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

message: ===Charges?===
The evidence has been interesting, but what are the charges?  Are the charges that MarkSweep has abused his admin authority?  Knowing the charges might help solicit evidence for or against.  
:Oh, found them, thanks.  Rklawton 05:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of the word "vandalism" is different than the accepted meaning within Wikipedia, which according to Wikipedia:Vandalism is "...any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." It goes on to say, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Unfortunately, the current situation around these issues has become exceedingly acrimonious, and I would advise us all to moderate our language and our actions. Since I actually don't believe one should need "permission" to edit's someone's user page, for pure self-referential amusement I am tempted to impishly edit the Vandals section on your user page to add a remark as to how you define "vandal" and how it differs from Wikipedia:Vandalism, and therefore become a vandal by your definition, but that too would be divisive and so I shall refrain. Martinp 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The operative phrase there, Martinp, is good faith. For several reasons, MarkSweep's actions are prima facie bad faith. By prima facie, I mean that one need look no further than 1) that he knowingly emptied categories, then speedily deleted them because they were empty; 2) that he altered user pages against the express wishes of their subjects with no policy justification; 3) that he repeatedly listed certain unchanged templates for RfD, after loosing previous RfD votes; 4) that he continued his anti-userbox programme after several leaders in the community- including Jimbo- asked that such actions cease. No claim of good faith can successfully attach to these acts. StrangerInParadise 15:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the culture here is such that one does not edit another's user page without permission from the user.  However, I could be mistaken.  Rklawton 23:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While generally we don't edit other peoples' userpages, it should be noted that the userpage is not restricted to editing by the user; they're just like other wiki pages. Editing of userspaces, without malicious intent, is not vandalism. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkSweep unilaterally decided I shouldn't express my interest in a peaceable, law-abiding, and charitable organization (Freemasonry) and so he removed it without warning or invitation to talk.  How could this not be construed as vandalism?  Or is that really how it works here in wiki-land?  Is that acceptable and approved administrative behavior?  When I saw that edit on my user page, I felt most unwelcome as a contributor.  When I saw Guanaco's reversion I heaved a sigh of relief, asked MarkSweep not to vandalize my user page again, and continued with my work.  
*I think MarkSweep should be asked if he will behave as befitting an administrator.  He might do with a bit of guidance on that matter.  If he agrees, great.  
*I think Guanaco deserves a barnstar for defending the defenseless.  Rklawton 05:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little late replying in the section, but MarkSweep's actions clearly are vandalism, even if they were policy or good for Wikipedia, (neither of which has been established).  It should also be pointed out that MarkSweep probably killed WP:UPP by bringing the actual effects to the attention of the users who would be affected by it.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not about assessing other's viewpoints. It's about building an encyclopedia, and you don't need to know someone's stance on a particular issue to do this. If a neutrality dispute occurs, it should be about the edits of an editor, not about his userboxes. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it hurts to put people's edits in perspective. You can say as Jimbo has that on Wikipedia you become detached from your own biases, but I think that concept is pretty backwards. People are always going to be biased, and especially on contentious topics it helps to acknowledge it. I've seen editors on Wikipedia who are convinced they're not expressing a POV at all, and so naturally consider everyone around them trying to push an agenda. At least in dealing with contentious topics, it is necessary for editors to admit they have a POV before you can work together to reconcile those POVs. Sarge Baldy 16:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody denies that we will always have our own biases. However, just because we have them doesn't mean we ought to flaunt them. I don't care about userboxes, but I don't think they should be wantonly encouraged. Would not the same person who places a POV userbox on his page still acknowledge his POV if asked about it in an alternate universe with no userboxes? Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there's some editors who would refuse to acknowledge their POV, whether userboxes existed or not. And there's others who would continue to express their POV whether userboxes existed or not. I don't think we should be encouraging or discouraging userboxes, but allowing users to decide for themselves rather than forcing one position or another on the entire userbase. Sarge Baldy 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is...exactly what I've been saying all along. :D Johnleemk | Talk 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rklawton's comments

message: The evidence has been interesting, but what are the charges?  Are the charges that MarkSweep has abused his admin authority?  Knowing the charges might help solicit evidence for or against.  
:Oh, found them, thanks.  Rklawton 05:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges?

message: I have included MarkSweep on my user page in a list of several editors who have modified my user page without my permission.  I call them vandals.  Guanaco also edited my user page.  His edits undid the damage caused by MarkSweep.   I have listed his name in my user page's "Thank You" section.
:Your use of the word "vandalism" is different than the accepted meaning within Wikipedia, which according to Wikipedia:Vandalism is "...any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." It goes on to say, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Unfortunately, the current situation around these issues has become exceedingly acrimonious, and I would advise us all to moderate our language and our actions. Since I actually don't believe one should need "permission" to edit's someone's user page, for pure self-referential amusement I am tempted to impishly edit the Vandals section on your user page to add a remark as to how you define "vandal" and how it differs from Wikipedia:Vandalism, and therefore become a vandal by your definition, but that too would be divisive and so I shall refrain. Martinp 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The operative phrase there, Martinp, is good faith. For several reasons, MarkSweep's actions are prima facie bad faith. By prima facie, I mean that one need look no further than 1) that he knowingly emptied categories, then speedily deleted them because they were empty; 2) that he altered user pages against the express wishes of their subjects with no policy justification; 3) that he repeatedly listed certain unchanged templates for RfD, after loosing previous RfD votes; 4) that he continued his anti-userbox programme after several leaders in the community- including Jimbo- asked that such actions cease. No claim of good faith can successfully attach to these acts. StrangerInParadise 15:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the culture here is such that one does not edit another's user page without permission from the user.  However, I could be mistaken.  Rklawton 23:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While generally we don't edit other peoples' userpages, it should be noted that the userpage is not restricted to editing by the user; they're just like other wiki pages. Editing of userspaces, without malicious intent, is not vandalism. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkSweep unilaterally decided I shouldn't express my interest in a peaceable, law-abiding, and charitable organization (Freemasonry) and so he removed it without warning or invitation to talk.  How could this not be construed as vandalism?  Or is that really how it works here in wiki-land?  Is that acceptable and approved administrative behavior?  When I saw that edit on my user page, I felt most unwelcome as a contributor.  When I saw Guanaco's reversion I heaved a sigh of relief, asked MarkSweep not to vandalize my user page again, and continued with my work.  
*I think MarkSweep should be asked if he will behave as befitting an administrator.  He might do with a bit of guidance on that matter.  If he agrees, great.  
*I think Guanaco deserves a barnstar for defending the defenseless.  Rklawton 05:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little late replying in the section, but MarkSweep's actions clearly are vandalism, even if they were policy or good for Wikipedia, (neither of which has been established).  It should also be pointed out that MarkSweep probably killed WP:UPP by bringing the actual effects to the attention of the users who would be affected by it.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Lastly, I appreciate an editor's candor when they add userboxes to their user page.  Can you fathom the tremendous impact "userboxes" would have if main stream media journalists also used them?  Just imagine under each talking journalist head a userbox stating who they voted for in the last national election!!!  The world would be better off, and I argue that Wikipedia already reaps those benefits.  Rklawton 02:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not about assessing other's viewpoints. It's about building an encyclopedia, and you don't need to know someone's stance on a particular issue to do this. If a neutrality dispute occurs, it should be about the edits of an editor, not about his userboxes. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it hurts to put people's edits in perspective. You can say as Jimbo has that on Wikipedia you become detached from your own biases, but I think that concept is pretty backwards. People are always going to be biased, and especially on contentious topics it helps to acknowledge it. I've seen editors on Wikipedia who are convinced they're not expressing a POV at all, and so naturally consider everyone around them trying to push an agenda. At least in dealing with contentious topics, it is necessary for editors to admit they have a POV before you can work together to reconcile those POVs. Sarge Baldy 16:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody denies that we will always have our own biases. However, just because we have them doesn't mean we ought to flaunt them. I don't care about userboxes, but I don't think they should be wantonly encouraged. Would not the same person who places a POV userbox on his page still acknowledge his POV if asked about it in an alternate universe with no userboxes? Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there's some editors who would refuse to acknowledge their POV, whether userboxes existed or not. And there's others who would continue to express their POV whether userboxes existed or not. I don't think we should be encouraging or discouraging userboxes, but allowing users to decide for themselves rather than forcing one position or another on the entire userbase. Sarge Baldy 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is...exactly what I've been saying all along. :D Johnleemk | Talk 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Candor

message: I don't know how official that is, but the complaint by Kelly Martin states explicitly, that this case should be about the actions involved and not about userboxes themselves. Therefore evindence to support 'Polemical and inflammatory userboxes pose a serious problem for Wikipedia' and other related claims might be of little use or even counterproductive. Tinus 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, divorcing the actions from the circumstances would be very mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  If MarkSweep was being destructive, then Guanaco may have been acting both in good faith and entirely appropriately.  Therefore, this entire case may revolve around userboxes and whether or not they were (or should be) fair game for elimination in whole or in part.  If they are fair game, then Guanaco's actions are suspect.  If they are not, then he should get a barnstar.  As a result, I don't see how this can progress far without considering userboxes.  Rklawton 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if it does involve userboxes, then this entire RFAr should be combined with WP:RFAr:Tony.  At the very least, Tony should not be refactoring pages here.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Tony Sidaway has already recused himself from this case. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only as clerk. Tony Sidaway is filling this page with his idea of what passes for evidence. StrangerInParadise 01:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems OK to me — he could fill his own RfAr with "his idea of what passes for evidence", even if he's wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that he has no standing (he recused himself as clerk so as to participate, which is fine), I am saying that most of his submissions- whatever other merits they may have- are simply not evidence of anything but his opinions. BTW, this is not his own RfAr. StrangerInParadise 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and his baseless suspicions and innuendo as well. I would have thought that the clerk for this matter would be policing such abuse of an evidence page. StrangerInParadise 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Guanaco was acting both in good faith and entirely appropriately whether MarkSweep is deemed to have acted in good faith or not. There is a policy governing deletions, which Guanaco upheld.  There is no policy supporting MarkSweep's rogue actions, period.  The "evidence" presented by many here attempts to simultaneously expand the scope of the RfAr, apply retroactively principles not in existence at the time of the acts, and somehow assert that these place Guanaco in a more culpable position than MarkSweep. Black truly becomes white! Even at face value, it doesn't answer for all MarkSweep's actions, for example, unlinking categories from templates, then speedily deleting the categories under CSD-C1 (empty), which is prima facie bad faith. StrangerInParadise 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The original complaint is about edit warring and wheel warring. These are matters of conduct, not of content; the complaint would have been the same had the same conduct happened over article pages, talk pages, user pages or anything else. It is true that the involvement of userboxes - and the involvement of MarkSweep, who has been associated with a number of userbox deletions - adds a dimension of controversy to this arbitration, because of the present community imbroglio on userboxes. However, this added dimension should not skew the arbitration; after all, do we really want a precedent that states edit warring or even wheel warring is acceptable under some circumstances? Do we really want the AC to propose principles that may only exacerbate the userbox situation? Lets' leave this as an inquiry into conduct, and deal with the userbox quandary separately. — digitaleon • talk @ 06:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On userboxes