Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.


On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 11 out of 14 Arbitrators are available and 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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.

Guanaco restricted from admin reversals[edit]

Enacted on 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1) For continuing to make disputed reversals without discussion, Guanaco (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is prohibited from reversing another administrator's action for the duration of this arbitration. He should seek consensus and assistance at the administrators' noticeboard instead.

Support:
  1. As he continues to do so without discussing beforehand; just today: [1], [2]. Dmcdevit·t 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Administrators[edit]

1) Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit warring[edit]

2) Edit warring is considered harmful, because it causes ill-will between users and negatively destabilizes articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility[edit]

3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mischaracterizations of others' edits as vandalism is a breach of civility and a failure to assume of good faith. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Communication[edit]

4) In order for it to function as a collaborative project, it is essential that Wikipedia's editors communicate with each other, especially when behavior is disputed. When reasonable concerns are raised, editors are expected to be responsive to criticism. Administrators in particular should be communicative and responsive, and strive for transparency in their actions. When making a controversial revert, it is important to give a relevant edit summary explaining the edit and its reasoning.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruption[edit]

5) Editors who are disruptive whether by edit warring or otherwise may be blocked. Persistent disruption with respect to a specific article or topic may lead to a banning from that area.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Speedy deletion[edit]

6) Pages which, in an individual administrator's judgment, conform to the criteria for speedy deletion may be deleted without discussion. In general, it is good practice to take disputed deletions to deletion review. The issue typically should be put up for review and consensus before a reversal is made, especially in the case that a deletion is clearly not accidental or an undeletion is clearly controversial. Persistently circumventing the review process with recreations, undeletion, or redeletions may constitute disruption.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Divisive or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted[edit]

7) Templates, particularly userboxes, which are divisive or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD. However, Jimbo Wales has urged both caution in deleting userboxes while the policy is discussed, and, in particular, restraint in reversing others' deletions or undeletions.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Wheel war[edit]

1) The persistent deletions by MarkSweep and undeletions by Guanaco, across many pages and on many different occasions, constitute a wheel war. See Guanaco's log and MarkSweep's log.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MarkSweep misuses rollback[edit]

2) MarkSweep has misused his administrative rollback tool to make mass reverts of non-vandalism, in userbox-related content disputes. This occured on multiple occasions and against various established users acting in good faith. See Zzyzx11 evidence and Sarge Baldy evidence.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rollback of non-vandalism is uncivil, since it does not leave any explanation for the revert. While there may be limited circumstances where no explanation is necessary, occasions like this are definitely NOT among them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Rollback can be used for non-vandalism edits, as per policy, so long as rollbacks are explained. The issue here is warring and disruptive activity, not specific use of the rollback tool. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I concur with Jayjg. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I don't believe ArbCom should base anything on rollback use, which is simply a timesaver, provides an adequate edit summary, and has no effect not obtainable by hand. If it is ever wrong, it would also be wrong as a vanilla revert. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. concur that rollback can be used for a wide variety of purposes ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco misuses rollback[edit]

3) Guanaco has misused his administrative rollback tool to make mass reverts of non-vandalism, in userbox-related content disputes. This occured on multiple occasions and against various established users acting in good faith. He was blocked for this on March 4, and continued the behavior after the block. See Zzyzx11 evidence and Flcelloguy evidence.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. See above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Rollback can be used for non-vandalism edits, as per policy, so long as rollbacks are explained. The issue here is warring and disruptive activity, not specific use of the rollback tool. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I concur with Jayjg. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. See previous comment. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep has edit warred[edit]

4) MarkSweep has edit warred with regard to userbox templates. He has been blocked for 3RR in one instance [3] and for "disruptive edit warring" in another [4].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guanaco has edit warred[edit]

5) Guanaco has edit warred with regard to userbox templates. He has been blocked for "disruptive edit warring" [5].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guanaco and MarkSweep are uncommunicative and unresponsive[edit]

6) Despite the enormous amounts of disputed edits, reverts, deletions, and undeletions that each has performed, Guanaco and MarkSweep have been uncommunicative in their actions. They have warred without attempting to resolve the situation through discussion with each other and others. They have also continued controversial reverts and deletions/undeletions despite attempts at dialogue and objections by others, and even blocks. MarkSweep: [6] [7] [8] Guanaco: [9] [10] [11] [12]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guanaco reverses administrators without discussion[edit]

7) Guanaco has a pattern of reversing other admins' deletions or blocks without prior notification or discussion, and without consensus. See [13] [14] and the many userbox template and category restorations.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guanaco was desysopped[edit]

8) Guanaco was previously desysopped after failing a reapplication for adminship required by the Arbitration Committee for misuse of administrator tools. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guanaco is uncivil[edit]

9) Guanaco has referred to disputed edits by others as "vandalism". This constitutes incivility, and is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. [15], [16]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guanaco has used admin tools when involved[edit]

10) Guanaco inappropriately blocked MarkSweep despite their personal conflict. [17]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Friday unblocks without discussion[edit]

11) Administrator Friday reversed another administrator's block of Guanaco without prior discussion or consensus seeking in the matter [18]. She brought the matter to the community's attention only after performing the unblock.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If it's an isolated incident, then we take that into account in the remedies. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support because it's true that this happened, but must note as others have that it is not part of a pattern of problematic behavior. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Support this as a statement of fact (it's true) but as an isolated incident and not part of a pattern of wrongdoing.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Isolated incident Fred Bauder 03:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Plenty do far worse. I'm sure lessons have been learnt. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

StrangerInParadise is disruptive[edit]

12) On March 4, StrangerInParadise used the Special:Whatlinkshere feature to contact 43 users with a certain userbox. He spammed them with a deliberately provocative attempt to stack the ongoing userbox policy poll [19]. The messages, headed "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin" constitute personal attacks [20]. StrangerInParadise was subsequently blocked [21].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

StrangerInParadise is uncivil[edit]

13) In addition to the personal attacks made in his spam messages, StrangerInParadise has persisted in incivility and referring to other users with whom he is in a dispute as vandals or as performing vandalism ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], [28] and more), despite warnings to the contrary [29] [30], [31]. These constitute both personal attacks and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. See discussion on Administrators' noticeboard.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Guanaco desysopped[edit]

1) For his poor judgment, uncommunicativeness, wheel warring, and other misuses of administrator tools including rollback and blocking powers, Guanaco is desysopped. In view of his previous desysopping, he may not request to have his adminship restored.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With "without the consent of the Arbitration Committee" understood at the end. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam's proposed amendment is, of course, fine. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MarkSweep desysopped[edit]

2) For his poor judgment, uncommunicativeness, wheel warring, and misuse of rollback powers, MarkSweep is desysopped.

Support:
  1. Support only if 5, 6, and 7 don't pass. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Raul654 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) - This user has a long and otherwise unblemished track record. A short-term lapse in judgement does not, IMO, justify desysopping in this case.[reply]
  2. Too strong in the first instance. Prefer 2.1. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too strong. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too strong. Mark's bad judgment has been limited to this issue. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose for now as too strong. Should behaviour continue, a new case can take into account previous behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

MarkSweep on administrative 1RR[edit]

2.1) MarkSweep is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion or undeletion. Should he violate this remedy, he may be briefly blocked, up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
# From Tony Sidaway. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Going to 6 Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Really, I don't think this is too strong a remedy for anyone to have to follow. Provides something to think about for someone who has been quick to resort to administrative action. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is what I expect any administrator to do. Fred Bauder 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No, this is a much different situation than Tony Sidaway. This remedy doesn't address all of the problems we found in the findings of fact. The problem is not solely wheel warring, but wheel warring, misuse of rollback powers, uncommunicativeness, poor judgment in general. Only one of those is solved by 1RR, and the last two can only be conceivably solved by desysopping. I'm afraid I'm not confident in his remaining an administrator without community reaffirmation. Dmcdevit·t 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too strong. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

StrangerInParadise placed on personal attack parole[edit]

3) StrangerInParadise is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year. This remedy shall apply to all accounts.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Restricted with regard to userboxes[edit]

4) If, in the view of any three uninvolved administrators, Guanaco, MarkSweep, or StrangerInParadise are disruptive with regard to userboxes, or related talk, category, template, or project pages, they may be banned from all userbox-related pages for a period of up to a year. Violations of a ban imposed under this remedy may lead to short blocks of up to two weeks for repeat offenses. All blocks and bans should be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Log of blocks and bans. This remedy is to apply per person and not per account.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though the last sentence is unnecessary. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MarkSweep banned from userboxes[edit]

5) As he has shown consistently poor judgment when dealing with userboxes, MarkSweep is banned from editing and taking any administrative action with regard to userboxes. If he violates this remedy, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. All blocks should be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. If this passes, the reference to MS in 4 should be removed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As Sam. Dmcdevit·t 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fred Bauder 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MarkSweep prohibited from reversing admin actions[edit]

6) MarkSweep is prohibited from reversing any other administrator's administrative actions (e.g. protection, deletion, blocking) aside from simple editing actions (e.g. rollbacks). If he violates this remedy, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. All blocks should be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Stronger than 2.1 Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On second thought, this too. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. A bit too strong. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unnecessary in light of remedy 5. Raul654 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC) A bit too strong right now.[reply]
Abstain:

MarkSweep cautioned[edit]

7) MarkSweep is strongly cautioned to use the administrator's rollback tool only when reverting vandalism.

Support:
  1. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Raul654 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

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.

  • All principles pass.
  • All findings pass.
  • Remedies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 pass. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 10 April 2006 (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. Raul654 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose closing; we still haven't passed a remedy that addresses MarkSweep's administrative misjudgments. Remedies 2, 2.1, and 6 all fail at this point. Also we could still use more input at FoFs 2 and 3. Dmcdevit·t 02:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Close now; everyone's voted. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The misjudgements you speak of were confined to userboxes and are, IMO, properly addressed by remedy 5. Raul654 02:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close Fred Bauder 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose closing. We are currently saying that abusing rollback is OK (well, failing to agree that it isn't, which, given how our judgements are seen by too many...); this is a mind-blowingly large change in policy, if it passes, and gives the absolutely worst possible message. James F. (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Close, now that said items have passed. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per James, we have not finished here yet. One of R2.1 and R6 needs to pass. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I made a muckup of reading the numbers. Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. Charles Matthews 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037709979"