Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco

Attention: This is not an arbitration page
This page was an earlier RfC on Guanaco. The purpose of having it reproduced here is to present evidence to the arbitrators.

This should not be considered an arbitration page.

RfC: Guanaco
In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:52, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: , 29 July 2024 (UTC).
 * (Guanaco | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct.

Description
Guanaco illegally blocked Cantus for 24 hours for allegedly violating the three revert rule in article Clitoris. The three revert rule states, "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours."

Evidence
Evidence below showing Cantus did not violate the aforementioned rule.


 * The fourth revert "D" falls outside the 24-hour limit started by revert "A"
 * The fourth revert "H" falls outside the 24-hour limit started by revert "E"

There are no four consecutive reverts within a 24-hour period.
 * I have to agree with Cantus. Although it was by only ten minutes he did not break the rule. I'd advice Cantus to be more careful in reverting his pages as far as time slots it concerns, through "Antonio Looking for Thelvenetsy Hernandez Martin"
 * It was not by ten minutes. Look at the dates. It was by 24 hours and 30 minutes. --Cantus 16:15, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * While Cantus did not break the rule on that article, he did break it several times on an unrelated article (see history of Siberia).--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:45, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not break the three revert rule on Siberia, either. Take a good look at that page's history. --Cantus 16:19, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's what the history shows:
 * 00:33, Aug 29, 2004 Cantus m ((to admins: 4th revert outside 24 hours))
 * 00:40, Aug 28, 2004 Cantus ((to admins: 4th revert outside 24 hours))
 * 19:11, Aug 27, 2004 Cantus ((to admins: 4th revert outside 24 hours))
 * 18:57, Aug 26, 2004 Cantus m ((to admins: 4th revert outside 24 hours))
 * If this isn't breaking the rule, I don't know what is.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * How can 4 reverts on 4 different days break a "don't revert 3 times in 24 hours" rule? DenisMoskowitz 21:00, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
 * By the way, the rule is "don't revert more than three times...". --Cantus 00:35, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * You aren't looking, Ëzhiki. --Cantus 23:20, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I am not. My sincere apologies.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:06, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Concealment of wrong doing
While blocked, Cantus exercised his right to defend himself by reporting this illegal block in the Village Pump. However, four minutes later Guanaco removed the message and proceeded to block Cantus' IP. Cantus again posted the message with a different IP. A few minutes later Guanaco posted a reply saying he had unblocked Cantus, but without any regret.

Cantus also tried to inform several administrators about the blocking by posting in their talk pages, but his messages were quickly removed by Guanaco by using the admin rollback:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

Certification
Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) Cantus 06:16, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Solutions
I ask that User:Guanaco be de-sysoped for flagrant abuse of admin powers.

Powers misused

 * Blocking (log):

Applicable policies

 * Three revert rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

See under section "Concealment of wrong doing." However, I believe this is not a matter of trying and failing to solve a dispute. This is a matter of an admin abusing of his admin rights to block another user illegally. The admin deserves to be de-sysoped, or at the very least, reprehended and warned that next time he will get de-sysoped. --Cantus 05:23, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )


 * Cantus 01:52, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Guanaco has unblocked Cantus after realising that he was not in violation of 3RR and his arbcom standing parole. Until this point in time Guanaco was simply engaging in typical temp ban behaviour as specified by the parole. Cantus' request that Guanaco be desysopped seems to me to be an overreaction. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:50, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)


 * "Guanaco was simply engaging in typical temp ban behaviour as specified by the parole." Where is it specified in the parole that I can be temp blocked for whatever reason the admin chooses? Under the terms of the parole I can only be blocked when I violate the three revert rule, which I did not violate. Guanaco's block was illegal, and he deserves to be removed of his admin powers. --Cantus 05:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that you were blocked for utterly random reasons. I am saying that you were tempbanned for a percieved violation of the rules, and that the tempban was reversed once the percieved violation was proven to be not a violation at all. Reversion of one's edits is standard procedure during a ban of any length on that person. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:00, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:50, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
 * 2) --mav
 * 3) Guanaco 02:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4)  &mdash; siro  χ  o  06:43, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Samboy 08:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Ejrrjs 00:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Guanaco has stepped over the line, and it isn't the first time he's tried to remove other people's comments when they've protested about them. While it is nice that he did actually unblock Cantus, it appears that he only did after Cantus repeatedly complained - and after removing his original complaints. He also reverted Cantus' protests on the user talk pages of various users, including my own - which somewhat implies trying to hide something. I can't see how such behaviour is acceptable, but, that said, calling for desysopping seems a bit harsh. Ambi 05:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Ambi 05:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) —No-One Jones 03:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) V V  21:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Austin Hair 23:52, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Seems to be an honest mistake followed by compliance to policy, followed by a correction of the mistake. Sysops are not perfect, nor should we ask them to be. &mdash; siro χ  o  06:51, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * But he was most reluctant to do the unblocking, and removed several complaints from Cantus, both on the Village Pump and worse, on people's talk pages. That's just not on. Ambi 06:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If we wish to follow policy to the letter and punish any and every Wikipedian who violates it, certainly, punish Guanaco. Yet, I find the mere need for this case entirely rediculous; the reasons for policy are to improve Wikipedia and encourage collabertion to that end. Cantus's refusal to cooperate and attempt to achieve consensus on clitoris was absolutely not in the spirit of collaboration or consensus, behaivior he has exhibited before this incident, and since. Guanaco made a mistake. After making that mistake, he reverted Cantus's edits ("All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user"). So yes, he violated policy, but if we hold firm to policy, his only violation was the mistaken banning. If we hold firm to policy and ignore Cantus's disregard for the spirit of this website, then Guanaco's "reluctance" to cooperate must be overlooked as well, as he followed policy following his initial mistake. We can only consider then, that he made a mistake, and punish him only for that. Once we start considering "reluctance" (there is no policy against reluctance), it brings us closer to a deeper argument. One that would either support the current wikipedia spirit or set a strong precident in deferring to policy over Wikipedia's ideals. &mdash; siro  χ  o  06:50, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * In the end, sysops need to be accountable. I'm all in favor of sysop discretion, and not having to constantly watch our back, which is why I voted against the proposed policy in that area. But at the same time, sysops should not be able to whatever they darn well like without fear of reproach. Guanaco has had, IIRC, four RfCs against him for alleged abuses of his powers. He has been rebuked by the AC for blocking against policy before. He has a history of either ignoring complaints, trying to hide them, or being recalcitrant when approached about them.


 * I don't care what the situation is - if I block someone, and they complain to other users about me, I most certainly do not have the right to go around and revert a bunch of other users talk pages. It might seem harsh, but considering the circumstances, I don't believe it's entirely unreasonable to assume bad faith there.


 * If you stuff up, fix the mistake, apologise, learn from it and move on. Guanaco only fixes his mistakes when absolutely forced, is recalcitrant when that does happen, and then repeatedly does the same thing over and over again. I believe this is the perfect chance for the AC to step in and prove to the anti-sysop-power-crew that yes, admins are not above reproach. Ambi 06:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)