Case Opened on 07:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) 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 evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Crotalus_horridus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also Userboxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Tony stated on User:Aaron_Brenneman/RfC draft that he would "Lay off DRV for a bit", and "Stop deleting templates". He has not done so.

Statement by Crotalus horridus

User:Tony Sidaway repeatedly shows his contempt for Wikipedia policy, especially deletion and undeletion policy. He has a strong belief that userboxes are harmful to the project, but rather than seek consensus for this, he has repeatedly engaged in unilateral deletions of userboxes. Ever since a new CSD criteria, CSD T1, was added, he has deleted many userboxes that are not "divisive and inflammatory" by most reasonable definitions. In some cases, these boxes were listed on WP:TFD and the consensus was to keep. Although Jimbo indirectly endorsed CSD T1 (though he did not create it), he also cautioned [2]: "don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist." Tony has disregarded that caveat. Tony has also breached a previous promise to change his problematic behavior [3]. A post that he made to the mailing list [4] seems to indicate that this promise was made in bad faith, simply to stave off dispute resolution.

The response to this RFAr will, in large part, determine whether I choose to remain a part of the Wikipedia community. Are rules to be applied fairly to all, or are certain individuals to be allowed to do whatever they please with no fear of repercussion?

It clearly has not accomplished Jimbo's original intent. The CSD criterion itself is far more divisive and inflammatory than anything it has been used to delete. Furthermore, Jimbo's caveat (not to go on deletion sprees) has been blatantly ignored. This edit was made more out of frustration than anything else. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a more extensive statement here. I also apologize for the intemperate nature of my remarks last night, which, when looking back over them, probably was too far near the boundaries of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I would still like to see these issues considered, and I stand by my statement that I am seriously reconsidering my committment to Wikipedia in light of the severe strain to the community that we have seen in these past months. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Crotalus and (in one single, separate, instance) another editor, Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs) both recreated templates that had been speedy deleted by various administrators, including myself. They did so in user space, with the avowed intention that they should be used in the same manner as before. The reason for deletion of these specific templates was that they were unsuitable for dissemination throughout Wikipedia by transclusion, comprising as they did contentious, divisive and inflammatory statements. Crotalus created a user account, User:Userboxes, six days ago and under the userpage he and Silence (talk · contribs) have created over half a dozen of these cloned templates.

After I deleted Blue Aardvark's recreation, which was announced on a subpage WP:DRV, Netoholic (talk · contribs) put a notice on WP:AN about the activity on Userboxes (talk · contribs). I have deleted the reproduced templates as well as some clones of existing templates from both userspaces. I also clarified the T1 speedy criterion for divisive and inflammatory templates, to say "pages created in any namespace for the purpose of transclusion," This was disputed by Crotalus and the other editor, and supported by two others. Crotalus eventually removed the T1 criterion for deletion in its entirety, claiming that it "causes far more strife than it could ever solve". --Tony Sidaway 11:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

Accept to look at all parties' behaviour. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to look at Crotalus's behaviour in particular. James F. (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accept to clarify policy Fred Bauder 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Fred Bauder 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Disruption

1) Disruptive conduct may lead to a block imposed at an administrator's discretion, or more substantial bans or restrictions.

Passed 9-0

Recreated content

2) If a page, image, or template deleted because its use was inappropriate is reproduced under the same or a different name anywhere on Wikipedia either with the intention of, or with the end result of, the new item being used in the same way as the deleted item, for instance a userfied article that is linked to from article space, or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner, it may be treated as a recreation.

Passed 9-0

Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process

3) Administrators, like all editors, should be respectful of consensus. In cases where consensus is not clear or is in dispute, applications of sysop rights should show deference to discussion.

Passed 9-0

Wheel warring

4.1) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (repeatedly reversing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Passed 8-1

Jimbo as policy maker

5) Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so.

Passed 9-0

Assume good faith

6.1) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others in the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Passed 9-0

Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted

7) Templates, particularly userboxes, which are polemical or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD.

Passed 9-0

Decision making and dispute resolution

8) Decision making on Wikipedia is normally done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?. In some instances, policy represents a codification of existing practice, or decisions made by the administrative superstructure of Wikipedia (that is, Jimbo or the Board of Trustees). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done, forums such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Passed 9-0

Findings of fact

Crotalus horridus' recreates userboxes

1) Crotalus horridus has repeatedly recreated inflammatory userboxes deleted by multiple administrators, including Template:User admins ignoring policy, Template:User Anti-UN, and Template:User Anti-ACLU, which had been deleted under the new T1 "inflammatory and divisive" speedy deletion criterion.

Passed 9-0

The T1 speedy deletion criterion and Crotalus horridus

2) On February 6th, sannse (talk · contribs) added a new criterion for speedy deletion: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." After it was reverted, Jimbo Wales reinserted it [5] and made comments indicating it is now policy [6].

After it had become policy, Crotalus horridus made several contested changes to the criterion [7] [8], and then deleted it entirely, [9]. The last edit in particular constitutes disruption.

Passed 9-0

Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia

3) Tony Sidaway deleted the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia page 8 times within a 24 hour period, in the process undoing the undeletion of five separate administrators. His stated reason was that the page was "not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality." The page he deleted was described by its originator as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened". The MfD discussion was closed and the page was deleted for the last time after three days, by NicholasTurnbull, with the summation: "I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes". (See Catholic Alliance of wikipedia evidence)

Passed 9-0

Tony Sidaway has wheel warred

4) Tony Sidaway has engaged in wheel warring multiple times. These include deletion of Wikipedia:Catholic_Alliance_of_wikipedia eight times, undeletion of Systemwars.com five times, deletion of Template:User GWB five times, undeletion of Warren Benbow four times, undeletion of Monique deMoan three times, undeletion of List of Louisiana Baptist University people three times, undeletion of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) three times, undeletion of Tally (accounting) two times, undeletion of SuperOffice two times, undeletion of Seth Ravin two times, undeletion of Thomasine Church two times, undeletion of Brian Brolly two times, undeletion of OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood three times, and undeletion of Gazeebow Unit two times. These include the reversal of more than a dozen different administrators.

Passed 9-0

Crotalus horridus has acted disruptively

6) In addition to the recreations and deletion of policy, many of Crotalus horridus' edits constitute disruption, including the nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for deletion and four reverts of its speedy closing. He has also violated the three-revert rule and engaged in disruption with respect to Template:ElectionResultsCA. See Physchim62's evidence.

Passed 9-0

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Crotalus horridus banned from userboxes

1) Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage). If Crotalus horridus edits a userbox, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 9-0

Crotalus horridus placed on general Probation

2) Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 8-0

Addendum to Crotalis horridus' probation

2.1) Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of the acceptance this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later.

Motioned on April 28 2007, Passed 7-1 on 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) [10]

Tony Sidaway on administrative 1RR

3) Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.

Passed 8-1

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Tony Sidaway or Crotalus horridus violate any of the remedies in this decision, they may be briefly blocked, up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7-1

Log of blocks and bans

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

23:34, 12 September 2006 Xoloz (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tony Sidaway (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour (wheel-warring over Process is Important Wiki-space page, violation of ArbCom decision) See deletion log of Wikipedia:Process is Important. Xoloz 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced that this constituted a 1RR violation and have given a short analysis of the block on Tony's talk page explaining my cause for disagreement. JoshuaZ 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]