This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Rescind the injunction "Guanaco restricted from admin reversals"

1) The injunction titled "Guanaco restricted from admin reversals" is no longer in effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The injunction is not supported by the facts relevant to this case, and no party has requested such an injunction. It does nothing toward resolving any dispute. — Guan aco 16:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

MarkSweep's actions since this matter was brought shows just how one-sided this injunction was: he has continued to interfere with userboxes, while Guanaco, the one person who acted in policy has been enjoined from further doing so. This is wrong on so many levels, not least of which to cast the presumption- entirely false, in my view- that somehow Guanaco was at fault, where MarkSweep was not. StrangerInParadise 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Reword misleading text of finding StrangerInParadise is uncivil

The finding /Proposed decision#StrangerInParadise is uncivil contains,

Existing language

StrangerInParadise has persisted in incivility and referring to other users with whom he is in a dispute as vandals or as performing vandalism ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], [7] and more), despite warnings to the contrary ( [8] [9] [10]).

This is misleading and incorrect: the only person whose actions I have described as vandalism is MarkSweep, in connection with this incidents of this case: there is no habit of general usage. Absent evidence to the contrary, I move that the finding be amended accordingly and votes stricken (to be revoted on consideration of the new text).

Proposed language

StrangerInParadise has persisted in incivility by referring in the abstract to the actions of those who in his view wrongfully delete or alter userboxes as vandalism. He has also specifically described MarkSweep's actions as such, despite several warnings from various admins not to do so.

No one believes I have abused the word vandalism beyond this, and this should be reflected in the vote. Further, I maintain that MarkSweep acted in bad faith and that deletion in bad faith is vandalism, so a vote in favor effectively claims that I have been uncivil even in giving evidence and proposing principles.

StrangerInParadise 05:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

MarkSweep banned from editing the Template:User space

1) For repeatedly deleting and editing userboxes without consensus, and sometimes against consensus, MarkSweep ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is prohibited from editing the Template:User space for the remainder of this arbitration. He should instead use Templates for Deletion and individual userbox talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tht link you gave shows that MarkSweep appears to only have deleted about 3 userboxes in the last 3 days. Can you please do more in the way of convincing me that this is disruption that needs an immediate injunction? Were any of them even disputed? Guanaco's useful injunction is not a good reason for an injunction on MarkSweep, by the way. Dmcdevit· t 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

My injunction is hardly "useful". So far it has mainly interfered with simple maintenance tasks, and it doesn't prevent me from reverting userboxes, which this is supposed to be about. Of course, I will not continue that edit war, so by your logic, no injunction is necessary. — Guan aco 15:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

If Guanaco is to be blocked from what he has allegedly done wrong, then MarkSweep should have the same restrictions placed upon him. He has continued to delete userboxes after the RfAr started. -- Rory 0 96 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

MarkSweep continues to baselessly delete templates. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User:nathanrdotcom.2FUserboxes.2FABF and the deletion log for that page. -- Rory 0 96 06:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

In fact, every userbox currently on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates was deleted by MarkSweep. -- Rory 0 96 06:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Divisive userboxes

1) It has been established as Wikipedia policy by Jimbo Wales that divisive or inflammatory userboxes are candidates for speedy deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Needs restating. Robert McClenon 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Jimbo has stated that he was not imposing this by decree, and there certainly is no consensus for this alleged policy. — Guan aco 17:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

A similar principle has been adopted 8-0 in the Tony Sidaway case, which is now closed. Moreover the T1 criterion has successfully resisted all efforts to have it removed, and it has been successfully applied in many cases. It is, for now at least, a part of Wikipedia's deletion policy. I'm sure Jimbo has devoted at least some effort to following the three userbox cases; he has access to all mailing lists including arbcom-l and had the opportunity to clarify his meaning in the Tony Sidaway case and has a further opportunity here. -- Tony Sidaway 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Actually the original CSD T1 as established by Jimbo said nothing about 'divisiveness' - a userbox had to be 'inflammatory or polemical' to be a candidate for speedy deletion Cynical 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

[11] You seem to have your history wrong? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

