Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HighInBC (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 14 April 2008 (→Where's the beef?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ever heard of WP:AGF?

This is not, as written, a Request for Comment; it is a blatantly biased commentary that invites the exoneration of User:MONGO in the recent matter and for the summary desysopping of User:Tango. As it is currently so tainted as not to be fit for the purpose of harvesting a range of comment and developing a consensus. I shall be strongly suggesting to Tango that they take no part in it, which is also my intended reaction other than this note. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a distorted summary of the RfC, itself. It does not ask for the "summary desysopping of User:Tango," but rather for a desysopping process in the unlikely event -- is it unlikely? -- that Tango does not assure the community he will not repeat his error. This RfC is not about MONGO and does not exonerate him. Rather, the core of the charge against Tango is not that the block was improper, i.e., that MONGO did not commit any blockable offense. The complaint is that he blocked personally for being personally insulted. That this has not been acknowledged is a serious problem. Whether or not MONGO should have been blocked is an entirely different issue. The question is whether or not an administrator can block you, directly and personally, for being rude to that administrator.

That the offense of MONGO, allegedly, was incivility, does not alter this. The most actionable incivility of MONGO, arguably, was in the original offense, and Tango had determined to warn him, not to block him. The only additional offense was incivility to Tango, in an edit summary for MONGO's own Talk page. Not a personal attack (but had it been a personal attack, the situation would have been the same, actually), but rudeness, lack of some apparently expected deference to authority, by writing "Get lost!" So Tango blocked MONGO for offending him, not someone else. And it is very clear that this is not to be done. Whether or not MONGO deserved to be blocked is an entirely independent question. Proper procedure for Tango would have been to refer and defer to another administrator. where he is concerned about another user's incivility with him. He could have gone to AN/I, for example, as he actually did, but without blocking. If an uninvolved administrator had then blocked MONGO, there might still be dispute, but not about admin COI, and Tango would be facing little or no problem, some might have tossed a wikitrout at him for over-reaction, others would have applauded the block, but he certainly would not be facing any serious ire from the community. He should simply apologize, and the whole community will be relieved. --Abd (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're begging the question as to whether or not the original block was a mistake. Some of us do not agree that it was a mistake at all and even those who do differ on just how bad of a mistake (i.e. how long should the block have been) it was. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not begging the question. To me, it is uncontestable that the original block was in error, because it was a block by an admin due to alleged incivility toward that admin by the blocked user. While it is not impossible that some situation would arise where such could be appropriate, it's pretty hard to imagine, and this case certainly is not one. There are two entirely separate questions here: (1) should MONGO have been blocked? (2) should Tango have blocked him? By confusing the questions, the most significant aspect of this incident is obscured. It is crystal clear from the record that Tango blocked MONGO because MONGO told Tango, "Get lost!" and suggested that he might face desysopping. Some certain argue that MONGO was uncivil in this and on many other occasions; but that is actually irrelevant.

It appears that many don't consider the block a mistake because, perhaps, they think that MONGO is just an uncivil editor. There is also opinion that incivility against an administrator when the administrator is fulfilling a duty somehow allows that admin to block for an allegedly unseemly response. Physchim62 blocked because of an uncivil comment that his reasons for an action were a "steaming pile of crap." This situation is pretty analogous: Tango blocked because when he warned a user not to be uncivil, pursuant to an ArbComm enforcement, the user told him to "Get lost." The ArbComm case involved required that the user be warned before being blocked. So Tango warned him. But then blocked him, not for continued incivility in any area covered by the ArbComm decision, but for an edit summary on the user's own Talk page. (There seems to be some disagreement about that, for some are interpreting the ArbComm decision being enforced to allow blocking for incivility anywhere, though that would be extraordinarily broad.) When the Physchim62 arbitration began, there were users defending Physchim62; but when it became apparent that the community considered Physchim62 to have used the tools to avenge a personal slight, there would have been an opportunity for Physchim62 to avert what was coming: all he had to do was recognize the error, and the community and ArbComm would probably have said something like "Just don't do it again!" It could be the same here. The thing keeping this conflict alive is that Tango doesn't seem to get the problem. Physchim62 may not have been well-served by those who thought they were supporting him.

