Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:Zzyzx11[edit]

The rollback tool should only be used for vandalism, not edit wars[edit]

Developer Brion Vibber's description of the rollback tool:

Its intent is solely to be a timesaving shortcut for reverting mass vandalism ... No one should ever be in an edit war, sysops in particular should be aware that that's not cool, so there's no need to think about whether or not 'rollback' should be used in an edit war. It shouldn't, because we shouldn't be in that position in the first place. --Brion 17:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC) [2]

Both Guanaco and MarkSweep engaged in an edit war using the rollback tool[edit]

  • From 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC) to 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC), Guanaco reverted MarkSweep's edits on userboxes and user pages — specifically MarkSweep's removal of categories of user pages and the substing of user boxes
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]
  • From 03:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC) to 03:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC), MarkSweep rereverted Guanaco's reverts on userboxes
[93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]
  • From 04:20 on March 4, 2006 (UTC) to 04:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC), Guanaco re-reverted MarkSweep's reverts
[146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191]

Block logs[edit]

Zocky blocked MarkSweep for 3RR violation

  • 11:32, 2 March 2006 [192] Zocky blocked "MarkSweep (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (WP:3RR violation at Template:User pro-cannabis)

Guanaco reblocked MarkSweep for the same 3RR, but unblocked him five minutes later

  • 21:32, 2 March 2006 [193] Guanaco blocked "MarkSweep (contribs)" with an expiry time of 10:11 3 March 2006 (3RR on Template:User pro-cannabis)
  • 21:37, 2 March 2006 [194] Guanaco unblocked MarkSweep (contribs) (previously blocked for 3 hours for the same offense)

Evilphoenix blocked both Guanaco and MarkSweep for edit warring

  • 06:51, 4 March 2006 [195] Evilphoenix blocked "Guanaco (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (Disruptive edit warring with Marksweep)
  • 06:52, 4 March 2006 [196] Evilphoenix blocked "MarkSweep (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (disruptive edit warring with Guanaco)

Friday unblocked Guanaco but not MarkSweep

  • 07:28, 4 March 2006 [197] Friday unblocked Guanaco (contribs) (this block is not helpful)
  • Currently, Friday has never blocked or unblocked MarkSweep [198]

Guanaco continued to make inappropriate uses of the rollback tool after being unblocked[edit]

  • From 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC) to 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC), Guanaco reverted MarkSweep's edits on even more userboxes and user pages — using the rollback tool to make edits similar to the ones that Guanaco made from 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC) to 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
e.g. [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250][251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257]

Evidence presented by Sarge Baldy[edit]

MarkSweep made inappropriate uses of rollback, even after being notified about its proper purpose[edit]

  • 21:20, 1 March 2006 [258]: MarkSweep questionably removes categories from Template:User anarchist-alt, under a justification of "rsc".
  • 23:29, 1 March 2006 [259]: I revert the changes, and ask for clarification as to why such an action was made.
  • 23:38, 1 March 2006 [260]: MarkSweep again removes the category, calling it "superfluous" and saying there is "no need for double categorization".
  • 23:43, 1 March 2006 [261]: I again revert, not seeing how categories are "doubled" or superfluous.
  • 23:43, 1 March 2006 [262]: MarkSweep again reverts, this time using rollback.
  • 23:44, 1 March 2006 [263]: I revert, without using rollback, but seeing no reason to discuss further.
  • 23:47, 1 March 2006 [264]: MarkSweep makes his 4th reversion, saying he removed the category in order to subst the text. I'm left unclear at this point as to the purpose of such an action, but do not report it as violation of 3RR.
  • 23:56, 1 March 2006 [265]: I write to MarkSweep explaining the benefits of communication and correct use of rollback.

MarkSweep was later blocked for making 5 reversions to Template:User pro-cannabis. In this conflict he used rollback twice:

  • 23:21, 1 March 2006 [266]: This one, prior to my notice on his talk page
  • 01:26, 2 March 2006 [267]: This one, about two hours after I made the proper purpose of rollback explicitly clear

He also abused rollback at Template:User dyslexic:

  • 03:31, 2 March 2006 [268]

Between 20:27, 2 March 2006 and 20:33, 2 March 2006 he used rollback in 54 other templates [269]; in all these cases he appeared to have been rolling back Guanaco, after the latter had abused rollback. However, it is clear that abusing the tool in response to abuse by another user does not serve in any respect as a justification.

MarkSweep sidestepped policy in order to delete target userboxes[edit]

MarkSweep engaged in a unilateral campaign to delete target userboxes, by a process of:

  • Removing categories from target userboxes [270]
  • Substing userboxes to user pages [271]
  • Speedy deleting the targets, calling them "orphaned", even though there is no speedy deletion criteria allowing such an action. His category-removing/substing combination also resulted in a number of depopulated categories, which he deleted citing CSD C1. [272]
  • To his credit, however, he did appear to abandon "orphaned" as an acceptable criteria for speedy deletion after I questioned his actions. [273] [274]

Sarge Baldy 18:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway[edit]

Polemical and inflammatory userboxes pose a serious problem for Wikipedia[edit]

Statements by Jimbo Wales[edit]

  • 21 January, 2006
    • 11:01 Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes: "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian."
  • 20 February, 2006
    • 18:01 Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs: "It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace soon. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time"

Catholic Alliance[edit]

Other abuses of userboxes[edit]

Userbox policy poll[edit]

By "recruiting massive numbers of inexperienced editors", StrangerInParadise "managed to heavily skew the userbox policy poll from what was overwhelming consensus to a mere supermajority" (I quote Jimbo Wales) using tendentious and sometimes blatantly false claims to whip up support. [275].

Although the poll was advertised more than most polls, appearing not only on Village Pump and Current surveys from an early date, but also being listed on Userboxes Wikiproject, StrangerInParadise continues to attack the poll with such arguments as "the vote was stacked in advance as a result of how it was selectively published" among other claims [276].

StrangerInParadise openly and admittedly nobbled an ongoing poll and now falsely claimed that it was deliberately stacked in advance.

StrangerInParadise is also known for his activities on WikiNews where he is also, unsurprisingly, involved in attacks on administrators. [277].

Swift growth of userboxes[edit]

Userbox-derived demographics[edit]

  • There is a very strong consensus among established editors for a policy involving the removal of political and polemical userboxes from template space, The demographic figures show that those opposing the new policy as a group have vastly fewer article edits and much less editing experience than those supporting. The demographic graph is on a logarithmic scale.

Polemical and inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted[edit]

This is expected to be accepted in Principle 7 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision
At the time of writing, it has the required seven votes for a majority acceptance.

Political and polemical userboxes are a product of, and an accelerant of, the Septemberization of Wikipedia[edit]

I think we can take that as self-evident by now. I apologise for using the ugly neologism "Septemberization" to denote the abrupt process of degradation in quality that occurs when the intake of an online community exceeds its capacity to acculturate the newcomers. Unless one takes steps to assert the primacy of the culture, the result is Usenet, circa 1998 (wall-to-wall trolls), eventually decaying to Usenet, circa 2006 (silence).

MarkSweep has deleted many Political and polemical userboxes[edit]

Guanaco has undeleted many Political and polemical userboxes[edit]

Userboxes have become a focus of legitimacy for trolls[edit]

I think this is self-evident from the above. We're seeing the divisivenesss of these little badges unleashed on our unprepared community in full force, and we are caving in when we should be putting our foot down. Trolls love to hide under a shibboleth like "free speech".

Some more on StrangerInParadise[edit]

StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs · logs) had been active on English Wikipedia every single day since his sabotage on the userbox policy poll at WP:UPP. Until 23:29 on March 24th. For three days his account has been silent, though he is still around on WikiNews [278]. I wonder if one of his other accounts has been active.

And at 22:36, 27 March 2006, less than an hour after the above edit, back he comes. :)

Evidence presented by Guanaco[edit]

Original reverts were justified[edit]

MarkSweep's edits to the templates were opposed by many users, including me, and were needlessly destructive. This was a valid reason to revert them. My use of rollback was only a shortcut; if I didn't have admin powers, I would have used a Javascript tool or reverted each page using the page history, which anyone can do.

I should not have reverted MarkSweep's edits to each template a second time; edit warring is bad. However, it was not an abuse of admin powers if I could have done it without them. In the future, I will try to avoid edit warring with or without using rollback.

Undeletion of userboxes also justified[edit]

All of the userboxes I undeleted had received a keep or undelete deletion result on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion or Wikipedia:Deletion review, or were not candidates for speedy deletion, even using a broad interpretation of T1. Therefore, my actions are supported by the Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. —Guanaco 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Flcelloguy[edit]

  • Guanaco has sometimes been blunt, if not incivil
    This is irrelevant. Also, Wikipedia policy does not prohibit bluntness. —Guanaco 14:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guanaco has mass reverted edits by a number of people
    I only restored templates if a broad interpretation of T1 did not apply, or for which there had been a deletion result of "keep" or "undelete". Kelly Martin used AWB to tag dozens of templates with {{db-divisive}}, even if T1 clearly did not apply. When I confronted her about this, she tried to justify tagging all of them by giving a few examples of templates that contained egregious personal attacks. —Guanaco 18:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guanaco has called the deletion of userboxes "vandalism"
    I failed to maintain my assumption of good faith. It may not be vandalism, but deleting the template was in direct defiance of the Wikipedia community. —Guanaco 14:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guanaco has called the ArbCom "corrupt"
    • If I am wrong, the ArbCom will ignore this. This is irrelevant. And surely I'm not going to be punished for criticizing those in power? Wikipedia is not a totalitarian dictatorship. —Guanaco 14:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No administrator is ever obligated to use admin powers. —Guanaco 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MarkSweep[edit]

  • MarkSweep's template edits were mass-reverted in bad faith
    This is only evidence that I failed to maintain an assumption that MarkSweep was acting in good faith. It does not prove bad faith on my part. —Guanaco 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tinus[edit]

  • Guanaco uses misleading summary
    The "rv vandalism" edit summary was a slightly tongue-in-cheek interpretation of my attempt and subsequent miserable failure to leave Wikipedia. I am not a vandal, and I have never tried to mislead any Wikipedia users.
    The quote I added is from Nineteen Eighty-Four and accurately describes the treatment of new or unpopular users at Wikipedia. —Guanaco 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guanaco attempts to hide notice
    I had no intention of hiding the notice, and I have no reason to either. I archived everything because I was not going to continue any of the discussions on the page. I am not going to violate the injunction. —Guanaco 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tony Sidaway[edit]

  • Userboxes have become a focus of legitimacy for trolls
    I agree with this statement fully, but cracking down is not an effective way of dealing with trolls. Out-of-process deletion, heated policy polls, and blocking often serve as troll food. —Guanaco 01:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep continues to delete userboxes[edit]

ABF Userbox[edit]

"From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

18:45, 27 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF" (don't)

This is not even remotely an offensive userbox. If certain admins don't know what a parody is, they should learn it. There's a process to deleting userboxes and I suggest you follow them. If a user posts something you don't agree with, don't just arbitrarily delete their work, there's a wonderful place called my talk page where we can discuss these things like adults. I suggest you use it.

You know, the creator of the paedophile userbox claimed that was a parody and it wasn't (it was instead way out of line). I don't appreciate being put in the same category. I'm not even remotely in that same category. I even linked to WP:ABF (which is a parody) in that userbox. Read it again if you don't believe me -> here's another link.

Find a reason other than 'don't' to delete other users' hard work. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, bring it up to WP:DRV. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, discussion has been moved. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF[edit]

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. This shows that MarkSweep's actions are clearly disputed.

MarkSweep arbitararily deleted a parody userbox that was in my userspace.

A subst of the userbox shows the contents as:

ABF This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.

Deletion log shows:
18:45, 27 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF" (don't)

If you check the userbox, it was (and is) linked to WP:ABF (which is a parody).

"Don't" is not a reason. A logical reason why you don't agree with it (posted on my talk page) is more acceptable. I cannot support such out-of-process deletions of people's hard work.

I restored it, then tagged it for deletion (because by restoring it, I might not be following due process). — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious undelete. Don't quite know where to begin....StrangerInParadise 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: begin with what is useful to an encyclopedia. --Doc ask? 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete well the userbox isn't in the article space, is it? I also found the parody policy to be very funny, sometimes laughter is useful.... Homestarmy 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Humour has its uses, even in an encyclopaedia. Why not use that villain picture (that's on WP:ABF itself) in the box to emphasise its humourous nature? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Harmless parody. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Painfully obvious undelete. Whether it's parody is irrelevant, really (I have a couple [grin]); it earns my vote because it's in the user's space and is not clearly divisive—the criteria, after all... RadioKirk talk to me 15:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this here? My user page gets vandalized all the time (Squidward). I just revert it. Are we supposed to be coming to deletion review for userpage vandalism now? Herostratus 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, wait it was deleted, not blanked. That must mean somebody's hacked into an admin account? Good Lord, isn't that serious? Couldn't they go on an image deletion spree? Is the account blocked now, did you post to WP:ANI? I'm sure the real editor would want that done more than anyone. How did this happen? Yeeesh. Herostratus 18:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Im pretty sure MarkSweep is an admin. Homestarmy 19:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, MarkSweep is an admin. He seems to delete and subst any userbox he doesn't like whenever he feels like it. There's currently a Request for Arbitration (RfAr) against him and another admin regarding this very subject. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, OK, it was Mark Sweep. I didn't see that, I should have looked. I figured it was a regular admin who's account had been hacked. Sorry, nevermind. Undelete of course. Herostratus 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please try to be more civil. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Right, sorry. Really, if I'd noticed that it was Mark Sweep I wouldn't have said anything. That would have been unkind, because he's... well, you know. I know he can't help it. I would never on purpose pick on somone who is... well, like him. So, sorry. Herostratus 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the issue there is no excuse for this sort of incivility. Please comment on the issues and not the person. Thank you. Rx StrangeLove 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

***I'm not attacking MarkSweep as a person (I don't know him, how can I attack someone I don't know?); however I am attacking his methods. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
****If I can say this without sounding like a seven year old, I wasn't talking to you. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, it could be interpreted as a parody, so it is not a clear-cut enough case for it to be speedy-worthy. However, I would support its deletion in a TFD, since it could also be interpreted as being serious (unless something was added, like a villain picture that someone suggested, to make it obvious that it was a parody). Where (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean this? I admit I'd prefer it over the old too.
This Wikipedian tries to assume bad faith.

— natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objections over that. Where (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by MarkSweep[edit]

Summary[edit]

The following sections are intended as a rebuttal of some of the assertions made by Kelly Martin in her description of this case. I'm only offering evidence and arguments that directly relate to her description; if the scope of this case is broadened and requires additional evidence, please let me know.

I have been trying to restore sanity to user categorization since at least late January. For example, here I tried to replace an advocacy category with an encyclopedic category that could be used to identify editors by interest. As shown in the next section, my edits in the template space were generally aimed at improving templates to ensure a uniform appearance and compliance with various policies. Removal of categories was justified because (a) the removed categories did not further the goal of writing an encyclopedia; (b) some of the removed category links pointed to nonexistent categories (red links); (c) some of the removed categories failed to follow the naming conventions for user categorization; (d) some of the removed categories were clearly intended to be used for advocacy and were in fact subsequently used for vote stacking; (e) an implicit consensus was already in place (as e.g. expressed by the various "userbox" policy proposals) that double categorization of users (using categories in addition to templates) is at best superfluous. I have never removed a category which identified users by skill or interest. The affected categories range from the merely pointless to blatant Wikipedia-external advocacy.

My edits in the template namespace were mass-reverted by several editors, including Guanaco (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), AdamJacobMuller (talk · contribs), Mike McGregor (Can) (talk · contribs), and possibly Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I will argue in the next section that the reverts were carried out blindly, carelessly, and arguably in bad faith. However, the issue of which tools the reverts were carried out with is mostly immaterial. Admins have rollback at their disposal, but my edits were also reverted using popups and old-fashioned manual editing; other means would have been available as well, including AWB, "godmode light" and similar browser scripting, bots, etc. I will demonstrate below how rollback has actually been used by current and former administrators. Far from being restricted to reverting vandalism, rollback is used frequently to revert edits made in good faith (e.g. [279] [280]).

MarkSweep's template edits were mass-reverted in bad faith[edit]

MarkSweep's edits to userbox templates were reverted blindly en masse by several users, including admins and non-admins. The manner in which this was done shows an assumption of bad faith on the part of those reverting: MarkSweep's edits included not only removal of unencyclopedic categories, but also substitution or removal of fair-use images, formatting fixes, and general cleanup. Reverting these edits blindly and en masse restored certain templates to an undesirable state (e.g. restoring fair-use images) and should be seen as a sign of bad faith. Note that the mass reverts were conducted using rollback (Guanaco, Geni), popups (AdamJacobMuller), and manual editing (Mike McGregor).

  • Template:User ACLU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • MarkSweep removes a fair-use image, unencyclopedic category, and removes a stray <br> element to improve the look of the template [281] [282]
    • Mike McGregor reverts with edit summary "RV", effectively restoring not just the unencyclopedic category, but also the fair-use image and stray line break [283]
    • Silence removes the fair-use image and stray line break a second time [284]
  • Further evidence of bad faith:
    • Guanaco restores a deleted template with edit summary "rv template vandalism" [300]

Rollback widely used to revert non-vandalism[edit]

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate how rollback has actually been used by administrators in recent history. The following list contains a small fraction of examples where administrators have used rollback to revert contributions of long standing, registered users (in most cases other administrators). Administrators who have used rollback to undo the edits of other administrators include Wikimedia Foundation employees,[301] members of the OTRS team,[302] arbitrators,[303] bureaucrats,[304] clerks,[305] developers,[306] and many other experienced editors.[307]

414 admins have used admin-on-admin rollback[edit]

This is a list of current and former administrators along with the number of times each of them has used rollback to undo the edits of other current or former administrators, based on their last 5000 contributions as of March 12, 2005. The counts may include accidental double rollbacks. A total of 414 out of 870 admins (48%) are involved. 

