I attempted to communicate with MarkSweep regarding his changes [1] to Template:User anarchist-alt, both through my edit summaries and later on his talk page. I found it rather disconcerting to find my comments met with the use of a tool designed for reverting vandalism, and reminded him of its legitimate purpose. However, he continued elsewhere to use rollback improperly and with disrespect for fellow editors, eventually resulting in his ban for 3RR violation. Sarge Baldy 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

StrangerInParadise 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I agree. Ashibaka tock 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, MarkSweep (talk · contribs) is out of touch and thinks that he can simply delete and/or revert things at his own will. He uses decpetive tactics, falsified edit summaries, subst'ing deleted templates so that users don't complain, they are all actions that I have come to expect from anonymous vandals, not even regular Wikipedians, let alone an Administrator AdamJacobMuller 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

You call it spam, but as one of the users who was "spammed" I thank StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) for informing me of what was an agregious situation and making it known to those who's userpages had been vandalized by MarkSweep (talk · contribs) what was going on AdamJacobMuller 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second AdamJacobMuller's statement above, as my page was also vandalized by User:MarkSweep - Spaceriqui 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This case is the third about the same things:

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

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

The AC needs to deal with the first two issues and not fudge them yet again. Or it will get a fourth case and a fifth and a sixth. Shooting whatever users are luckless enough to find themselves in the way has been tried twice and has yet to show any evidence of working, however according-to-process it may happen to be. - David Gerard 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (replacing previous less-coherent version [2])[reply]

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

Is StrangerInParadise attached to this case? He states here [3] that StrangerInParadise is a secondary account. I've submitted private evidence to the AC (of the sort typically not revealed unless necessary) on his other account. Note that AC restrictions, etc. apply per person, not per username. (Of course, SIP still thinks there's nothing wrong with talk-page spamming in this particular good cause ...) - David Gerard 08:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His response is curious considering he's right in the middle of the events in question. - David Gerard

David Gerard seems determined to expand the scope of this case such that he might drag me into it, with transparently political motivations. His question of whether I am a defendant in this case is disingenuous: I have not been so notified and it has not been here announced. As this expansion of scope has not been made, this places the bulk of David Gerard's comments out of order.

In my amicus curiae statement, I relate how I raised an alert against MarkSweep's actions, after failing to prevail on him to stop and revert his mass-deletion campaign, and how Guanaco responded to it. Absent this ill-advised proposal to expand the scope of this case, that is the extent of my involvement in the matter. All of David Gerard's comments regarding me cite actions occuring well after the events of this case.

His insinuations of wrongdoing are entirely out-of-order, and unless he has specific evidence of multiple-account wrongdoing, his "submission of evidence", even if in private to the ArbCom, is an actionable violation of my privacy, if not stalking. Insofar as he may have used sysop powers to do so, they are especially actionable.

Also, his false assignment to me of opinions and motives are generally out-of-order as well, and in this apparent attempt to discredit my amicus statement are defamatory. I should like his comments striken from the record, and that he be strongly cautioned against any further such comments.

StrangerInParadise 17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Like David Gerard, I denounce censorship and invite harsh cernsur, and also, can we get something done about them userboxes that have invaded our template and category spaces sometime before the next full moon, or am I to restort to the rhetorical or what? Or what? All this time and energy has been utterly wasted. It has been the greatest time drain in the history of this project. The time to take a clear stand has long passed. Yes, I have expectations and, yes, they are going unfulfiled. The committee needs to pull itself up by its bootstrups, this time. El_C 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [Please don't delete this challenge. Please don't place notices on my talk page about this case; I'll be watching for it on my own.][reply]

If we didn't have polarizing userboxes that clearly violate NPOV then we wouldn't be dealing with this particular problem.--MONGO 09:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is for Articles, not for userspace AdamJacobMuller 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be true that userboxes will split Wikipedians into warring factions, and will endanger Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. However, the events of the last several months showed that unilateral and out-of-process actions by administrators achieve little besides ill will, and I think it may cause no less damage to Wikipedia than userboxes themselves. As such, the focus should be not only on userboxes, but also on proper conduct of administators, even when their actions are, in their view, for the best of the project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a large part of this issue is that MarkSweep (talk · contribs) decided unilaterally and even in the face of contradicitng TfD's what was best for the project, the UserBox discussion is an important one, it's one that wikipedia needs to have but at the same time it's not the issue here, the issue is that MarkSweep (talk · contribs) broke the rules and acted out of process. AdamJacobMuller 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is and is not about userboxes. This is the third ArbCom case involving an edit war / wheel war over userboxes. The ArbCom can accept this case in either of two ways. First, it can be opened solely as a conduct dispute about wheel warring and edit warring. Second, it can be opened as a case about policy and about conduct.

As has been previously noted, userbox disputes divide editors between process advocates and product advocates. Process is important, but it is less important than product. The purpose of Wikipedia is the production of the encyclopedia. It is not, except incidentally, an experiment in a democratic or consensus-based electronic community. Many of the questionable userboxes were and are inherently divisive, and so contrary to the orderly production of an encyclopedia. The association of userboxes with templates and categories is profoundly divisive, as a device to enable bloc voting. Most of the userboxes really should have been deleted. Process advocates appear to be saying that division within the community is preferable to out-of-process deletion. It is not. Division within the community interferes with the development of the consensus that is the basis of standard process.

At the same time, some of the more persistent product advocates overlook the fact that total disregard for process (e.g., by wheel warring) is at least as disruptive to the development of a product as the userboxes themselves were. Some admins try to Do The Right Thing in deleting inflammatory userboxes repeatedly. If they do it repeatedly, they overlook the fact that wheel warring is at least as inflammatory as the userboxes.

