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

message: I just want to mention that Guanaco reversed my block of , but it was after I asked him to consider unblocking JarlaxleArtemis on IRC. So make sure it gets left out of any decision making. :) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have either of those two been in the news lately for wheel warring? Johnleemk | Talk 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm uncertain -- I'm having trouble reading the logs.  Tony seems to be still refactoring his own RfAr, but I don't recall any questionable administrative actions he's taken recently.  MarkSweep is still doing a few actions which seem similar to those which got him here, but doesn't seem to have reversed any administrative actions.  He may be still doing deletions out-of-process, though.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please add the diffs to the Evidence page; this is part of the evidence I was going to file. Septentrionalis 19:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done.Mike McGregor (Can) 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That principle is merely a restatement of policy. If you don't like it, WP:CSD is the place. It does leave room for interpretation, but that kind of judgment is what we all take into consideration when deciding who gets adminship. And how it is interpretted is still being determined in practice, but it is not really more subjective then others (for instance, "attack pages" or "unremarkable people"), just less established. Dmcdevit·t 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

message: StrangerInParadise has indicated that he has at least one other account, a very welll established one.  One proposed remedy presently, a personal attack parole, "shall apply to all accounts."  I guess the Committee needs to vote on the findings of fact and that remedy first, but if they support it, presumably there will either be a further finding of fact to reveal any other known account identities, or preferably a further remedy to require him to reveal, in a designated place, the names of all accounts he uses.
Or maybe it would be simpler just to get him to decide (and disclose) which account he wants to use, and stick to that account.
If the Committee doesn't decide he has done something wrong, on the other hand, he has a right to privacy. --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the considered statement.  I would only emphasize that, while I do not have a right to participate in Wikipedia, I do have a right to privacy regardless of what the committee decides. StrangerInParadise 10:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other accounts

message: Isn't this clearly going against consensus?  If a supermajority of Wikipedians think he's reformed and would make a good admin again, even if he has messed up twice before, why should their consensus be overruled by a small group of people?  I suggest having a restriction on another RfA, such as making it longer, to clearly determine consensus. --Rory096 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we (meaning those of us who voted repeatedly to resysop guanaco) were wrong.  As a person who believed Guanaco when he said he had reformed, I see no problem with admitting that we were mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As per my comment, he can apply for leave from the committee to reapply at any stage.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Vogel could apply to be unbanned. That doesn't mean you'll do it. —Guanaco 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  But then I didn't say we would.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to make a distinction here between infinite and indefinite. Guanaco is indefinitely desysopped, but has leave to make another request after appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This is like previous cases where we have desysopped and given a minumum time period before an editor may reapply for adminship, but in this case, there is no such stipulation. Also, note that arbcom has made plenty of indefinite remedies, and that general bans are limited to a year is by convention. Dmcdevit·t 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is necessary, expanding on Dom's statement above, that the Arbitration Committee is not limited to remedies of a year.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have swore that, for bans anyways, the ArbCom was limited to a single year. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only by convention. -Splashtalk 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall, possibly wrongly, that when Jimbo suggested/created/whatever the ArbCom that he set a strict limit of one year for bans (specifically bans, obviously they can do other things for longer as they see fit). In any event, until I find where (or if) this was said, it's kind of irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm afraid this really isn't true.  We don't ban for more than a year because we're nice people (don't laugh, we really are).  Of course, a one-year ban is effectively an indefinite ban, because trolls can't stay away... Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In view of his previous desysopping, he may not request to have his adminship restored." 

message: It appears that some Arbitrators think MarkSweep should be desysoped, and some think that even 1RR is too strong -- with hardly anyone in the middle.  May I suggest that this RfAr stay open until some remedy regarding MarkSweep is passed?  (I don't consider #7 a remedy, although it may help in some extreme circumstances.)  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. The case won't close without an effective remedy. There is no disagreement whether there ought to be a remedy. Dmcdevit·t 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MarkSweep remedies 

message: Sorry if this is a bit tangential, but there's some rather strange grammar and word choice going on here. Here are a few examples:
*"Edit warring is considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles." - Looks like those verbs need to be changed to the singular, or "Edit warring" needs to be changed to "Edit wars".
*"Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mischaracterizations of others' edits as vandalism is a breach of civility and an assumption of good faith." - Comma splice aside, shouldn't this read "and an assumption of bad faith." or "and a failure to assume good faith."? Otherwise its meaning seems to be reversed.
*"In order to function as a collaborative project, it is essential that Wikipedia editors communicate with each other" - Um, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, but Wikipedia editors aren't "a collaborative project"; they're the collaborators.
-Silence 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah. My own sloppiness fixed. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. :D -Silence 22:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbcom decisions need copyediting?