Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 6 March 2006

• ]

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an arbitrator or clerk may do so.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "";
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Involved parties

• Guanaco (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Evilphoenix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Zocky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • (who brought this application for arbitration)

This case involves a high-profile sterile edit war between two administrators who should know better.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Guanaco:
• MarkSweep:
• Friday:
• Evilphoenix:
• Zocky:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This RfAr is being filed by a disinterested third party. Given the total lack of communication between the parties in this case to date, and the attitudes exhibited at least by User:Guanaco, it seems unlikely that attempts at resolution less than Arbitration will resolve this matter. Furthermore, the most sensible resolution to this affair involves a desysoping, which only the ArbCom can provide.

Statement by Kelly Martin, third party bringing the case

Starting at about 00:31 on March 2, MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removed, without any prior discussion I've been able to find, categories from over 100 userboxes (e.g. ). During this same interval he was also substing userboxes into user's pages (e.g. ). In some cases, MarkSweep editwarred with other editors over these reversions, eventually getting blocked at 11:32 by Zocky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for a 3RR violation on Template:User pro-cannabis. At 21:32 Guanaco (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reblocked MarkSweep for the same 3RR violation (the previous block having expired), but unblocked him 5 minutes later after discovering that he'd been previously blocked. Guanaco then, starting at about 22:25, used the vandalism rollback tool to revert most of MarkSweep's edits (both removal of categories and substitutions of user pages) (e.g. ). Starting at about 03:27 on March 3, 2006, MarkSweep used the vandalism rollback tool to revert most of Guanaco's edits (e.g. ), again without any discussion I can find. Starting at about 04:20 on March 4, 2006, Guanaco used the vandalism rollback tool to rerevert most of MarkSweep's reverts (e.g. )

MarkSweep has not communicated with Guanaco in any way during this affair, as far as I can tell. Guanaco did not leave a message for MarkSweep until 00:35 on March 6, and that communication is not directly related to this dispute.

Guanaco did not discuss the situation with MarkSweep, but did take the time to discuss the situation with Alex Law (talk · contribs), MiraLuka (talk · contribs), and SuperNova (talk · contribs) (all of whom thanked him for undoing the "damage" done by MarkSweep). Guanaco there indicated that he expected to be desysoped by the "corrupt ArbCom".

At about 06:51 on March 4, 2006, Evilphoenix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked both Guanaco and MarkSweep for 12 hours for disruption. Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Guanaco (but not MarkSweep) about 30 minutes later (at 07:28). (block log of Guanaco, block log of MarkSweep) Friday did discuss his block on both Evilphoenix's talk page and WP:AN/I.

Both Guanaco and MarkSweep engaged in a high-profile, sterile edit war, involving the use of special privileges granted only to administrators (specifically, the vandalism rollback tool) without any attempt at discussion. Their actions demonstrate that both of them lack the respect for their fellow administrators that is expected of them. This situation was not urgently pressing; the involved parties could have easily taken the time to negotiate, seek support, gauge others' feelings, or seek consensus in some way. Instead, both administrators elected to pursue a sterile edit war. By doing so, both administrators demonstrated their profound lack of respect for Misplaced Pages, and therefore and should be stripped of their privileges. In Guanaco's case, since he has a track record of abuse of administrative privileges, he should be stripped of those privileges permanently; he should not be allowed to reapply for adminship without leave of the ArbCom or Jimbo Wales personally. MarkSweep lacks such a negative reputation, and as such he should be desysoped with leave to reapply at any time.

Administrator Friday failed to remain neutral by unblocking Guanaco but not MarkSweep. Friday's other comments indicate that he was biased in this matter and should not have unblocked at all. The ArbCom should censure Friday in some manner; while a full desysopping is probably excessive, some form of censure (either a temporary desysopping for a short time or a reprimand) is in order.

Additional comment

I should add that this request for arbitration has nothing to do with userboxes. I brought it because two admins perpetuated a sterile edit war in an especially egregious way. The fact that it took place over userboxes has nothing to do with the wrongness of their actions. I strongly urge everyone involved to work very hard not to make this RfAr about userboxes, as down that road lies madness.

Statement by User:Guanaco

This was an edit war. Like all edit wars, it was disruptive. I should have made an attempt to discuss this with MarkSweep, but I had the (false?) impression that he was not interested in discussion. I agreed not to continue a sterile revert war, and I will discuss this instead of continuing to revert the templates.

My use of the rollback tool was merely a shortcut; I would have reverted the edits manually if necessary.