Consider this completely apart from this particular case. In fact, consider this apart from Misplaced Pages. My wife has been stopped for an expired vehicle registration. One day expired. She calls me in a panic. They've told her that they are going to tow the car, take the children (ages 3 and 5) out of their car-seats. They are apparently going to leave her by the side of the road, in a place that is actually dangerous. I arrive and first try to convince the officer to allow us to register the car, which would take minutes. No dice. (If I had simply done this before going to meet them, I'd have had the tags on the car before it was towed.) So I tell them what I thought of them. I'm glaring at them, my voice is raised. Now, what would you think if they had arrested me? After all, I was insulting them. If I had menaced them, raised a hand, etc., certainly they could have taken whatever steps were appropriate and necessary. But the police cannot (in the U.S., anyway) arrest you for insulting them. Period. If they do, they could lose their jobs.

And an administrator on Misplaced Pages has tools that can cause harm. They may not use them to punish, but only to protect the project, and they may not use them where they have a conflict of interest. The original warning did not necessarily involve a conflict of interest. But the block did. Just because MONGO (allegedly) was uncivil with Tango would not create a conflict of interest with regard to the original situation, Tango could have gone ahead and blocked MONGO for incivility with regard to editors involved with the articles. The conflict of interest arises with respect to a complaint Tango may have about MONGO's action with him, personally. And that is what MONGO was blocked for, there is no way around it. --Abd (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is innacurate and assumes that Tango's original warning to MONGO was unreasonable (it was not). A more accurate analogy might be: I am rude to a fellow student at college. My teacher approaches me and asks me not to do it again. I tell him to get lost. He (rightfully) kicks me out. -- Naerii 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's the beef?

Gee, it says "Tango was in a dispute with MONGO at the time he was blocked". This is news to me, can anyone actually demonstrate this with diffs instead of just saying it? It is just that people keep saying it, but nobody can show me where. _(1 == 2) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Still no diffs... I doubt this statement is even true given the lack of evidence. _(1 == 2) 00:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango has signed on to the summary, so it is a bit of dead horse beating to challenge that. However, there is some discussion of prior problems between Tango and Mongo on the extensive AN/I report. Aside from that, it is clear that Tango warned MONGO for incivility. Apparently, MONGO believed that the warning was inappropriate, that he was calling a spade a spade, and told Tango to get lost. That is a dispute. That is, MONGO and Tango were in a dispute about the appropriateness of the warning. As a number of experienced administrators have pointed out, had Tango simply ignored this, and MONGO then was again uncivil to others, Tango could have blocked him for that; essentially for ignoring the warning and continuing the offense, and it is within Tango's discretion as an administrator to make that call. But blocking him for disagreeing with him is what is chilling, and is why this matter is important enough that some editors what to see a better resolution than "no consensus." ArbComm comment, so far, essentially calls the block a "bad block." Well, why? Is it merely that it was too long? Or is it that it was improperly issued by an admin in a dispute with the one blocked? I believe that both were true, it was too long and it was improperly done. --Abd (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure at least 90% of people dispute their blocks, thus are in a "dispute". That is why the blocking policy says not to block when involved in a content dispute, and makes not mention of other types of disputes. From WP:BLOCK#Disputes: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." Now, can you show me where a dispute or conflict of interest of that nature has occurred? _(1 == 2) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango's incivility warning was for an edit summary on Mongo's talk page, not any of the 9/11 pages covered by the ArbCom case, and the block (citing the ArbCom case again) was for another edit summary on Mongo's talk page, not any of the pages covered by the ArbCom case. The permanent civility restriction Tango slapped on Mongo (totally without precedent, AFAIK) had absolutely nothing to do with the ArbCom case, and was totally unsupportable. The length of the block was extraordinarily disproportionate, and Tango refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong. That is why an RFC has been initiated. Horologium (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That the incivility warning may have been in error itself is a bit of a red herring here. In error or not, MONGO should be allowed to say what he thinks of the warning, he might have, for example, used a certain editor's phrase, "steaming pile of crap." In the ArbComm case over that incident, the editor was wikitrouted for incivility. The administrator (Physchim62faced desysopping and elected to resign under a cloud. It developed that there were a few prior incidents that were worrisome, but, in fact, there now seems to be more for Tango than there was for Physchim62. However, had Physchim62 simply shown that he understood the error, that he should scrupulously avoid making the same mistake again, he would almost certainly have not lost his bit. Those who were defending him, though, may have made him more firm in his resolve that he was right, that such blatant incivility as "a steaming pile of crap" should not be tolerated on Misplaced Pages. Are we seeing the same here? --Abd (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked for proof that Tango had a previous dispute with MONGO when the block was placed and I get a list of unrelated blocks. It says "Tango was in a dispute with MONGO at the time he was blocked", yet still no demonstration of this claim. People need to stop saying this unless there is demonstration that there was involvement in a manner that violates policy. Here is a hint, voting in a person's RfA does not make you "involved". _(1 == 2) 13:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Until 1==2, I am the one who posted the review of blocks, not at the request of anyone here, but because some people here might find it useful. That list was made up for the RFAR, not this RFC. I agree with you that this is a pointless exercise, although for different reasons. Admin RFCs are almost always a waste of time, because RFCs are supposed to be about a single incident. Concerns about admins, however, are usually around a pattern of behaviour, and thus don't meet the RFC criteria. Concerning patterns of admin behaviour need to be heard by Arbcom, which is why I drafted my analysis primarily for their use. Risker (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the posting of the block history was related to my request. It is just that I have recieved comments such as "Elsewhere 1 == 2 asks for evidence. When evidence is provided, through that file, he asks us to tell him what is in it"(by Abd), which seems to imply that the evidence provided is somehow an answer to my question. Since yours is the only evidence provided, I assumed that was what was being referred to. I did not mean to imply that your evidence was meant to be more than it is.

It was only my goal to demonstrate that no evidence was been put forward to show that Tango was involved in a manner that violated our policies on involvement and admin actions. I really wish people would stop saying it and signing the summaries of others that say that without first presenting evidence, it discredits ones position. _(1 == 2) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango's mistake:

Explained well by Abd above:

So Tango blocked MONGO for offending him, not someone else. And it is very clear that this is not to be done.

It is very important that in a discussion people can freely speak their minds. If there needs to be an intervention, then at least it should be by an outsider watching that discussion. But we cannot have a situation in which one of the persons participating in that discussion has the power to punish the other because of what is said in the discussion. If that's allowed then that creates an uneven playing field when editors discuss things with administrators.

Another thing is that by imposing a punishment one is reacting to (alledged) uncivil behavior in the wrong way. The very reason why people are uncivil is because they are angry and they don't control themselves well enough. We want people who are angry for whatever reason to be more tolerant, try to ignore their anger and be as pragmatic as possible. Therefore it seems a good idea for everyone to ingore the occasional insult. And if we want do want to intervene then the best thing would be a comment on the talk page by an editor who get's along well with the person in question. Count Iblis (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of blocks by Tango

While I do not intend to comment on this RfC at this time, I have prepared information with relation to the ongoing RFAR that may be pertinent to this process: a review of the blocks issued by Tango, with specific focus on the blocks issued to regular editors. It can be found here. Risker (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the blocks seem to be for edit warring, an area where we ought to be blocking more, not less. In each case you seem to imply that Tango had a solid rationale for blocking. In particular, the two other blocks since Sep 2007 (six months ago) were for 3RR. Blocking an established editor is not on its own questionable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CBM, the March one causes me concern. It is a block of a new user, who has been given incorrect advice on the talk page of the article, and knew not of the 3RR. There was no 3RR report to the noticeboard, and neither editor was warned of the 3RR in advance, nor instructed to work it out on the talk page. The edits involved remove a country from the list, and can easily be perceived as obvious vandalism to an inexperienced editor; he asked for assistance on the talk page and was given a suggested edit summary rather than any information that he should stop reverting. When there are four different editors playing around with the same segment of information in a 24 hour period, page protection is usually more likely to bring a consensus than blocking half of the editors involved. The regular user involved in this block read the 3RR policy while blocked, and was of the opinion that his edits fit the "obvious vandalism" exception; he isn't alone in that opinion, and unless there's a formal report at WP:3RR, many admins will either warn or (depending on the situation) page protect. Incidentally, the neutral editor (who made noises on the talk page about nationalistic editors and reverting back to the last clear version before the edits involved in the 3RR) reverted it back to the same version the blocked editor had been reverting to. While this block wasn't completely off the reservation, it isn't entirely solid either: the blocking policy states "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", and that was not done until after the block. Risker (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are any of those blocks said to be bad by anyone? Or is it just a collection of blocks? _(1 == 2) 03:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere 1 == 2 asks for evidence. When evidence is provided, through that file, he asks us to tell him what is in it. The bare facts have been made clear in the AN/I report, they are pretty simple, though some details are only now coming out. There isn't any controversy over the bare facts, which is why you aren't seeing much in the way of diffs. The controversy is mostly over stuff that is actually irrelevant. Was Mongo actually uncivil? Was he long-term uncivil, deserving to be blocked? Those who think MONGO was uncivil, some of them, seem to think that therefore the block was appropriate. And that is an error, why it's an error has now been explained too many times.... As to the series of blocks, Risker says "There is questionable use of tools in 14 of 16 blocks Tango has issued to regular editors." How serious the questions are is a matter of judgment, and I have not personally reviewed the situations, nor do I intend to, unless some conflict over the evidence appears. To me, it's actually irrelevant. There is quite enough present here, in this sole incident, that, if Tango doesn't come to understand the problem, he should be desysopped. It's a very clear principle, and it is not "hanging him out to dry" for making a mistake. It is taking it seriously that he made a serious mistake and won't acknowledge it, and thus we can reasonably fear that he will make it again.--Abd (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a second course to this meal, or are we eating our own vomit?