The fundamental problem is that the consensus process will not result in the establishment of a standard policy. There is no consensus. There may be a consensus in the future, but I am not optimistic. In any case, no consensus will be developed as long as the wheel warring continues.

It is my opinion that official policy has been mandated without consensus, by Jimbo Wales, to keep userboxes to a minimum. I am sure that some process advocates will disagree, and some will even say that Jimbo should stay out of community disputes. They miss the point. Sometimes action needs to be taken without consensus.

Since the ArbCom's basic mandate is limited to conduct disputes, with the authority to sanction editors, the ArbCom can reasonably accept this solely as an administrator conduct issue. However, if it does, I would strongly urge that the ArbCom much more severe sanctions (permanent de-sysopping or short-term bans) than in the past. There have been warnings

The ArbCom has at least two other choices besides treating this solely as a conduct issue. The ArbCom makes statements of policy that precede its findings of fact. I would urge the ArbCom to issue statements of policy about divisive userboxes. They would not derive their authority from existing policy, but from common sense and the concept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and not an experiment in Internet utopia). Such statements of policy will then stand unless reversed by Jimbo Wales or by consensus.

Another possibility would be for the ArbCom to identify issues and request that either the community or Jimbo Wales resolve them in a timely manner.

My own recommendation is that the ArbCom issue judge-made law here. English common law has always been judge-made. The King or the Parliament (the community) can always reverse, but only if they act.

This is not an amicus curiae brief. I request leave to enter this case as an advocate. The userbox problem needs to be resolved somehow to ensure that product is paramount. Robert McClenon 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are supposed to be a place for Wikipedians to express to one another his (or her, same as below) own policy and viewpoint in helping Wikipedia. Therefore, a user should have the control and responsibility about the contents of his own user page. Apparently, MarkSweep made a serious mistake by starting the edit war with the substing of userboxes. It should be a user's own decision whether to keep using the template or switch to use its substitution. MarkSweep should have proposed a deletion of the userboxes, and notify the users to subst the boxes before they get deleted.

The action of Guanaco, whose intention is to protect the freedom of opinion-expressing of Wikipedians through user pages, is morally correct. However, after his reparation of the user pages, he lost his temper when he saw MarkSweep re-reverting and chose an edit war. Then the two of them fell into a deep tug-of-war causing disruption to the entire community.

I would say that both MarkSweep and Guanaco had made serious mistakes with the continuation and the intensifying of the edit war, and in my opinion MarkSweep is more faulty than Guanaco. Although the mistake is serious and desysopping punishment to a certain extent is necessary, I truly believe that permanent desysopping, as proposed by some of the previous comments, is too much of a punishment to such mistakes. Deryck C. 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep was quite broad in his actions on userboxes. While some of the boxes he removed the category tags from seem quite appropriate to delete, others are much more questionable. In particular Template:User dyslexic and Template:User vegan. In the dyslexic case there are very strong reasons why this box should be included: dyslexia does have implications for the editing style of users, it is a recognised learning dificulty which affords some legal protection against discrimination. Vegan is a statement of fact about a users dietry preference (also with element of beleif), which may have implications if a physical meetup occurs. Both boxes now have their tags restored, with one revert by Mark on User dyslexic. It was these actions which prompted me to mention the deletions on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes and Wikipedia talk:User categorisation. --Salix alba (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to dmcdevit on IRC regarding this while it was happening. After initially being warned to "not stir the pot", he (apologies if the pronoun is incorrect) suggested I ask each party individually to "cease and discuss". It took me some time to do so, and by the time I had finished, the event was mostly subsided. Note that I have also discussed this at some length with StrangerInParadise. I have in the past attempted to discuss actions like this with MarkSweep, and, as in those interactions, there was no discussion (in the past there had been glib retorts; in this case there was no response). Guanaco and I discussed the action afterwards, and I am pleased with at least the substance of our interaction (although I agree with the blocks of both parties). Administrators are required to discuss their actions when questioned, even if they are emotionally involved with a set of actions. I can understand if Mark has strong convictions one way or another, or even feels that his actions supersede policy (and consensus). However, his entire lack of communication is very troubling.

I also disagree with David regarding the focus of this RFA. This is not about userboxes. This is about a(nother) so-called "rogue admin." Or pair thereof.

I applaud Kelly for taking it upon herself to file this RfC, although I question her phrasing ("vandal rollback tool" has strong implications, while "rollback tool" does not) and her involvement in this RfAr given her past.

... aa:talk 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback tool is explicitly intended to deal with vandalism. And I don't understand how my "past" (whatever that is a reference to) has anything to do with this. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep's actions were protested vigorously by several users, myself among them, and he ignored or dismissed all protest. I have no userboxes, and hope for a consensus policy soon (if it is consensus, it is unlikely to be unreasonable, whatever it is). I think his actions in particular to have been far more divisive than any userbox has yet been. Evidence later. Septentrionalis 22:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire dispute has gotten way out of hand, this really was a minor issue but has been blown up to be a major issue. Yes, both sides had some points they need to fix on this dispute but it is hardly worthy of an Arbcom ruling, it seems to be a waste of Arbcom's time. Why not simply have both sides agree that some errors occured shake wikihands and move on. To continue on this contoversial path will only invoke more stress than necessary. -- Tawker 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is essentially done, I'll say this. I feel very good about how ArbCom proceeded in this matter. The focus wasn't on the userboxes and what should happen with them, it was squarely kept on the parties' conduct in this case. It's in the most contentious issues where adhering to the standards of our community is the hardest, but also where it's the most important. Ssbohio 01:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion