Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who is/are recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Administrators[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Standard wording. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of administrative tools in a dispute[edit]

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

Support:
  1. A slight variation on standard wording. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Within reason. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Spirit versus letter[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Blocking[edit]

4) Blocking is a technical measure by which administrators may prevent users from editing Wikipedia. The use of blocking is governed by the blocking policy. Blocking may only be used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and not to punish users; that is, blocking is preventative, not punitive.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC) In reply to UC's concern below, an "escalating sequence of blocks" doesn't necessarily have to be punitive. Second choice.[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I find this wording to be overly narrow. In particular, it does not admit the possibility that an escalating sequence of blocks is sometimes the most effective means of dealing with problematic users.[reply]
Abstain:


Blocking[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Offer similar principle that combines wording from two principles that we used in previous cases. I like the stronger caution in this one. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference with #4. A good point about the stronger caution here, though I think the point about preventative/punitive is important. Perhaps if that were added to this one? --bainer (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) First choice. Note: Per bainer's suggestion, I've added the language from 4 pertaining to " blocking is preventative, not punitive".[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Blocks are the first line of response in certain cases even when protection or repeated reversion would also be effective. Administrators should have the discretion to utilize either blocks or protection in situations where either might apply, based on the facts of the specific situation.[reply]
    I think we are talking past each other here. I do not see how this takes away administrator discretion. Administrator need to decide whether a block is going to cause more problems than it solves. In order to make this decision, they need to realize that other options that have less serious side effects are possible choices. So they still have the option to block, but need to take into account the consequences of a block versus the consequences of doing nothing or another action. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Education and warnings[edit]

5) Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable.

Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity may not require further warning.

Support:
  1. From the blocking policy. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blocks should be the last resort. Even if an user has been warned or blocked before, an effort needs to be made to look for less severe ways to remedy the situation before a block is done. This is especially true if there has been a significant span of time between the previous block, or cautions have usually been effective in other instances. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. I assume "blocks for protection" includes quick blocks for obvious vandalism only accounts. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) See 5.1[reply]
Abstain:

Education and warnings[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) First choice. This is more concise and to the point.[reply]
  3. Equal preference with #5. --bainer (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill (prof) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) With minor reword to ensure that "appears" covers both "editing in good faith" and "violated out of ignorance". As drafted, it covered just the first of these.[reply]
  10. First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Evading blocks[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. The first paragraph is also from the blocking policy. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree. Communicating with an administrator about a block is not block evasion, especially if it is done in a polite and thoughtfully worded manner on the administrators talk page. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I have narrowed the wording for the second paragraph.[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not Uranus (or, administrators are not Atlas)[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Not entirely necessary but I think the sentiment's important. Plus I liked the name too much not to include it. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This applies to the blocking, especially, since it is extremely difficult situation for all involved parties when administrators give vastly differing opinions about a block, or block length after the block is already done. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Heh heh he said "Uranus". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I agree with the sentiment.[reply]

Know yourself[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. bainer (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "...If I knew myself I'd run away." jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MeatBall:DefendEachOther[edit]

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

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC). Note: I've reworded this slightly to address Kirill's objection below. Paul August ☎ 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference with 9.1. --bainer (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fine now. Kirill (prof) 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Better. (Though I agree with the principle, I still do not think that this was really the major component in this case. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
If it truly is personal between the administrator and an user then I agree that the administrator should leave it to someone else. But quite often a personal attack is made towards any administrator that gets involved in helping to resolve a situation. Requiting them to abstain from helping to resolve the situation is not warranted in these cases. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (change to support)[reply]
Flo, this does not require the admin "to abstain from helping to resolve the situation", but rather to abstain from blocking for perceived incivility against themselves. For example, "backtalking" is not a legitimate reason for a block. Paul August ☎ 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in that backtalking towards an administrator after a warning probably is not a good reason for a block by another administrator either. It concerns be that another administrator would block for heated reply to a warning that was removed, not just that that admin would block. I think it is likely an over reaction in both instances. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flo, I agree with you completely. Perhaps the wording is unclear. No admin should block someone because that user made a personal attack against them. On the other hand, the presence of such a personal attack should not prevent an admin for blocking that user for other legitimate reasons. It's retaliatory blocks, in particular, that I'm trying to address here. I see them more often than I would like. There is a culture of "don't you insult me, I'm an admin and I can block you" that we need to nip in the bud. It combines the worst of petty bureaucracy and bad policing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't divorce the principle from the specifics of this case. After learning the entire background of the situation, I do not think any response to the comment was best. In another case, I would support this principle, though ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like, UC, I also agree with what you (and he) are saying but I'm failing to understand your objection. I'm very puzzled here. Can you help me out? Sorry if I'm being dense ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, likely I'm being difficult to understand ;-) My read of the situation (and as explained by Tango), the block was given because the comment by Mongo toward Tango continued a pattern of incivility, not because it was an isolated personal attack that warranted a block. My thinking is that it was an over reaction on Tango's part to a snarly comment made while removing a warning. While it is possible that the reason that Tango over reacted is because the comment was directed at him, I think that played a minor part. I think that Tango was intent on enforcing a sanction against Mongo because of a previously stated negative opinion about him, and this comment was a vehicle for the block. I think that a lapse in following MeatBall:DefendEachOther did not play a significant role in the block so I do not see the need for the principle. And, I agree with UC in that we should not let the presence of a personal attack stop an otherwise uninvolved admin from issuing a block if a block is warranted for other reasons. In general, I support the idea that it is much better for others to step in and help out when one user beings making personal attacks against another user. So, in general I like MeatBall:DefendEachOther. But I do think it is so relevant to this situation. I realize that you may disagree with my read of the situation. But that's how I see it. I hope that helps. :) FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As worded, this is liable to be misinterpreted as referring to all admins rather than a specific one. Kirill (prof) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this in an attempt to address your objection. Paul August ☎ 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We have never said an admin cannot block for an attack directed at themselves. Only that it's more desirable others do, especially if doubt may exist. See talk page comment. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

MeatBall:DefendEachOther[edit]

9.1) An administrator that is the target of a personal attack should not themselves block the user because of said attack.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Note: I've reworded this slightly to attempt to address Jpgordon's objection below.[reply]
  4. I support this wording. This gives the admin the ability to still block an user for unrelated issues if the personal attack happens in the mist of handling the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OK now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference with 9. --bainer (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Too broad. Admin: "If you don't stop doing XYZ, I'll have to block you." Bad user: "You're a steaming pile of crap. Look, I just did it again." Admin: "Oh, I can't block you now." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this in an attempt to address your objection. Paul August ☎ 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I fail to see how Josh's concern, which I share, is addressed. :-) It's perfectly OK to block someone who makes personal attacks in the course of disrupting the wiki in some way (along the lines of Josh's suggested vignette). James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We have never said an admin cannot block for an attack directed at themselves. Only that it's more desirable others do, especially if doubt may exist. See talk page comment. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible I've wikilawyered myself here, but my thinking is that "because of said attack" would be specific; if I want to block XYZ for general bad behavior, and he turns around and gets poopy at me, I can still block him; on the other hand, if (say) I'm in a discussion with XYZ about his behavior, a snipe at me should not be the last straw. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    jpgordan, that is a good example of what I meant. FT2, we need to remember that when being badly attacked, some administrators will react poorly because their judgment is impaired from the attack. So we need to remind them to almost always error on the side of caution and look for another opinion unless the underlying issue already warrants a block separate from the attack. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 9 to 9.1 Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile conduct directed at administrators[edit]

9.2) An administrator that is the target of a personal attack or other hostile conduct, should consider whether they would be seen as an uninvolved administrator by the community, and recognize that any action they take must be able to withstand a higher level of scrutiny. It is generally more desirable that an uninvolved administrator handles such situations, and uninvolved administrators are strongly urged to do so if necessary, to ensure a more visibly neutral handling.

A notable exception is that a user who is acting in a purely administrative capacity may continue to do so if attacked by the users concerned, and may warn and block them. This is precisely because their role involves dealing with hostile users, and to require otherwise would be easily gamed for disruption.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC) This is what we actually do have as a norm, as far as I am aware.[reply]
  2. Convoluted, but true. James F. (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
  1. This obfuscates the point too much to be useful. --bainer (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight clarification - better? FT2 (Talk | email) 07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, this is too convoluted. Kirill (prof) 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Prefer either 9 or 9.1.[reply]
  4. Agree with the spirit but think the wording needs to be tweaked to satisfy me. Since we have other similar proposals that I support, I'm going to oppose this one. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too complex as per above Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Tango's blocks[edit]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Goa Inquisition[edit]

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).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I was unsure about including this since it went back to December 2006. But after reading Tango's talk page discussion comments, the Fof is definitely needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Review and criticism[edit]

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).

Support:
  1. Though this could probably do with some more specific examples. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needed after reading the talk page discussion. Tango is extremely defensive about his actions. Further, he does not seem to be able to separate administrator actions from his general editorial perceptions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Part and parcel of why I've voted for deadminning. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 11:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Talk page discussions make this even more relevant.[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not convinced that this is useful here. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

Tango suspended

1) Tango (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is suspended from the use of the blocking tool for six months.

