Case Opened on 16:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Case amended on 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

• 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: [1]
• MarkSweep: [2]
• Friday: [3]
• Evilphoenix: [4]
• Zocky: [5]

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kelly_Martin (talk • contribs) .

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. [6]). During this same interval he was also substing userboxes into user's pages (e.g. [7]). 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. [8]). Starting at about 03:27 on March 3, 2006, MarkSweep used the vandalism rollback tool to revert most of Guanaco's edits (e.g. [9]), 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. [10])

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". [11]

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 Wikipedia, 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.

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.

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 Wikipedia. —Guanaco 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My connection to this case has been limited to blocking Mark for 3RR [12][13] and warning Stranger in Paradise for shouting vandalism when there was none[14].

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)[reply]

I see that some users are trying to force this through to get ArbCom to pronounce judgments on userboxes and even basic choices about how Wikipedia community should work, i.e. the relationship between process and product. That is both outside the scope of this case and outside authority of the ArbCom, and I urge ArbCom to refuse to deliberate about those questions. Zocky | picture popups 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 ^Burn! 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept ➥the Epopt 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Passed 4 to 0 at 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

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

Passed 7-2-2

3) Guanaco has misused his administrative rollback tool to make mass reverts of non-vandalism, in userbox-related content disputes. This occurred 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.

Passed 7-2-2

4) MarkSweep has edit warred with regard to userbox templates. He has been blocked for 3RR in one instance [15] and for "disruptive edit warring" in another [16].

Passed 11-0

5) Guanaco has edit warred with regard to userbox templates. He has been blocked for "disruptive edit warring" [17].

Passed 11-0

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: [18] [19] [20] Guanaco: [21] [22] [23] [24]

Passed 11-0

7) Guanaco has a pattern of reversing other admins' deletions or blocks without prior notification or discussion, and without consensus. See [25] [26] and the many userbox template and category restorations.

Passed 11-0

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.

Passed 11-0

9) Guanaco has referred to disputed edits by others as "vandalism". This constitutes incivility, and is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. [27], [28]

Passed 11-0

10) Guanaco inappropriately blocked MarkSweep despite their personal conflict. [29]

Passed 10-0

11) Administrator Friday reversed another administrator's block of Guanaco without prior discussion or consensus seeking in the matter [30]. She brought the matter to the community's attention only after performing the unblock.

Passed 6-5

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 [31]. The messages, headed "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin" constitute personal attacks [32]. StrangerInParadise was subsequently blocked [33].

Passed 10-0

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 ([34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39], [40] and more), despite warnings to the contrary [41] [42], [43]. These constitute both personal attacks and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. See discussion on Administrators' noticeboard.

Passed 11-0

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.

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.

Passed 11-0

Amended on 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

2) 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.

Passed 10-0

3) 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.

Passed 10-0

4) 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.

Passed 10-0

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

Passed 9-0-2

StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Passed effective 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence of remedy 1 of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case, currently reading:

is vacated and replaced with the following:

Passed 10 to 0 by motion, 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 03:35, 12 April 2006 Rdsmith4 (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) (on meta) desysopped Guanaco.

• none as yet

• 05:14, 17 April 2006: Alkivar (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) blocked StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for incivility.
  • 13:18, 18 April 2006 NoSeptember (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) reduced block to one week to be consistent with remedy listed above. NoSeptember ^talk 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 05:26, 10 May 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 1 week (Breach of personal attack parole) [44].
• 05:26, 10 May 2006 Cyde Weys (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of indefinite (Per WP:RFAR this user has been limited to one account. If you pick this one then this one will be unblocked and the other one will be blocked indefinitely.)