Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tango

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I would like to see one (or more) of the following things to occur:

• A public apology by Tango, addressed to MONGO, saying he was wrong.
• Tango undergoes a reconfirmation for the mop. (I'm not sure if the community will support this, but I'm throwing this out there, nontheless)
• Tango is desysopped by the community, possibly pending a reconfirmation. (Again, throwing this out there)

Description

Tango performed a block for incivility, after MONGO told him to "get lost...if you support conspiracy theorist misusing this website, then you should be deadminned." on MONGO's talk page.

Powers misused

• Blocking (log):

1. MONGO

Applicable policies

• Blocking policy

1. Tango was in a dispute with MONGO at the time he was blocked.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. ANI discussion

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Jehochman ^Talk 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) - An apology is not strictly necessary. A simple statement like "I made a mistake and will be more careful" would be enough for me.

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Horologium (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. rogerd (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by AuburnPilot

This request for comment, much like the request for arbitration, is based on one action that has received mixed reviews. To say there was an "outcry from the community" is a bit of an exageration, as many endorsed the block, even if disagreeing with the duration. One questionable action does not warrant desysopping and I don't believe any of the desired outcomes will do any good for Tango, MONGO, or the community . - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. MONGO has a long history of incivility. The response of most people to this block is astonishing. -- Naerii 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunatly, it is not one questionable action. Giano (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

2. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Mr.Z-man 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
4. The response was majorly over the top here. Majorly (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Brilliantine (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
6. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Viridae^Talk 07:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Neıl ☎ 10:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
9. GRBerry 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
10. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Endorse. Coldmachine^Talk 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Naerii

This has already been discussed to death and the people who disagree with the block have already made the fact quite clear to Tango. An RfC is rather useless at this point. I also think LessHeard vanU's comments on the talk page are very accurate with regards to the manner in which this RfC is presented. -- Naerii 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Please, just let this thing die. The block was a bad idea, but the reaction is off the deep end on the other side. --B (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Arbcom have already given their views and in this context, I'm not convinced this request is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Completely pointless RfC. Majorly (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree, this matter was dead and buried 24 hours ago. This seems to be unnecessary. Redrocket (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
5. SUpport LessHeardVanU's statement, which most closely seems to align with this outside view. Tango saw the discontent, as did MONGO, apparently. The block will expire soon, if not already, and then all can move on. ThuranX (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
6. GRBerry 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
7. - Philippe 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Jossi

Motion to close this - It Tango wants to apologize, he will; and if he doesn't, it is not up to anyone o force him to do so. Hey, we all make mistakes... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Since nobody has substantiated any allegations, and pretty much everyone else thinks this is frivolous I would agree. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I think that some people have been a bit hasty. Tango made a mistake, but that doesn't require something to be done about it this milisecond. I think that all existing comments/arb requests/etc should be dealt with. Then, if someone is truly concerned, they can bring something like this up again. John Smith's (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Indeed. Majorly (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Obviously, it would reflect better on him to consider the issues raised here and take what I would consider the correct action (an apology). But there is no obligation. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Corvus cornix

Tango's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2 clearly show that Tango has not been neutral where MONGO is concerned, and Tango's block was clearly inappropriate. Continued wikilawyering on WP:ANI by Tango that he had done nothing wrong clearly showed that he doesn't think he did anything wrong. Tango needs to be made to fully understand that his intervention in MONGO's Talk page, and his block and continued arguments in support of it, were wrong, and he must clearly state that he will not do such a thing again. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. —Animum (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Horologium (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3. -Abd (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
7. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
8. rogerd (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
9. I would appreciate the statement noted in the last sentence of CC's comments. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Mattinbgn\^talk 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
11. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Qyd (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Best representation of my thoughts and the ideal conclusion of this matter. Orderinchaos 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Slightly stronger than my own take, but I concur. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
15. CharonX/talk 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Una Smith (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by merkinsmum

Starting from my comment on ANI- I disagree with this intensely, Tango acted in good faith and in my humble opinion, his treatment of mongo's behaviour was correct in the light of mongo's history and the Arbcom and other's comments about mongo in the past, and Mongo's loooong history of incivility deserved a week's block when he acted the same -again-, to let him know this is not ok.Merkin's mum 23:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Endorse. Majorly (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorse. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
4. -- Naerii 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
5. The block was warranted, the period was excessive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Neıl ☎ 10:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Not sure about the week duration, and had I given the warning I would have hoped some other administrator blocked - but at that point some administrator should have blocked MONGO. GRBerry 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse. Coldmachine^Talk 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Abd (talk)

To me, the sole reason for further process on this is that Tango has not recognized or acknowledged that the block was improper. If I'm mistaken about this, then Tango could easily relieve me of my concern, and given that an apology is what this RfC seems to be asking for, it would seem appropriate. ArbComm, in its apparent rejection of the arbitration, acknowledges that it was a bad block, so why no apology? This question is critical: Is it legitimate to block a user solely for being rude to the blocking administrator? That is, without this additional rudeness, the user would not have been blocked, but with it, and justified by it, the user was blocked. I had thought that policy and precedent was clear. Is it? The reason the arbitration was going so badly for User:Physchim62 was that he refused to acknowledge that his block was improper; thus the community had no confidence that he would not block again, similarly. If this situation is the same, the community should return to ArbComm and ask that a case be opened, based on the continued hazard. However, Tango could fix this in a flash. Physchim62 also had his supporters, who focused on the offense of the uncivil administrator, instead of the more serious punitive action of the blocking administrator. We do not excuse police who beat suspects based on "the suspect was a bad person." The tools are only to be exercised for the protection of the project, not for punishment, it is not the job of an administrator to punish. If an admin is unclear about that, we have a problem.--Abd (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Endorse. WP:BLOCK is rather clear that blocking is a preventative and not a punitive measure. Orderinchaos 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Horologium (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes. It is very worrying to see how many seem to think admins need not admit their mistakes just because their target wasn't innocent; or that any behaviour is OK so long as it hits the right person. We are not in an old-style western, where people wear either a black hat or a white hat. The problem is not that Tango has made a mistake, the problem is that Tanogo's past behaviour and continued obstinacy now leave no room to expect more constructive behaviour in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Neil