I understand that revert warring is bad, and I will try to avoid it in the future. I urge the Arbitration Committee to reject this case so that MarkSweep, Zocky, Friday, Evilphoenix, and I can do more productive things with our time on Misplaced Pages. —Guanaco 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit is not neutral in this case and should recuse himself. He has taken sides in this matter on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Guanaco 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a conflict of interest; I just expressed criticism for the same reason I have accepted the case: it appears to be a valid claim. There are no sides to be taken. Dmcdevit·t 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it appears to be a valid claim is one thing. Stating that my actions were "disgraceful" is another. —Guanaco 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have requested mediation on this matter. I believe mediation would result in a much more amicable solution. —Guanaco 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:MarkSweep

In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I've been removing superfluous categories from templates since at least February 22 without any major complaints. If it hadn't been for StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) and "his" Template:User pro-cannabis, which is a particularly egregious example of Misplaced Pages-external advocacy, all of this would have proceeded quietly. Moreover, I did not simply remove categories from templates, but in many instances did additional cleanup work. It was inappropriate for Guanaco to revert my edits en masse, treating them as nothing more than vandalism. I realize that things should have stopped there, but it's hard to see one's extensive cleanup work undone just like that. I thought all of this was settled after Guanaco and I got blocked, but if this request gets accepted I only ask for one thing: please ask a clerk to closely monitor the subpages and keep this very narrowly on topic. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And I don't see why Zocky and Evilphoenix are mentioned here at all. Their actions are uncontested. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Friday

My only involvement in this case is that I undid the block done on Guanaco. The admin whose block I undid has said that it was OK with him, so I don't see where there's a complaint involving me here. I'll probably respond in more detail later. Friday (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've thought about it more. I can think of one or two ways there could be a dispute involving me here. 1) Wheel warring. I'm glad to see the Arbcom paying attention to this. My user page explains my opinions on this matter. Read the "Wiki philsophy" section there and you'll see what I mean. The most relevant bit is Some people are opposed to any reversal of a sysop action but I am not one of them. If I strongly feel a block is wrong, I may sometimes unblock. Generally, I'd bring it up with the blocking admin instead, but it depends on circumstances. If I see an improper deletion, I may well undelete it, without waiting a week on deletion review. I believe it's almost always poor form for someone who's action has been undone to redo it.

I believe that this approach discourages wheel warring, whereas "admin actions should never be undone!" encourages it. This was my approach, documented on my user page, since long before this incident. If the Arbcom believes this is an inappropriate or harmful approach for an admin to take, then there may be good reason to get me to change, or (failing that) remove my sysop bit. I currently believe it's a mature and reasonable approach, but if anyone can tell me why it's harmful, I could possibly change my mind.

2)The other issue where it's been allaged that I acted inappropriately was by being biased. I unblocked Guanaco but not Mark Sweep. I'll admit I'm not particularly neutral in the "userbox war" - I have a fairly strong opinion that fighting about them is counterproductive and we shouldn't waste our time on it.

But, my decision to unblock Guanaco was NOT based on him being on the "right side". It was simply that the block wasn't useful. I was afraid it would escalate the conflict. The block message on his talk page mentioned an edit war with MS on some templates. To me this looked like a one-time incident rather than a pattern of disruption. Blocks should not be punishment, they should be about damage control. So why not unblock MS also? Well, I've been seeing his name a lot lately; his pattern of edit warring on these issues was already known to me. I had no such prior knowledge about Guanaco.

That said, anyone who disagreed with the MS block would have been (in my view) within their rights to undo it. If nobody chose to do so, I don't see that this has any influence on the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of my actions.

At any rate, if people are too quick to act sometimes (and it's entirely possible I was, in this case), I'd rather have people being quick to unblock than to block - it's less likely to stir up additional trouble. Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Zocky

My connection to this case has been limited to blocking Mark for 3RR and warning Stranger in Paradise for shouting vandalism when there was none.

AFAIC, that was that, and unless somebody has actual complaints about my actions, I'd like to become an uninvolded non-party in this case. Zocky | picture popups 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Evilphoenix

As I said in some of the discussion I participated in about this, we need to focus as a community on building consensus and cooperation. What we do not need are edit wars, which is exactly what I saw...two editors reverting each other on controversial userboxes, so I applied an equal sided block on both, as I felt otherwise there would be no stop to it. I also think we need to worry about wheel warring, but I also don't think Friday's actions were anything remotely like a wheel war. We have the power as Admins to undo each others actions for a reason. Courtesy asks us to attempt discussion with any Admins whose actions we reverse, but sometimes that is not feasible. In this example, Friday did try to contact me, but I had already gone to bed and was therefore unavailable. What is more problematic to Misplaced Pages is when Administrators choose to continue an Admistrative action after being reverted. If I had responded by re-blocking Guanaco, that would have been a wheel war. We all need to respect our fellow Administrators enough not to push buttons more than once on something. However, I don't think that happened in this situation, and I have no issue with what Friday did. I have nothing further to say on this issue, as my involvement goes no further than having placed a block on both parties, and I will probably not be monitoring this RfAr. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Amicus curiae statement by Sarge Baldy

I attempted to communicate with MarkSweep regarding his changes to Template:User anarchist-alt, both through my edit summaries and later on his talk page. I found it rather disconcerting to find my comments met with the use of a tool designed for reverting vandalism, and reminded him of its legitimate purpose. However, he continued elsewhere to use rollback improperly and with disrespect for fellow editors, eventually resulting in his ban for 3RR violation. Sarge Baldy 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Amicus curiae statement by StrangerInParadise

I made several attempts to indicate to MarkSweep that his edits were out of policy, and at no time did he indicate a willingness to reconsider his actions. In particular, the intentional depopulation of categories, with subsequent deletion of CDS-C1(empty), and redeletion under CSD-G4 (previously listed, i.e. speciously under CDS-C1) was a particular indication of prima facia bad faith, which, in my opnion, obviated the need for discussion prior to rollback. Guanco's actions during the entire affair were in support of policy, whereas those of MarkSweep were consistently out of policy, specifically, mass-blanking, disruption of hundreds of Wikipedians who had chosen to list themselves in dozens of categories, edit warring, unauthorized subst-ing of users' templates (including my own, where it was clearly not authorized as I had strongly protested his actions beforehand) and abuse of administrator tools in commission of same (documented WP:AN/I#User:MarkSweep, note the current pattern of recidivism).

I concur with Kelly Martin's original statement that this action should not be about the userbox debates. The clarity of the facts in this case demands it. While the ArbCom might agree, at some point, to hear a case on what is essentially a cultural matter, it should not do so to the detriment of this case, a clear-cut violation of policy and abuse of power.

StrangerInParadise 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Aranda56

This is a major edit war that happened here, borderline wheel warning over some silly userboxes. Let the arbcom accept this case and make the final word about these so insidents like this, and anyothers won't happen again. --Jaranda 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Crotalus horridus

MarkSweep has caused a great deal of disruption by repeatedly engaging in controversial out-of-process deletions and doing so in a spectacularly uncivil and confrontational manner. He needs to take a break from his administrative duty and actually write some articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Brief remark by Mackensen

StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs)'s friend of the court brief above is highly misleading; he's just returned from a block for using a user-space subst'd template to spam talk pages (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#StrangerInParadise spambot spamming userpages). His involvement in this business is clearly more than secondary and I would urge his addition to the case. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I've decided to recuse as a clerk in this one, mostly in order to say this: this case is about userboxes.

More specifically, it is about the extremely destructive but widely denied effects on our community of the creation in template space of very large numbers of templates that have as their sole purpose the viral propagation of political opinions and the linking together of Wikipedians according to those opinions. Sometimes the highly politicised templates contain links to categories, which have the effect of linking the users of these templates in a network according to political opinion. This network is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's principle of neutrality and has been openly used (for instance in the Catholic Alliance case) in deliberate and conscious attempts to subvert that policy.

There is nothing that can be said in a template that cannot already be said by keying or pasting into a page the equivalent sequence of wiki, html and css code. There is no meaning that cannot be conveyed by such sequences of code . Therefore these political templates, by facilitating the replication of their contents, and through the category and whatlinkshere mechanisms, have as their sole function the systematic destruction of the neutrality policy.

The arbitration committee must decide whether its principal purpose is to uphold and defend the culture that has gotten us this far, or merely to enforce some of the written rules that are being used to mock and trample that culture. Whether to preside over the recovery of Misplaced Pages from one of the most massive challenges to its neutral, welcoming culture, or to read its death sentence. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement from David Gerard

This case is the third about the same things:

1. Userboxes/unenculturated newbies.
2. Process fans versus product fans.
3. Wheel wars resulting from the first two.

Kelly notes she brought the case on only 3., but 3. is a symptom of the first two.

The AC needs to deal with the first two issues and not fudge them yet again. Or it will get a fourth case and a fifth and a sixth. Shooting whatever users are luckless enough to find themselves in the way has been tried twice and has yet to show any evidence of working, however according-to-process it may happen to be. - David Gerard 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (replacing previous less-coherent version )

Apposite stuff: if this is accepted, I'll be putting in evidence on votespamming (I blocked StrangerInParadise for that) and the effects of votestacking on the userbox policy poll (and Gmaxwell's analysis thereof) - David Gerard 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Challenge from El C

Yeah! Like David Gerard, I denounce censorship and invite harsh cernsur, and also, can we get something done about them userboxes that have invaded our template and category spaces sometime before the next full moon, or am I to restort to the rhetorical or what? Or what? All this time and energy has been utterly wasted. It has been the greatest time drain in the history of this project. The time to take a clear stand has long passed. Yes, I have expectations and, yes, they are going unfulfiled. The committee needs to pull itself up by its bootstrups, this time. El_C 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution