Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint

I am requesting arbitration regarding User:Guanaco's illegal 24-hour blocking on September 2 of User:Cantus. I am specifically seeking that Guanaco be punished for this flagrant abuse of power. A previous RfC failed to bring in results, so I'm seeking arbitration as a last resort. All evidence and details can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco. I'm aiming for a de-sysoping, or, at the very least, a 24-hour ban on Guanaco. --Cantus 03:31, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

This request is very silly and will be a waste of time for everyone. The RfC failed because Cantus used that and crossposting as the first step in dispute resolution instead of contacting me about the mistake. If he had tried that, he would have been quickly unblocked, and we would all be busy editing articles or dealing with real issues. Guanaco 15:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will not let this waste any more of my time. I will do everything I can to ignore this and to spend my time elsewhere. This is an abuse of the arbitration process in which I do not wish to participate, so I apologize to Cantus for my mistake, and I wish him luck in arbitration. Guanaco 04:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments regarding Arbitrators' votes and comments

While the Cantus decision is clearly relevant, what about this case, which directly relates to Guanaco's use of blocks against policy? Ambi 13:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Fred was citing a cause to accept, not the sole piece of past history that will come to bear if the case is accepted.

James F. (talk) 14:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Frankly, this is going a little too far for such a small matter. Try mediation first. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Cantus has stated that he doesn't want to resolve this; he wants me to be punished. Guanaco 15:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Peter O. here; quite frankly, when someone is told in arbitration to not revert more than three times in 24 hours, they really shouldn't be reverting articles at all. Samboy 18:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

      I agree with him as well, but the problem is that Cantus is clearly not interested in mediation. Cantus is taking an extremely legalistic approach to dealing with his revert parole. Guanaco 20:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• If it was an honest mistake, as Raul characterises it, then why did Guanaco go to such lengths to cover it up? Ambi 21:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It is standard procedure to revert the edits done by IP when a banned user tries to edit when banned. The issue here is respect; Cantus is showing no interest in respecting the administrator's wishes nor in following the spirit of the three-revert hard ban imposed against him. Samboy 21:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, but when someone is protesting that you've banned them incorrectly, then you go around removing all their protests, then it turns out that they're right, it's inclined to look bad. Honestly, I believe sysops should have the power to make judgement calls, but when a sysop consistently stuffs up, and is consistently recalcitrant when approached about their mistakes, it's time for the AC to step in and do something about it. We're up to what, RfC number four now? Ambi 01:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Guanaco continues to remove my messages from Wikipedia. Besides reverting pretty much every article I touch, he is now removing my messages on his own Talk page [1]. This is not what I would expect from an admin. There should be a quick policy on de-sysoping, as quick as there is one for banning regular users. Guanaco is a prime example that we need this policy badly. --Cantus 00:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have reverted a few of Cantus' edits, but I have had valid reasons supported by other users, and I am not reverting "pretty much every article" he touches. The example of me removing messages from my talk page is normal and does not violate policy, and users can and do remove crossposts, personal attacks, threats and other annoyances. It is also irrelevant to the fact that I am an admin. Guanaco 01:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Whether you remove messages from your own pages might make you look bad, but that's your problem. When you remove messages from my talk page, it becomes my problem. Indeed, while it might have been more polite if Cantus had discussed it personally with you first, you still had the chance to discuss it when he posted on the Village Pump. As far as I understand, he only posted the RfC after you started trying to cover your tracks.Ambi 02:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to read my comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco#Discussion, they provide much insight into what can be considered in this "case" —siroχo 06:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

And my reply, about just why accountability is important. Ambi 07:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to request mediation, and Cantus rudely declined the request, saying that I deserve punishment and the request is just showing that I have no respect for Wikipedia policies. Guanaco 23:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

1. Accept, based on our responsibility to monitor the decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir Fred Bauder 11:35, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept, as with Fred. James F. (talk) 14:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Reject. This was obviously a case of an honest mistake. Almost everyone on the RFC seems to agree. →Raul654 18:53, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
4. As the evidence presented is an isolated incident in which Guanaco admitted error and remedied his mistake, I think elevating this dispute to arbitration unnecessary and bordering on the absurd. If a pattern of such behavior emerges, I think there is grounds for a complaint, but as it stands I have no reason to think (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) that Guanaco maliciously blocked Cantus knowing it was a violation of policy, nor do I see evidence to suggest that Guanaco will act without more cautiously counting edits in the future. Reject. Having looked more closely at Guanaco's previous AC case, it seems a similar incident occurred in the past -- although I would prefer to assume good faith, I think in fairness I have to note Guanaco had been warned, and this case may warrant attention. Accept with hesitancy. Jwrosenzweig 19:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5. Accept. Dubious circumstances warrant investigation. --the Epopt 00:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

1) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Accepted by a vote of 6-0 with 1 abstention

2) Those who believe they have been blocked in error are instructed on MediaWiki:Blockedtext to resolve the issue by emailing an admin(s), or by posting to wikien-l.

Accepted by a vote of 7-0

Findings of Fact

1) Guanaco blocked Cantus, believing that Cantus had violated his revert parole, whereas in fact Cantus had limited his reverts to a barely acceptable level. On being informed of his error, Guanaco reversed it.

Accepted by a vote of 7-0

2) Cantus appears to have ignored the recommended method of resolving blocks in error, instead choosing to cross-post to the village pump and various admin talk pages. Guanaco reverted these edits.

Accepted by a vote of 7-0

3) Guanaco's actions as an administrator have been consistently controversial - notably his use of the protection, unprotection, blocking, and unblocking facilities.

Accepted by a vote of 7-0

4) Cantus has continued to engage in sterile and pointless edit wars, such as on Clitoris and Siberia.

Accepted by a vote of 6-0 with 1 abstention

Remedies

1) Cantus is banned from editing Clitoris and Siberia and the articles' associated talk pages for a period of one year, for engaging in sterile and pointless edit wars.

Accepted by a vote of 6-1

2) In view of this and other controversies, it would be appropriate for the community to decide whether they still wish Guanaco to act as an administrator. Guanaco is required to reapply for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Guanaco will retain his admin powers unless/until his re-application is rejected.

Accepted by a vote of 7-0

3) Cantus is limited to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Should he violate this, an admin may ban him for a short period of time (up to a week).

Accepted by a vote of 6-0 with 1 abstention