This started out as a comment on Merkinsmum's view, but got far too long. Tango's blocking of MONGO was entirely within the bounds of discression, in an entirely inline manner with the ArbCom ruling. The ruling said (basically) no more garbage on the 9/11 articles. MONGO dismissed someone he didn't agree with as "trolling", incorrectly and unfairly. Tango warned MONGO about his civility. MONGO decided to respond rudely.

Tango should not be forced to apologise, as there is nothing to apologise for. He should be given a barnstar.

Of course MONGO should have been blocked, and I'm glad he was. Given the block history, a week was harsh but within the bounds of discression. MONGO's habitual incivility and name-calling has continually been excused for years now - everyone who has unblocked MONGO after one of his numerous blocks for incivility because "he was provoked" is guilty of enabling his behaviour and leading to this situation. MONGO has been cossetted for years; given chance after chance after chance, and had excuse after excuse after excuse made for him, by people who should know better (many of them STILL making excuses for him, above).

By letting MONGO get away with his behaviour for so long - and actively encouraging it, no doubt, off-Wiki - MONGO felt like he was invincible. It is little no wonder he reacted in the way he did (flouncing off into retirement) when he finally, rightly, got a 31-hour block for his actions. Besides, I have no doubt he'll be back once sufficient sympathy has been elicited. Neıl ☎ 10:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Everyone who has investigated at all knows MONGO has had a long history of being problematic in this aspect of his behavior. Being right on content does not excuse being unacceptable in behavior. GRBerry 15:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Majorly (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. -- Naerii 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse. Coldmachine^Talk 09:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Until(1 == 2)

Voting against someone's RfA does not make you involved in a dispute. Neither does issuing a warning regarding policy, neither does issuing a block when that warning is ignored. No evidence has been presented that Tango was involvement in some sort of dispute that rendered his decisions inappropriate. The blocking policy is very clear that admins need to avoid content disputes, it makes no mention of prohibiting admin action when two users have disagreed on an RfA or on the definition of incivility. I think that those who claim that there was an inappropriate level of involvement by this admin have either believed what has been said without checking for evidence, or simple do not understand our policies regarding admin involvement. Often said, but yet to be proven, there is no reason for me to believe this admin was involved in a dispute. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Fully endorse. GRBerry 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Majorly (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. -- Naerii 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
4. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by CharlotteWebb

Civility is rarely the core issue. Suggesting that another user "support[s] conspiracy theorist[s] misusing this website", without proffering any actual evidence, is a gross assumption of bad faith, and (even when phrased in the nicest possible words) could be considered a personal attack.

Even so, Tango would have done better to let others decide whether Mongo's comments were inappropriate enough to warrant a block. Whether two users are "involved in a content dispute" or not, blocking somebody for comments directed at you can easily be seen as retaliatory rather than preventative, and should be avoided at all costs.

Historically, some have attempted to refute this principle with a hypothetical situation where a user insults and attacks every single administrator becomes unblockable. I doubt even the most determined troll could accomplish this before being blocked (except if they are running a bot, and then only maybe), but do let me know if this ever happens. Until then it should probably be regarded as a straw-man argument. Either way in an extreme case like that, any block would enjoy near-unanimous endorsement even if it truly was retaliatory.

I am hopeful that both parties will learn from this experience. — CharlotteWebb 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Agree, it would be better for some other administrator to have blocked. Our policy doesn't require this, and I personally believe that this is a minority view, but I still consider it wiser. GRBerry 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Mangojuice^talk 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Orderinchaos 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree for the most part. Horologium (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Corvus cornix_talk 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
6. A "content dispute" is not the only thing that might be seen to affect an admin's objectivity. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by SheffieldSteel

MONGO was blocked for being incivil to Tango. By judging the remark directed at him to be blockworthy incivility, Tango involved himself - which means not that he was involved in a content diospute, but that his judgment could no longer be considered objective. At that point, Tango should have referred the incident to another admin. There is no shortage of admins willing to offer an opinion on the subject of MONGO's actions. By getting an uninvolved admin's input on this case, any appearance of subjectivity could have been avoided, and the amount of drama reduced. I personally believe that Tango made a mistake in good faith, and used admin tools in a situation where they should not have been used. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Accurate representation of this half of the story. — CharlotteWebb 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Orderinchaos 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Horologium (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

View by Thomas Basboll

I'm not sure whether I'm outside or inside the way this RfC is framed. In any case, I'd like to point out that the dispute that MONGO was warned not to disrupt any further with his incivility has been settled in his absence. I think it is wrong to think of this block as a reaction solely to the "get lost" (i.e., as punitive). He saw it as a sign that MONGO would not change his behaviour in the situation he was inflaming, and which he continued after the warning was made. Once MONGO was taken out of the equation, the dispute was resolved. That's a rather ordinary kind of successful administerin'.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)