                  Guanaco 382 **************************************
              Jdforrester  92 *********
                   Morven  84 ********
                MarkSweep  72 *******
                    Jiang  60 ******
                   Ed g2s  44 ****
       Wile E. Heresiarch  42 ****
               Violetriga  35 ****
                 Gamaliel  35 ****
              Schneelocke  31 ***
               Pollinator  31 ***
            Phil Sandifer  27 ***
                   Jtdirl  27 ***
          Sebastiankessel  26 ***
                  Proteus  25 ***
                Jimfbleak  25 ***
                Blankfaze  25 ***
                   SimonP  24 **
                    Nohat  23 **
                 Nunh-huh  22 **
               Duncharris  21 **
                  Piotrus  20 **
            GeneralPatton  20 **
                    RickK  19 **
                    PZFUN  19 **
              John Kenney  18 **
                  Talrias  17 **
                 Mikkalai  16 **
                 Dbenbenn  16 **
               Khaosworks  15 **
             DavidWBrooks  15 **
                  Alkivar  15 **
          Trevor macinnis  14 *
               Madchester  14 *
             Slrubenstein  13 *
                   Ezhiki  13 *
           Celestianpower  13 *
                  Cacycle  13 *
                    ALoan  13 *
               Physchim62  12 *
                    Danny  12 *
             Niteowlneils  11 *
                      Who  10 *
                      Ssd  10 *
                     Geni  10 *
                  The Tom  10  *
               SlimVirgin   9 *
               Petaholmes   9 *
                      Joy   8 *
                    Jerzy   8 *
                      JIP   8 *
                 Hyacinth   8 *
                      Gdr   8 *
              Earl Andrew   8 *
                 Andrevan   8 *
           A Man In Black   8 *
            SamuelWantman   7 *
                     Rama   7 *
                  Moriori   7 *
              Kwamikagami   7 *
             Infrogmation   7 *
          Freestylefrappe   7 *
              Evilphoenix   7 *
              Davidcannon   7 *
            ClockworkSoul   7 *
                The Epopt   6 *
                   Splash   6 *
                  Smith03   6 *
                   Silsor   6 *
          Reflex Reaction   6 *
                     NSLE   6 *
                     Mirv   6 *
                 Marshman   6 *
         Knowledge Seeker   6 *
            FeloniousMonk   6 *
            Exploding Boy   6 *
                  EdwinHJ   6 *
                     Docu   6 *
                     Dbiv   6 *
           David.Monniaux   6 *
                     Cyde   6 *
                 Arminius   6 *
         Wilfried Derksen   5 *
          Ta bu shi da yu   5 *
                Sn0wflake   5 *
                 R. fiend   5 *
                   Paul A   5 *
                  Oberiko   5 *
            Marudubshinki   5 *
                  Henrygb   5 *
                   Golbez   5 *
                FCYTravis   5 *
     Eugene van der Pijll   5 *
                 Enochlau   5 *
                Dysprosia   5 *
                     Ambi   5 *
              Adam Bishop   5 *
           Worldtraveller   4 
               VampWillow   4 
                 UtherSRG   4 
                   Ugen64   4 
                Tregoweth   4 
                     Thue   4 
            Theresa knott   4 
              Sarge Baldy   4 
                      Ran   4 
                 RHaworth   4 
             Quercusrobur   4 
              Matt Crypto   4 
         Markalexander100   4 
             Kelly Martin   4 
                  Kaldari   4 
                 Jtkiefer   4 
                 JonMoore   4 
                      Fvw   4 
              Fred Bauder   4 
                 Fawcett5   4 
                    Denni   4 
                   Cyrius   4 
        Christopher Mahan   4 
                      CYD   4 
                 CJCurrie   4 
              Burgundavia   4 
                 Brockert   4 
                      172   4 
                Zscout370   3 
                  Xezbeth   3 
                   Wiglaf   3 
                   Wesley   3 
                   Vsmith   3 
         UninvitedCompany   3 
                    Timwi   3 
                   Tillwe   3 
                Thryduulf   3 
           TenOfAllTrades   3 
                   Tannin   3 
                 TShilo12   3 
                   Sundar   3 
             Snottygobble   3 
                  Rossami   3 
                Rhymeless   3 
                      Rfl   3 
                   Refdoc   3 
                Redwolf24   3 
                 Rdsmith4   3 
                    Ragib   3 
                  Postdlf   3 
                 Phroziac   3 
            Peruvianllama   3 
                      PMA   3 
                Omegatron   3 
               OldakQuill   3 
            Nightstallion   3 
         NicholasTurnbull   3 
               Necrothesp   3 
                Nandesuka   3 
                   Mzajac   3 
                 Mustafaa   3 
           Mike Halterman   3 
                Mackensen   3 
                Linuxbeak   3 
          KnowledgeOfSelf   3 
                 Hemanshu   3 
             Hall Monitor   3 
                    Grunt   3 
                GregAsche   3 
                Frazzydee   3 
                  Ed Poor   3 
          DropDeadGorgias   3 
                    Drini   3 
                 DanielCD   3 
                   Dan100   3 
                  Cryptic   3 
                   ContiE   3 
                    Bcorr   3 
  Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason   2 
                    Zoney   2 
                      Zoe   2 
                 Zero0000   2 
                  Zanimum   2 
                    Yamla   2 
                 Xaosflux   2 
                  Wernher   2 
             Tom harrison   2 
                   Titoxd   2 
             Tim Starling   2 
               Stevertigo   2 
                  Stevenj   2 
                SmthManly   2 
                   Shanel   2 
             Secretlondon   2 
                 Seabhcan   2 
                Sasquatch   2 
              Sam Hocevar   2 
                  Rlquall   2 
                  Raul654   2 
                    R3m0t   2 
                  Quadell   2 
             Phil Boswell   2 
                      Pgk   2 
                  Pakaran   2 
                      Nlu   2 
               Neutrality   2 
               Mysekurity   2 
                 MykReeve   2 
            MarkGallagher   2 
                     Malo   2 
                 Lbmixpro   2 
            Lachatdelarue   2 
              Kim Bruning   2 
                 Katefan0   2 
                   Kaihsu   2 
              Jonathunder   2 
                      Jni   2 
                   Jinian   2 
                   JesseW   2 
                JCarriker   2 
           HOTR   2 
                    Heron   2 
                  Hawstom   2 
                   Harro5   2 
         Hamster Sandwich   2 
           Gerald Farinas   2 
                    Garzo   2 
                    G-Man   2 
                   Friday   2 
               Flcelloguy   2 
             Ferkelparade   2 
              Fastfission   2 
                Esteffect   2 
                   Essjay   2 
                Ellsworth   2 
      DragonflySixtyseven   2 
                 Dpbsmith   2 
              Doc glasgow   2 
             Dieter Simon   2 
           Daniel Quinlan   2 
             DJ Clayworth   2 
                   Cutler   2 
                    Curps   2 
                     Cnwb   2 
         Cleared as filed   2 
                     Chuq   2 
                 Chris 73   2 
                 Chmod007   2 
                 Cecropia   2 
                  Brookie   2 
              BrokenSegue   2 
                Brian0918   2 
                 Bratsche   2 
             Bogdangiusca   2 
                  Bkonrad   2 
                   Biekko   2 
         Anonymous editor   2 
                     Angr   2 
                Android79   2 
                  Zzyzx11   1 
                  Wikiacc   1 
                Wapcaplet   1 
             Voice of All   1 
                  Viajero   1 
               Vaoverland   1 
                 Utcursch   1 
                Urhixidur   1 
                   Tznkai   1 
                  Tkinias   1 
                  TimPope   1 
             Thunderbrand   1 
               TheoClarke   1 
                  The wub   1 
                The Anome   1 
                   Thames   1 
                  Texture   1 
                  TUF-KAT   1 
                SushiGeek   1 
            Stewartadcock   1 
              Hiding   1 
                Solipsist   1 
                Sjakkalle   1 
                       Sj   1 
                Seth Ilys   1 
                    Sesel   1 
               Sean Black   1 
             Scott Burley   1 
                   Sannse   1 
                 Sango123   1 
                 Sam Korn   1 
                   SCZenz   1 
                 SCEhardt   1 
             Ryan Delaney   1 
               Rschen7754   1 
                 RoySmith   1 
                   RoyBoy   1 
                Robchurch   1 
               Ricky81682   1 
                  Rhobite   1 
                    RexNL   1 
                    Redux   1 
             RedWordSmith   1 
                    Rd232   1 
                    Rbrwr   1 
                   Ral315   1 
                 Radiant!   1 
                       RN   1 
                Philwelch   1 
     PedanticallySpeaking   1 
                    Pcb21   1 
              Paul August   1 
                  Patrick   1 
                  Nv8200p   1 
                    Nufy8   1 
                    Mulad   1 
                   Morwen   1 
                 Moncrief   1 
                    Moink   1 
                  Mkweise   1 
                 Mkmcconn   1 
             Michael Snow   1 
              Merovingian   1 
               Mel Etitis   1 
                  Mbecker   1 
               Maveric149   1 
              Mathwiz2020   1 
            Mark Richards   1 
                     Mark   1 
                 Mackeriv   1 
            MacGyverMagic   1 
                    MONGO   1 
                     Lupo   1 
                    Lupin   1 
                 Ludraman   1 
                Lowellian   1 
                   Lommer   1 
                 Lectonar   1 
           Kirill Lokshin   1 
               Kingturtle   1 
                  Khendon   1 
                Karmafist   1 
                   Karada   1 
                       KF   1 
              Joy Stovall   1 
              Josh Grosse   1 
                JohnOwens   1 
                  JoanneB   1 
                  JeremyA   1 
     Jeffrey O. Gustafson   1 
                  Jdavidb   1 
                     Jaxl   1 
               JYolkowski   1 
                 JDoorjam   1 
               Isomorphic   1 
                Ingoolemo   1 
                  Ilyanep   1 
                  Ike9898   1 
                  Icairns   1 
               Ianblair23   1 
                    Ian13   1 
                  Husnock   1 
                 Howcheng   1 
                Guettarda   1 
                    Gtrmp   1 
              Ground Zero   1 
                  Gadfium   1 
                 Fuzheado   1 
                     Func   1 
           Freakofnurture   1 
                Flockmeal   1 
                  FireFox   1 
                   Fennec   1 
                     Feco   1 
                 FayssalF   1 
              Evil Monkey   1 
                  Evercat   1 
               Elf-friend   1 
                      Elf   1 
                     Egil   1 
           Dragons flight   1 
                     Dori   1 
                      Dmn   1 
                  Diberri   1 
               Derek Ross   1 
                 Delirium   1 
                Decumanus   1 
                      Deb   1 
                   Davodd   1 
             David Gerard   1 
          Dante Alighieri   1 
              Dale Arnett   1 
                 DESiegel   1 
               CryptoDerk   1 
             Croat Canuck   1 
                Craigy144   1 
                   Clarkk   1 
              Cimon avaro   1 
                   ChrisO   1 
                   CesarB   1 
           Cedar-Guardian   1 
                 Cburnett   1 
                 Carnildo   1 
                Carbonite   1 
                    CSTAR   1 
                      CLW   1 
            Bunchofgrapes   1 
                   Bumm13   1 
               Briangotts   1 
                    Ausir   1 
                 Arcadian   1 
                   Angela   1 
                  Andrewa   1 
            Andrew Norman   1 
                Alteripse   1 
                   Allen3   1 
                  Alhutch   1 
                     ABCD   1