My mistake. The 'polemical and inflammatory' version was around for so long I assume it was the genuine one. Cynical 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't this be a finding of fact? If it's just stating that this is what Jimbo established, then it's nothing more than a fact. -- Rory 0 96 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

not really. Last I cheacked T1 has been removed added removed aging re-readded gain commently lost it regain it been merged into G3 been de-mergered and further involved in conflict. Policy does not normaly behave like that. Generaly is is vaguely stable. Geni 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Lack of stability indicates lack of consensus. Jimbo's special role only created more instability when he weighed in on T1, which I believe he did only to support another user without invoking special powers. Suddenly it became a fixed point about which much more thrash occured. That said, to place in the hands of a single admin the power to summarily rule anything divisive, polemical or inflamatory is madness, both because the terms are themselves too inclusive and the judgement of individual admins too uneven, even when acting in good faith, for example WP:UBD#Template:User feminist. This is a benign example- sadly, the assumption of good faith can seldom be assumed lately regarding userboxes. StrangerInParadise 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

In this matter, I think it is reasonable to ask Jimbo what his intended standing was with this edit: that of final authority on all matters, or simply Wikipedian. If such a clarification has been made, it should be documented. StrangerInParadise 00:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

No policy on userboxes

2) There is no accepted general policy on userboxes. Proposed policies such as Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll have faced significant opposition from members of the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should be self-evident, but specific disruptive acts need to be identified. Robert McClenon 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Poorly worded. It is an administrator's job to perform actions that are by their very nature disruptive. In doing his job, an administrator must use his best judgement to avoid causing excessive disruption. -- Tony Sidaway 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As with doctors, police, and many other sorts of intervention roles, the first rule should be to do no harm. MarkSweep's actions caused disruption where there was was none, disrupting for no specific purpose thousands of users arranged- peaceably- in categories. StrangerInParadise 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I believe MarkSweep's actions were disruptive and out of process, but more egregious was his refusal to respond to anyone who kept asking "why? why?" Her Pegship 23:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Wheel warring

4) Wheel wars, defined as contests between two or more admins who reverse administrative actions, are harmful and disruptive. The ArbCom may impose sanctions on administrators who engage in wheel wars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is not a wheel warring case. It's only about mass-reversion as part of an edit war. — Guan aco 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I tend to view the issue as one of abuse of power, and because the term "wheel war" is so poorly defined I deprecate its use. If someone exercises power through privilege, as administrators do, they must do so responsibly. But I'm aware that my perspective on this is a minority one. -- Tony Sidaway 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Wheel warring defined in more detail

4.1) While a single reversal by an administrator of the actions of another administrator is not necessarily a wheel war, repeated reversals do constitute wheel wars. They are harmful behavior by admins for reasons that are similar to the reasons why edit wars are harmful behavior by editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Needs stating. One reversal is not a wheel war, but multiple reversals are. Robert McClenon 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree, it needs to be clear that reversing another Administrator's action is not by itself a wheel war, it is repeatedly taking Administrative action that defines a wheel war. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

For it to be a wheel war, both sides must have valid administrative standing. This standing cannot be asserted on behalf of a party engaged in clear bad faith violations of policy. This principle is analogous to that which would not consider the reversion of vandalism an edit war, as the vandal does not have valid editorial standing. StrangerInParadise 17:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Sanctions for wheel warring

4.2) In view of the seriousness of wheel warring, the sanctions imposed by the ArbCom for wheel warring may extend up to a permanent revocation of sysop status, and may even include bans from editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The previous penalties have been short losses of admin status. Since the short desysopping do not send the message, the ArbCom needs to state that in the future the consequences will be severe. Robert McClenon 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This would be true, but there was no wheel warring in this case. — Guan aco 16:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I can't imagine that the consequence of a wheel war (alone) should ever include a ban from editing. If someone disrupts Wikipedia by wheel warring, you can 100% stop them from doing so without impeding their editing at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, a simple desysopping would stop these particular users from engaging in this particular wheel war - whereas a ban from editing could potentially deter administrators from engaging in wheel wars in the first place, and prevention is always better than cure Cynical 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This is not in line with fundamental principles, e.g. wikilove and meatball:AssumeGoodFaith. There's no reason to deliberately punish people in ways that exceed what is required to resolve the dispute. Removal of admin status from offending parties necessarily resolves the dispute because the people in question no longer have the technical ability to engage in the behavior that is the cause of the dispute. Obviously the arbcom is in some sense free to define its own mandate, but in taking actions like that you suggest it would obviously be stepping out of its role as a body for dispute resolution (and its usefulness for dispute resolution would proportionally decline). Christopher Parham (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