If there is evidence of a pattern of problems, let's see it. Durova 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the section immediately above, Durova. There is a pattern, as I have identified in the link I placed there. Risker (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Durova, when you made a mistake, you promptly admitted it, and fixed it ASAP. I think you got a raw deal, personally. When Physchim62 made a mistake, he was about to be desysopped for it when he resigned the bit. Why? Because he showed that he was incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the error, thus making it quite reasonable to expect it would happen again. The problem here is not that Tango made a bad block. That can happen, we don't expect administrators to be inhumanly perfect. It is that he seems unable to acknowledge that he made a mistake. The principle that an admin does not block just because someone insults the administrator is very, very important. Rather, if an administrator feels insulted or harmed by the comment of a user, the administrator should stand just as any other editor: ask for administrative help, from a neutral administrator. Tango was -- maybe -- neutral with respect to the original alleged incivility, and, if so, whether he was right or not, he properly warned MONGO. Had MONGO then ignored the warning and continued to be uncivil to other editors, Tango would have been within his discretion to block him appropriately. It is clear from the sequence that MONGO, however, was blocked specifically because MONGO had written "Get lost!" to Tango, not for continued incivility in the matter of the arbitration enforcement. It sets a very dangerous precedent when an administrator uses the tools to avenge a personal slight or insult, and is allowed to do so without reprimand or warning, and, in particular, without showing any understanding of the error involved. As to "eating our own vomit," my, my, what an image! How was your dinner? --Abd (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If Tango was uninvolved when he made the original warning, MONGO's response to the warning doesn't make him involved. Otherwise we would need four admins to block someone, since the first three would each become involved by leaving a warning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read more of the material on this case. There is a preposterous assumption being made here. MONGO was warned for incivility in a matter affecting a certain set of articles, by an uninvolved admin (under the terms of the ArbComm ruling, which is now coming to be questioned a bit). Then there was, allegedly, an additional offense for which MONGO was blocked. The alleged offense was incivility to the warning administrator. It is with respect to this offense that Tango has a COI. Tango remained non-COI with respect to the original problem; had MONGO ignored the warning and continued, in Tango's opinion, the original incivility, Tango could have blocked him and be within his discretion. (There could still be problems, but not on this level). Generally, I'd expect an administrator to be tolerant of angry responses to warnings, this has been said over and over again by experienced administrators, and such a response should never be a cause of a block by that administrator. Yes. It takes another admin to block the user for that specific offense, incivility to an administrator. Not four. One. An uninvolved one, who need not necessarily warn first. If the second administrator decides to warn and is then insulted in turn -- but with no further offenses -- then, yes, a third. This is where it could become four, if it is considered that the offense of being rude to an administrator requires two warnings before block. Which is pretty extreme, but, hey, that's what AN/I is for.... but I don't think that two warnings would be required; and the most likely thing that would have happened if Tango had gone to AN/I is that he'd have been told to chill a bit, someone may have warned MONGO about unnecessary roughness, and that might have been it. Or, after that, if MONGO had really continued to act up, he might have been blocked by a third administrator, and there would have been far less fuss that what actually happened.--Abd (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP isn't a bureaucracy, and we want admins who will stand up for community norms such as civility. Sure, Tango could have gone to ANI. But I don't see why we should ignore that fact that Mongo's response was so clearly inappropriate and belittling. Mongo could also have gone to ANI to discuss the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see mentions of problems; would be better to have solid evidence. If 14 of this admin's 16 blocks on established users are dubious, please show step by step which they are and why. Diffs, please. If there's anything to be learned from my hard experience, it's that vague discussion of admin misbehavior with a shortage of actual substantiation isn't a good thing. I'm backlogged on other things atm, but would read a detailed presentation here if one is presented. Many of us are unhappy with the block of MONGO, and with Tango's unresponsiveness to feedback, but has the community overreacted or not? Is this a one-off or is this really part of a larger pattern? I'll hold off on forming an opinion until I'm confident we've separated fact from drama. Durova 07:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't properly certified

Neither of the certifiers can (to my knowledge) claim to have made a concerted attempt to resolve this dispute. Viridae 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)