Geni has abused his powers of reasoning[edit]

Evidence presented by Flcelloguy[edit]

Guanaco has sometimes been blunt, if not incivil[edit]

  • [773] Guanaco, in reply to Karmafist's FAQ, says "Joeyramoney may have continued editing, but that doesn't excuse what Carbonite, Jimbo, and Voice of All did."

Guanaco has mass reverted edits by a number of people[edit]

Guanaco has called the deletion of userboxes "vandalism"[edit]

  • [787] While restoring a userbox and removing {{deleted}}, Guanaco calls the actions of MarkSweep "template vandalism".

Guanaco has called the ArbCom "corrupt"[edit]

  • [788] Responding to someone's comment about desysop-ing MarkSweep, Guanaco calls the ArbCom "corrupt".
[789] This is where this actually was posted Tinus 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [790] Guanaco has also said that he "[will] not... enforce an Arbitration ban (especially one that may not apply) under any circumstances".

Evidence presented by geni[edit]

First assertion[edit]

MarkSweep has abused his admin powers. Deletion:

Before T1:

  • 11:01, 23 January 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User freedom"
  • 16:49, 2 February 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User admins ignoring policy"
  • 06:20, 4 February 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User admins ignoring policy"
  • 04:53, 5 February 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User wishful"

None of these were within policy or process. Despite this he claims "out-of-process re-creation" as a reason for deletion in the same time period

Post T1

  • DeletedCategory:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians citeing C1. The catigory had not been empty for 4 days This diff (there are many simular ones) shows that MarkSweep must have known that the catigory had not been empty for 4 days
  • Deleted Category:Freemason Wikipedians citeing C1. The catigory had not been empty for 4 days. This diff shows that MarkSweep must have nown this
  • 05:56, 2 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User review" (orphaned)

Orphaned is not listed on CSD.

  • 18:19, 21 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User independent Chechnya" (UE)

UE is not listed on WP:CSD.

Misc deletion

  • 09:34, February 18, 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts"

No justification for deletion under policy and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch shows such pages are tolerated if not encouraged.

Second assertion[edit]

MarkSweep has abused his blocking powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19&diff=prev&oldid=40237585

  • Marksweep does a speedy keep[791]

Response to MarkSweep by Sjakkalle[edit]

MarkSweep listed my rollback of User:FireFox's edit as an example of "Rollback widely used to revert non-vandalism". This is wrong. This rollback was clearly a case of reverting vandalism coming from FireFox's account, which came because he momentarily left his computer unattended in a computer room. [793]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Tinus[edit]

Guanaco uses misleading summary, attempts to hide notice[edit]

First, Raul654 places a note regarding the injunction against him on Guanaco's talk page[794]. Guanaco then decides to archive his talk page[795] (edit summary 'archive', minor edit). Then, he replaces his talk page by some kind of quote [796], with summary 'bye'. The next day he reverses that edit [797] with summary 'rv vandalism'. This edit is also marked as minor. Either he considers himself a vandal or his summary is misleading.

Evidence presented by Mike McGregor (Can)[edit]

Mark Sweep was hostile to requests for diologue re: Bush Templates.[edit]

After I saw what seemed to be iregularities in the closing of discussion at TfD User_PresidentBush, which was closed after less then 24hr by Sweep. My frist attempt to open a diologue was on the page below the archived debate (which was closed by mark unilaterally declaring that "there will be no more George W. Bush templates of any form."). It seems this was likely overlooked, as it was already closed and I'd assume that mark did not return to it. So, I left a messege on his talk page, albeit a long one in an atempt to open a diologue regarding this closure. [798]. This was dismissed and met with what seems to be a threat of a ban. [799]. [[800]]. there was no response as to who else I should discuss this with or where the 'discussion amongst admins' had taken place.

Mark Sweep has abused his admin status to inappropriatly supressed debate on several occasions.[edit]

  • Mark Sweep closed a TfD discussion after only 24hr 31hrs(? someone check my math please) of debate and unilaterally declaired that there would be no more bush templates. [[801]]
  • Mark Sweep blanked a DRV regarding the bush templates saying discussion was closed. [[802]]
  • Mark Sweep blanked a request for unprotect. [[803]]


more documentaion (although not exactally well orginized documentation) here Mike McGregor (Can) 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by nathanrdotcom[edit]

MarkSweep has abused his admin status to inappropriately (and out-of-process) delete userboxes[edit]

MarkSweep arbitararily deleted a parody userbox that was in my userspace ([to discussion at WP:UBD]).

Deletion log shows:
18:45, 27 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF" (don't)

If you check the userbox, it was (and is) linked to WP:ABF (which is a parody).

"Don't" is not a reason. A logical reason why you don't agree with it (posted on my talk page) is more acceptable. I cannot support such out-of-process deletions of people's hard work.

MarkSweep knowingly and willingly engaged in unauthorized subst-ing of users' templates[edit]

..including my own. The templates he subst'd still exist even now, which makes me wonder what his ulterior motive was. You can't go around deleting/subst'ing things you don't agree with even if you're an admin. Follow process.

MarkSweep continues to delete userboxes even during this RfAr[edit]

...therefore making matters worse for himself (he was even advised on his talk page to stop, albeit by a lowly user [myself]).

Deletion log shows:

  1. 16:40, 4 April 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User against Iraq war of aggression" (t1)
  2. 16:37, 4 April 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal" (g4)
  3. 16:37, 4 April 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User GOP criminal" (r2)
  4. 15:56, 4 April 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User GOP criminal" (g4)
  5. 14:40, 4 April 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User homophobe" (t1)
  6. 14:39, 4 April 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User GOP criminal" (t1)

Evidence presented by User:StrangerInParadise[edit]

MarkSweep knowingly and willingly violated policy by misrepresenting CSD-C1(empty) deletions[edit]

I made several attempts to indicate to MarkSweep that his edits were out of policy [804][805], and at no time did he indicate a willingness to reconsider his actions. In particular, the intentional depopulation of categories, with subsequent deletion of CSD-C1(empty), and redeletion under CSD-G4 (previously listed, i.e. speciously under CSD-C1) was a particular indication of prima facie bad faith (documented IncidentArchive78#Mark Sweep's continued disruption of Wikipedia).

MarkSweep was blocked for 3RR, and was encouraged to continue by other admins[edit]

His edit-warring also led to a 3RR block of only 3 hours. Note the administrative symapthy for the underlying deletions, which are far more serious than the 3RR. Note also how Zocky issues a warning to me for having described his actions (in IRC) as vandalism, and advises MarkSweep to continue the edit war by playing out the clock. Note that MarkSweep immediately went on to delete another userbox.

MarkSweep knowingly and willingly violated policy by engaging in mass-blanking and disruption[edit]

Specifically, MarkSweep engaged in mass-blanking, disruption of hundreds of Wikipedians who had chosen to list themselves in dozens of categories, edit warring and abuse of administrator tools in commission of same (all documented IncidentArchive79#User:MarkSweep and IncidentArchive78#Mark Sweep's continued disruption of Wikipedia, note the patterns of recidivism).

MarkSweep knowingly and willingly engaged in unauthorized subst-ing of users' templates[edit]

...including my own, where it was clearly not authorized as I had in the strongest terms protested his actions beforehand.

MarkSweep's actions were consistently done out-of-policy[edit]

The above actions have no policy justifications. Although Jimbo Wales has expressed concerns about userboxes, he has also expressly forbid the sort of actions in which MarkSweep has engaged, and certainly never authorized the sorts of CSD-C1 subterfuge MarkSweep repeatedly attempted.

MarkSweep's prima facie bad faith obviated the need for admin discussion prior to rollback[edit]

An admin acting so far out-of-policy and in clear bad faith as this should not be entitled to continue doing so. An admin doing so repeatedly over the course of weeks cannot be said to be entitled to yet another hearing to justify his acts. An admin acting this far out-of-policy cannot be said to retain the sanction of the community to act. The dozens of outraged user comments on MarkSweep's talk page only attest to this.