True, however if an administrator's conduct shows a complete contempt for Wikipedians (who write Wikipedia) and the rules (which enable the conflicting ideas of 'wiki' and 'encyclopedia' to be reconciled), it is questionable whether allowing them to stay is of benefit to the project Cynical 12:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

It is important to separate wheel-warring from abuse of privilege. The former should be dealt with among admins in the sense of a Harmonious administration club, the later should involve zero-tolerance desysopping. StrangerInParadise 01:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:IAR

5) The Wikipedia guideline Ignore All Rules has been from time to time abused by administrators. While editors should be bold in editing, provided that they do not edit war, administrators should http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al/Workshop&action=edit&section=12use judgment with administrative privileges. WP:IAR cannot be used as a justification for incivility by editors or for wheel warring by administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would prefer to delete WP:IAR because it is abused, but that be out of process and would violate consensus. Robert McClenon 21:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't see this as relevant in this case. Neither MarkSweep nor I have used IAR to justify an alleged abuse of admin powers. — Guan aco 17:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I agree with Guanaco. What does IAR have to do with anything? -- Rory 0 96 04:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

06:20, 4 February 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User admins ignoring policy" (per the WP:IAR policy). Geni 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The terms "divisive", "polemic" and "inflammatory" too subjective

6)The terms "divisive", "polemic" and "inflammatory" are subjective at best and leave a lot (perhaps too much) room for interpretation. They need to be refined in the context of CSD. 64.231.85.6 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC) ( Mike McGregor (Can) 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If significant numbers of Wikipedians can in good faith gather on either side of the question of whether a given item is divisive, polemical or inflammatory, then it follows that the item is divisive. I say "in good faith" because I think it's important to recognise that sometimes people may exaggerate to make a case. On the other hand, if people are doing this over an item, it follows that the item is inflammatory, though only in the sense that it has become a casus belli. The key is that Wikipedia should be a pleasant place. If significant numbers of people are getting worked up over non-encyclopedic items in template space, I really don't think we need much other justification to get rid of those items. -- Tony Sidaway 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

In followup to Arthur's question, I refer all parties to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates where there is ample evidence of significant numbers of Wikipedians on either side expressing diametrically opposed opinions over precisely the questions I referred to above. It's not just three people; indeed the recent poll established beyond doubt that the vast majority of well established, acculturated Wikipedians would have been happy to see all non-neutral userboxes (whether inflammatory or not) removed from template space and forbidden for use as transclusions. -- Tony Sidaway 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, now that Arthur has started in on the ridiculous personal attacks I'll leave my evidence to speak for itself. --20:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

(Referring to first "Comment by parties" in this section.) People are getting "worked up", as you call it, over the vandalism of their user pages. (Whether or not it's vandalism as defined here, it appears to vandalism to the users in question.) All we know is that three admins found many userboxes "divisive", "polemical", or "inflammatory" (whichever appeared to be policy at the time) -- and not necessarily the same userboxes. Or are you trying to say that you (Tony), MarkSweep, and Kelly are "a significant number of Wikipedians"? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Indeed, the statement by the party above is incorrect, as are many of his commentaries on evidence in all the userbox RfAr's. There are more than three, but less than a majority of those who appear to be established Wikipedians. ("Acculturated" is POV, in this context, as it presumes we know what the prevailing culture is. If properly defined, the statement may be correct as a tautology.) The majority would probably be happy to see all non-neutral userboxes moved to user space and encouraged for use in transclusions. Whether an index is to be maintained in Wikipedia-space is more disputed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I see no personal attack here, although there was one for a while before I saved it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Point of order why are Tony Sidaway and others commenting from the Comment by parties section? Are we parties if we give evidence? I understood that unless we were not named and so notified, we were not parties. StrangerInParadise 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The word polemic is far too broad, and has been reverted when CSD-T1 has been altered (by me and many others). The term divisive is significant in this context only insofar as the dialog between community members on both sides of the debate becomes unsupportable by the community. The same may be said of imflammatory, except this would tend to describe a handful of supporters against an outraged community. One of the very few questions which rises to either standard is, BTW, the destruction of userboxes, which could have been contained long ago by supporting policy and desysopping- immediately- those responsible. Most others questions could have been handled with existing talk page content standards. StrangerInParadise 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Admin bad faith