Support:
  1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Either.[reply]
    Paul August ☎ 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Third choice. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Third choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I now believe that this is insufficient.[reply]
  2. Not sufficient. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Tango suspended

1.2) Tango (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is suspended as an administrator for one month.

Support:
First choice. The block that precipitated the case was not the only incident that showed poor judgment. But I think that Tango has also shown good judgment also on many occasions. I think that a total one month suspension from all administrative actions is better than a longer limited suspension. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (Hopefully, this makes it clearer that 1.3 passes) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Either[reply]
    Paul August ☎ 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Because of the revert and lock. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Kirill (prof) 13:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Punitive rather than protective. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Paul August ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I now believe that this is insufficient.[reply]
Abstain:
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.

Support:
  1. Third choice. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice, I'm sad to say. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice after reading the talk page discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice, sadly. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice, now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Too harsh. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am, however, starting to rethink this, given Tango's apparent lack of understanding of what this is all about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Disproportionate[reply]
Abstain:
Paul August ☎ 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC) For now. However based upon the talk page discussions and Tango's apparent lack of recognition of any wrongdoing, this sanction may be needed after all.[reply]

Tango advised[edit]

2) Tango (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to seek advice on his administrative actions before he performs them, rather than after.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've seen many of Tango's comments in discussion on various topics and I find them to often be well thought out and reasonable. So, I do not think that Tango is an user that lacks clue. But I think that getting counsel from a broad group of administrators and experienced editors generally is useful, especially when blocking an editor in complex situation like users under an Arbitration Enforcement sanction. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Conditional on 1.3 not passing (1.3 now passing). FloNight♥♥♥ 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Conditional on 1.3 not passing. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (P) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC) In response to UC below, I don't agree that this is an "empty" remedy. This may be a consideration in future proceedings.[reply]
    May I suggest that it might then be more useful as a principle? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Conditional on 1.3 not passing, of course. James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Principled opposition to empty remedies.[reply]
  2. As per UC, we've done too many of these and they do nothing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

There are a number of common threads among these blocks. The first is an immediately obvious one, and that is the aversion to giving warnings. In some cases the accounts concerned were not new ones, and should be aware of the relevant policies, but in many cases the accounts were new(ish) ones, and even so, politely-worded warnings are still useful - particularly with respect to established contributors - in de-escalating situations so that they need not proceed to blocking. A second common thread is the apparent punitive character of some of the blocks, most notably the AlexCovarrubias block.

The third commonality is that in a number of situations, Tango has been unable to step back and realise that he's become partial to some of the disputes that he's sought to intervene in; see for example his responses to criticism of his actions on Goa Inquisition. The fourth is somewhat related to the third, and it's probably the main problem: Tango's seeming reluctance to seek the advice of his peers before taking administrative action, and his seeming reluctance to accept criticism of his actions once they are made.

This last factor is the most important. Admins are not expected to be perfect, and occasional mistakes are tolerated, but admins are expected to learn from the mistakes they make, and it does not appear to me that Tango has learned from these mistakes. Moreover, these mistakes are basic components of the blocking policy: no punitive blocks, no blocking users you're in a dispute with, warn users wherever appropriate, and so forth. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Currently passing are:

  • principles 1, 2, 3, 4.1 (more first choices than 4), 5.1, 6, 7, 8 and 9;
  • findings of fact 1, 2 and 3; and
  • remedies 1.2 and 2.

--bainer (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All remedies have a majority of votes and hence pass. However, based on preferential and conditional voting, I believe that the operative remedy is 1.3. Paul August ☎ 05:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Here's how it works: First, just count the first choice votes; if a preference isn't stated, we'll consider them equal first votes, I guess, which isn't quite right, but I don't see any alternative. This makes the votes on the remedies 4 - 2 - 6. That's all that's necessary; the third remedy is the one that passes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but I struck my 1.2 vote to make it clearer. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. Surely R2 shouldn't pass if R1.3 does? They don't hang together.
James F. (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the only operative passing remedy is 1.3! So we have as passing:
  • Principles 1, 2, 3, 4.1 (more first choices than 4), 5.1, 6, 7, 8 and 9;
  • Findings 1, 2 and 3; and
  • Remedies 1.3

Paul August ☎ 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close. Paul August ☎ 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. --bainer (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Kirill (prof) 05:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. James F. (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision

Leave a Reply