In principle, one acting like this through an admin account should be stopped immediately in his tracks simply for fear of impersonation, as per WP:AGF, no one should presume an admin would act so irresponsibly out-of-policy as this. That MarkSweep was able to amass such a record that this behavior becomes nonrepudiable on his part makes it all the worse.

Guanaco's actions during the entire affair were in support of policy[edit]

Guanaco reversed many of MarkSweep's wrongful actions, at both my request, and that of others [here various requests on Guanaco's talk page]. My only criticism of Guanaco is that he did not preempt further damage by blocking MarkSweep outright for a significant period of time. It is only his restraint in the matter which has caused damage.

To oppose MarkSweep's actions as Guanaco has cannot be considered either edit-warring or wheel-warring, as there is zero-claim of legitimacy on MarkSweep's part to begin with. The evidence of bad faith on MarkSweep's part, presented above, is too strong to overcome.

Guanaco's actions are especially commendable considering the overt hostility other admins have shown in their partisan opposition of userboxes (e.g. Physchim62 blocked Babajobu). Many who would otherwise have acted have been intimidated into inaction by this corruptive climate.

StrangerInParadise 07:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by D-Day[edit]

Mark Sweep engages in unwarranted, unilateral decision-making[edit]

In February 2006, MarkSweep made remarks on user's talk page containing the following: [806], [807].

MarkSweep has closed deletion debates at improper times and before consensus was reached[edit]

MarkSweep has also closed deletion debates as shown here: [808] [809][810]

Evidence presented by StrangerInParadise on his own behalf[edit]

Concerning the finding of uncivil behavior[edit]

I have been made the subject of a finding of uncivil behavior, and proposed sanctions in connection with it, both brought by User:dmcdevit. Contrary to the wording of the specification, I make no habit of calling opponents vandals, but have insisted that MarkSweep's actions constitute vandalism, and have argued thusly, for example /Workshop#Deletion in bad faith is vandalism.

Apart from this, I do not use the word vandal save in the most uncontroversial "rv vand" edit summary usage. I did, once and a very long time ago, refer to an aestetically disagreeable edit as vandalism, unaware at the time of the very specific term of art the word had become. I was directed to WP:VAND, saw that I was entirely mistaken and did not repeat.

I would also point out that the only people to object to this usage in connection with MarkSweep have been userbox opponents. To censor such speech as uncivil is in a sense to preclude expression of what is, in the context of Wikipedian politics, a political opinion.

Concerning the finding of disruption, and proposed sanctions in connection with it[edit]

I did intentionally place a notice urging an Oppose vote on WP:UPP on the talk pages of 43 United Nations Wikipedians, and intended do 12 more (completing Wikipedians S through Z), and call it a day. Apart from knowing them to have been subject to MarkSweep's mass blanking and category depopulation efforts, I had no personal connection that I can recollect with those 43 contacted. I have made a clear statement on the matter.

I have been made the subject of a finding of disruption, and proposed sanctions in connection with it, both brought by User:dmcdevit. There is ample evidence that,

  • I had no intent to violate policy
  • there appeared to be no policy posted prohibiting this action
  • if there was such a policy, I was unaware of it
  • WP:UPP had every apperance of being a Wikipedia-wide poll in which all were encouraged to participate
  • if governed by WP:STRAW (specifically WP:STRAW#Voting etiquette), the result is not a matter of numbers, nor a means to impose the tyranny of a majority (hence no disruption)
  • if not so governed, then there is no policy prohibiting it
  • WP:UPP made no mention of WP:STRAW, and I was unaware of even its existence, though having seen IRC communications, previous votes (over four years here on article talk pages), the apparent biases in the the WP:UPP announcements (especially WP:Userboxes), I had no reason to think there would be a problem with sending a partisan message to an affected group
  • the statement, "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin" is factually correct in its entirety, as was the charge of sabotage and damage: MarkSweep willfully and knowingly out-of-process damaged a list of Wikipedians by sabotaging templates so as to empty and delete them, i.e. he went rogue
  • this is not technically disruption: the existence of a significant minority opposed to UPP is indisputable regardless of my actions, which was to be demonstrated by holding the poll in the first place
  • my conversations with the first person who responded at the time, User:Mindspillage (apart from thank you notes of the message recipients), can confirm at least that I had no awareness that I was violating policy (it should also be apparent to the committee that I had no idea who she was). At no time did she appear to be doing other than questioning the propriety my actions, and no policy violation was cited. I was in no haste to continue (talking to a interested person became more important than leafleting) and entered into discussion when I was blocked by David Gerard
  • I am on record as saying that, had I known of the existence of WP:STRAW#Voting etiquette, I would have posted the invitation to vote, inidicated that UPP would mandate the removal of the category, but not made a voting recommendation
  • I have sought dialog on the matter at all relevant phases during and subsequent to the act, being very careful to consult with others (including User:dmcdevit, who brought the charges, and User:Mindspillage, who initially raised her concerns) lest I violate this unwritten policy a second time
  • Were it my intention to wrongfully stack the vote, rather than pick a good neutral sample of affected Wikipedians, I could have chosen a far more polarised group than Category:United Nations Wikipedians, could have programatically left a randomized note on every last affected user over randomized intervals, and could have done so without the benefit of any username

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al/Evidence&oldid=1087434502"