7) Admins acting in bad faith is an actionable abuse of administrative privilege, resistance of which is required.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is common sense. StrangerInParadise 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a recipe for warfare. Dispute resolution should never encourage those seeking to override the actions of others. -- Tony Sidaway 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Administrators acting in bad faith are often those seeking to override the actions of others. This only places a clear dividing line between them and legitimate administrators, who should not be penalized for resisting such. StrangerInParadise 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Admin misrepresentation

8) Admins misrepresenting use of sys-op functions is an actionable abuse of administrative privilege, and is prima facie bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another recipe for warfare. Dispute resolution should never encourage those seeking to override the actions of others. -- Tony Sidaway 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This is common sense. StrangerInParadise 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Deletion in bad faith is vandalism

9) Deletion in bad faith is vandalism, the equivalent of blanking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another recipe for warfare, and a dilution of a fairly well understood term that has resisted such expansion over the years. -- Tony Sidaway 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This is not an expansion of the term. I'll point out that WP:VAND excludes from the definition Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, and that I am alleging, specifically, that the CSD-C1 subterfuge and recurrent out-of-process deletions are prima facie acts of bad faith, that is their bad-faith nature [was] inarguably explicit. The language in WP:VAND relied upon here is quite old. The obligation to act, Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with – if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others is also quite old. In fact, both have resisted alteration for some time. Those who see and follow a recipe for war in support of such an action would be supporting vandalism, for which remedies are clear. StrangerInParadise 21:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This is common sense. StrangerInParadise 07:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate, especially in light of recent events, that vandalism is a term of art with its own unique institutional history, in part the result of an effort to acknowledge certain essential principles, some of which I'll enumerate here,

• that administrators as a consequence of their necessary service to the encyclopedia find themselves in an elevated rate of conflict with other users and are therefore entitled to the highest assumption of good faith in the resolution of these many conflicts
• that Wikipedians generally have a broad area within which we may reasonable disagree in good faith as to what is best for the encyclopedia
• that to declare any Wikipedian vandal is to place him outside the scope of that assumption of good faith, and should only be done with the most extreme reluctance.

That said, to act in bad faith is to act without sanction, to delete without sanction is to destroy, to destroy is vandalism. This is far more fundamental that even the above three principles, and does not contradict them. The only reason a non-admin vandal blanks is that he cannot delete. To conclude that an admin is somehow by definition incapable of vandalism (something proposed to me recently) is dangerous. When the police thieve and kill without sanction, they are tried as thieves and killers, the matter aggravated- made more grave- if done under color of authority. The same principle must apply here.

I would point out that had this principle been applied, the warfare would have ended much sooner. The prevalent thinking has focused on wheel warring as the primary risk, but this alone does not resolve the problem. The idea that any administrator who acts in bad faith may continue to act as an equal among administrators is madness. My comment on wheel warring applies here, For it to be a wheel war, both sides must have valid administrative standing. This standing cannot be asserted on behalf of a party engaged in clear bad faith violations of policy. This principle is analogous to that which would not consider the reversion of vandalism an edit war, as the vandal does not have valid editorial standing.

