from Bishonen, stole her tools ! Forget Bishonen, please consider case on merits. Also consider self-righteous recent addition by Tango below, requesting ArbCom warn SlimVirgin, speaks volumes. Apropos of speaking volumes; request especially NYBrad look again. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Tango

Now SlimVirgin has undone the block with no apparent consensus to do so, it is a matter of wheel warring. I request ArbCom accept the case to investigate the warning, original block, first unblock and reblock and no SlimVirgin's unblock. --Tango (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is a fuller response.

I saw a complaint on AN/I against MONGO, investigated and saw him falsely accusing a fellow editor of the September 11 articles of trolling. In accordance with the ArbCom ruling, I issued a warning. MONGO then removed that warning with an edit summary of "get lost". When I saw that, I considered the matter and decided a block was in order (topic bans and similar things didn't seem appropriate given the offense took place on his talk page). I acknoweldge that "get lost" is not the most uncivil of comments, however the fact that he said it in response to a civility warning made it clear he had no intention of regarding the warning and would continue to be uncivil. I decided a block was the best way to prevent further incivility. I didn't think a short block would have much affect, so issued one for a week. I immeadiately requested review on AN/I.

During this discussion on AN/I, a clear concensus was forming that a week was excessive (I disagree, but understand and respect the consenus viewpoint). I made it clear that I would shorten the block to 24 hours if there was still a consensus to do so before the initial 24 hours was up. Orderinchaos then unblocked MONGO citing a consensus on AN/I to do so. Several people, including myself, pointed out that there was no such consensus, and Orderinchaos reinstated a 31 hours block (29 hours from the time it was imposed). While I would have liked to have been allowed to handle the matter myself, since I'd already said I would, I did not contest the new block. Orderinchaos made an error in judgement and corrected it when it was pointed out. Mistakes happen and I do not request any action be taken against Orderinchaos beyond confirming that the original unblock was inappropriate. At this point, I also imposed an indefinite (I should point out, that does not mean "forever", it means for an undetermined amount of time) civility restriction on MONGO, in accordance with the ArbCom ruling and follow the suggestion of some people on AN/I.

The situation then appeared to be calming down. MONGO had retired, and this ArbCom case was filed, but generally, things seemed calmer to me. I considered the matter essentially over, baring the inevitable post-match analysis. There was a 31 hour block imposed which appeared to have wide (although far from universal) support. There appeared to be no censensus for any further action by anyone.

When I logged on today, I found out SlimVirgin had unblocked MONGO citing discussion with Orderinchaos as the "blocking admin". The only reason Orderinchaos had blocked MONGO was the undo the inappropriate unblock. For the purposes of a new unblock, I was the blocking admin and should have been consulted. I was not online at the time, so could not be. MONGO had already retired at this point, so there was no hurry. The block could have simply been allowed to expire. SlimVirgin also cited a consensus for an unblock - I contest that determination. No such consensus existed. I request that SlimVirgin by officially warned not the wheel war.

I will also briefly address the claims that I have a prior involvement with MONGO. MONGO and I have interacted in the past. This is not surprising, since we have both been here a long time. Some of those interactions have got a little heated. This is, again, not surprising, since interactions with MONGO frequently get a little heated - he is renowned for it. As for me being involved since I was the target of the incivility - I maintain that I am capable of making impartial decisions in spite of such, and request that people show the trust in me they claimed to have at my RFA. I am not aware of any policy forbiding admins taking action against incivility when they are the target.

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/2/2/1)

Reject. Tango chose to apply discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Committee's decision in the September 11 matter. If certain editors feel that the sanctions were overly harsh, there are methods of appeal specified in that decision; but we are not going to desysop an administrator merely for carrying out our instructions. Kirill 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse per my earlier recusal in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. As I stated when that case was filed, my home and office are located approximately 4 miles from the World Trade Center site, and I have extremely strong views regarding the "conspiracy theories" surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, such that I previously concluded that I should not participate as an arbitrator in evaluating editing on this topic. I now conclude with reluctance (and without necessarily creating an everlasting precedent) that after having recused myself in the underlying case, I also should not participate in reviewing a controversial block originating in arbitration enforcement of the decision in that case. I will present my personal opinions on the matter elsewhere on this RfAr page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reject~~. There are a number of troubling points here:
- that Tango issued, or at least appeared to issue, the block in response to MONGO's backchat to him, when he ought to have sought the input of an uninvolved administrator,
- the length of the block, and
- the hostility to the criticism of the block at ANI,
all of which add up to make this a bad block. However, the Committee's approach has consistently been that occasional mistakes are tolerated so long as people learn from them and don't turn mistakes into patterns of habit, and in the absence of any indications that this is part of a pattern of bad decisions with the tools, there's no need for arbitration at this time.

I should note that labelling editors with conflicting viewpoints as trolls or conspiracy theorists is the kind of seige mentality that makes achieving NPOV in certain areas so difficult, and in this respect Tango was correct to warn MONGO. The problems came after that. --bainer (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my reject for the moment. The further material referenced by Giano and by Corvus cornix raises further concerns, and the block extension referenced by FloNight (purportedly for block evasion, on an IP posting an unblock notice on Tango's talk rather than his own talk) is particularly worrying. At the moment I agree with Doc glasgow; I would recommend that an RfC is the way to go from here. --bainer (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reject. It was a bad block. If it were part of a pattern of bad behavior, this might be worth considering, but it's not actionable as is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Accept now. There's some stuff we need to look at. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking MONGO for a week for a remark of questionable incivility is manifestly excessive; to do so many hours after the remark, having had some history with MONGO, and subsequently to defend the block in a somewhat bad tempered way must raise questions about judgment. ~~However, it is a single incident and absent any history of misuse of the tools~~ I hope that Tango will consider what has happened here as a lesson. Also, the 'civility restriction' Tango purported to place on MONGO does not appear to be related to September 11 articles and in my opinion is not something an individual administrator can do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Rethinking whether to accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to recuse on this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Nothing unusual here. The "get lost/block/unblock" sequence happens most of the time. The ArbCom can only intervene if the trend does not stop somewhere. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bad block. If this constitutes a pattern I will support opening a case; we don't need admins with consistently poor judgment. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look through Tango's log and I find another lengthy block on an established user that seems extreme. Here Tango extended a 3RR violation from one month to two months because the editor left a politely worded unblock request on Tango's talk page with an ip address. Based on these two blocks, I have concerns about Tango's judgment when sanctioning users. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not think an emergency desysop is warranted in this case (so I understand the reason that other arbs are rejecting the case), I have serious doubts that an administrator conduct RFC is going to be an effective way to communicate with Tango about concerns related to the use of his admin tools. Per our prior stated practice of accepting cases that are "Unusually divisive disputes among administrators.", I think accepting this case is best in this situation. Also, I do not think that administrator conduct RFCs (which require certification from users about a single current dispute) are structured in a way to get to the root of the problem which seems to be a "pattern" of poor judgment when sanctioning users. Therefore, it falls on the Committee to address the matter. Accept. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. Administrators should not block for perceived incivility against themselves. It is even more troubling that the administrator in question does not seem to recognize or acknowledge this. This does not seem to be an isolated incident. Paul August ☎ 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reject per Kirill. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Accept. I think Kirill's view is basically correct. If we expect admins to enforce ArbCom remedies, we can and should explain to them if they go too far, rather than sanction them for "excessive roughness"; especially since blocks can be lifted. We still want admins to do the right thing, as they see it. The weight of argument that this is a special case leads me now to treat it as one. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per PA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. There is a core principle that Wikipedians, especially administrators, should not respond to personal attacks in a retaliatory fashion. That and other concerns expressed here warrant acceptance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Administrators

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

Passed 9 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

2) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.

Passed 9 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spirit versus letter

3) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should not be interpreted mechanically, with a focus on their letter, but commonsensically, with a focus on their spirit or purpose.

Passed 9 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

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

Passed 8 to 1, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Education and warnings

5.1) When it appears that a user has been editing in good faith but has violated Wikipedia's policies or guidelines out of ignorance or misunderstanding, administrators should be sure a reasonable effort is made to educate and reason with the user before imposing blocks.

Users amenable to changing their behavior should be given the opportunity to do so before blocks are imposed.

Passed 10 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Evading blocks

6) An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked.

Users may post a request for review of a block on their talk page when blocked. Doing so does not constitute evasion of a block.

Passed 9 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Uranus (or, administrators are not Atlas)

7) Administrators should not hesitate to draw on the experience or assistance of their fellow administrators whenever necessary. Seeking advice on an administrative action before taking it is often advisable, particularly where such action is likely to be controversial.

Passed 7 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Know yourself

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

Passed 9 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MeatBall:DefendEachOther

9) An administrator is expected to refrain from issuing blocks in response to personal attacks directed at themselves.

Passed 9 to 1, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Tango's blocks

1) Since becoming an administrator in November 2006, Tango (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made a number of problematic blocks:

In November 2006, Tango, having already declined a request for unblocking by Fys (talk · contribs), extended Fys' block after Fys made another request, and then protected Fys' talk page.
In July 2007, Tango blocked four users for edit warring on the article Atanas Badev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for different lengths of time, without warning any of them (article history).
In September 2007, Tango legitimately blocked AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs) for breaching the three-revert rule, but then punitively extended the block, purportedly for block evasion, after AlexCovarrubias appealed the block by posting while logged out.
In January 2008, Tango blocked Justpassinby (talk · contribs), who was engaged in a content dispute with several users, including Dureo (talk · contribs), at the article Pure Reason Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), before reverting to Dureo's version.
In April 2008, Tango blocked MONGO (talk · contribs) in response to, or apparently in response to, uncivil remarks directed at Tango, which had been made more than nine hours earlier. The impropriety, or apparent impropriety, of this action was enhanced by Tango's recent interactions with MONGO.

Passed 9 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

2) In December 2006, after blocking both Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) and Xandar (talk · contribs) for revert warring on the article Goa Inquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tango himself revert warred on the article, making three reverts before protecting the article on his preferred version (see administrators' noticeboard discussion, page history).

Passed 9 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Review and criticism

3) While Tango often seeks review by his peers of his administrative actions (example, example, example), he does so only ex post facto, and is unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his actions when it is given (example).

Passed 6 to 0, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Remedies

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

Tango desysopped

1.3) Tango (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. Tango may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Passed 7 to 2, 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.