StrangerInParadise 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Userbox disputes result in wheel wars

1) Userboxes and their deletion or retention have resulted in wheel wars between admins several times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Userboxes are not unique in this. Technically, since MarkSweep's actions were clearly unsanctioned (and he knew it), this was not a wheel war. This is like saying, Banks result in shootouts, because of the incidence of bank robberies, as if this were somehow an indictment of banks. StrangerInParadise 07:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Product fans and process fans

2) Disputes about userbox deletion have sometimes resulted in Wikipedians identifying themselves as dividing into a "product camp" advocating Doing the Right Thing without regard to process and "process fans" advocating following established processes to avoid disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am not sure camp and fan quite capture this issue, which is very important. In my own case, my involvement with the issue reflects a deep respect for process which would be somewhat trivialized (however unintentionally) by describing it as fandom. Nor is it fair to say that Wikipedians identify themselves so much as act in ways reflective of concern for both process and product. My personal view is that the quality of the product is a primary result of the evolution of the process, and that the blatent circumvention of process— by MarkSweep in particular and anti-userbox warriors in general— has had an adverse effect on the product far in excess of any alleged to be the result of userboxes themselves.

Confidence in administrators is at an all-time low. I myself struggle to remember that they are in a sense the thin blue line between encyclopedia and the chaos of a bathroom stall wall. The tragedy is that the actions of a handful of rogue admins have so disrupted the quiet functioning of Wikipedia that many now rightly doubt that their conscientious participation will be respected at all. Still others are tempted to give the disruptors whatever they want in hopes that the conflict will go away, and many were willing to give UPP a cursory read and support it on just those grounds, not recognizing the ramifications of it.

Worst of all is the ugliness which has been brought out in several admins. Beset on all sides by the outage their actions provoke, they dig in and fight harder, convinced that their own righteousness somehow transcends community consensus. Adminship is a mop, to use it as a scepter is unseemly, to use it as an electric cattle-prod is indecent.

StrangerInParadise 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Repeated deletion of userboxes

3) Wheel warring to delete inflammatory or divisive userboxes is not justified. The wheel war is at least as disruptive to Wikipedia as the divisive userboxes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Needs restating. The userboxes may be a Bad Thing, but so is the wheel war. Robert McClenon 21:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Repeated undeletion of userboxes

4) Wheel warring to reverse inappropriate deletion of userboxes is not justified. The wheel war is at least as disruptive to Wikipedia as the violation of process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Needs restating. Unjustified deletion may be a Bad Thing, but so is the wheel war. Robert McClenon 21:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The issue is bad faith. Since MarkSweep's actions were unsactioned- and he knew it- this is not a wheel war. StrangerInParadise 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

MarkSweep's abuse of privilege

5) MarkSweep abused administrative privilege on several counts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is clear from evidence. StrangerInParadise 07:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Fang Aili copied from recent RFC

I tried to communicate with MarkSweep on the Deletion Review page [12] when he unilaterally decided that all discussion on GWB debates was finished and that GWB templates would not be recreated. I asked him how he had decided that, and he answered by deleting my question. He then engaged in a revert war when other users (including myself, once), restored my question and other comments. I then asked him again on his userpage [13], but he answered by threatening people [14], [15], [16] and deleting more templates that were under discussion. I offer this as evidence that users have indeed tried to resolve these issues before creating this RfC.

I am tired of the userbox war, and with the way things are going (mass deletion of every template that might hold a "polemical" view), I do not call for the recreation of any template at this time. I only wish for an acknowledgement that unwarranted threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia.

-- 71.141.132.49 03:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Guanaco's opposition to MarkSweep

6) Guanaco's opposition to MarkSweep was in policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not at all clear. MarkSweep had WP:CSD. Guanaco had...what? -- Tony Sidaway 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

MarkSweep had WP:CSD, and abused it anyway. MarkSweep engaged in subterfuge by unlinking categories from templates (thus emptying them) then deleting the categories under CSD-C1 (Empty). Guanaco reversed this. MarkSweep clearly abused CSD-T1. Guanaco reversed this as well. By reverting MarkSweep, it is (only) Guanaco who has upheld CSD. (BTW, have you become a party to this matter as well, Tony?) StrangerInParadise 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This is clear from evidence. StrangerInParadise 07:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

(Since when is Tony a party here? Does the board want to attach any restrictions imposed on MarkSweep also onto Tony as a matter of principle?) MarkSweep had WP:CSD, with directions from Jimbo Wales not to go on a deletion spree, and Jimbo's statements that he didn't think the current userbox policy was acceptable. Guanaco had the directions from Jimbo, and WP:POINT -- and the general rule not to unnecessarily disrupt the operation of Wikipedia as a whole. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: