Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins/Proposed decision

Possibility of desysoping
If I may respond to the suggestions of Jwrosenzweig on one point, specifically the possibility of desysoping Zero0000. I will let the arbitrators decide whether to use this remedy or some other sanction, but I do not believe we should have a probationary measure of temporary desysoping where the person may later have admin privileges reinstated by the Arbitration Committee.

I have two reasons for this. The first is that desysoping during a probationary period effectively renders the probation worthless as a guide to whether the person will later abuse these privileges, should they be "re-sysoped". If they don't have the privileges during their probation, they don't have any ability to violate the terms of their probation, and we can't tell whether their conduct has improved in that regard. In contrast, people who are on 3-revert or personal attack probations still have the ability to make excessive reverts or personal attacks, although specific consequences may result. By observing how they deal with these possible consequences, we can assess whether it is safe to lift the probation later.

The second reason is that we already have a generally well-functioning process for consensus decisions on whom to make an administrator. These decisions have been for some time now a privilege of the community as a whole, and this power is not among those delegated to the Arbitration Committee. I object to having this privilege taken away from the community, even for the limited class of individuals who have been desysoped for disciplinary reasons. Nothing would prevent the desysoped individual from going through requests for adminship again, and I believe they should be instructed to use that route if they desire reinstatement.

I believe that the arbitrators consider their decisions and make rulings in good faith, and I do not think this is an attempted power grab. In particular I have great respect for Jwrosenzweig, and I believe he brings up this option in a spirit of creative problem-solving, which is to be commended. I simply feel that I must register my strong opposition to the idea of "probationary desysoping". This step, in cases where it must be taken, is not one to take by half-measures. --Michael Snow 23:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It was, indeed, merely my attempt to explore more creative solutions (I dislike the growing sense that arbitration exists merely to ban people), but I thank Michael very much for his comments. They help me identify the uneasy feeling I had about that particular suggestion -- the point is well made and enthusiastically received.  Upon reflection and considering your argument, I wouldn't support a probationary desysopping.  Either probation with continued sysop privileges (which may be revoked if again abused) or desysopping, allowing the community to nominate at a later time.  I wonder, though, if Michael or any other community member has a strong feeling on the arbitration committee setting a date before which a user could not be renominated?  I worry that, without such a date, the inclination of any desysopped user's friends would naturally be to renominate at once, to show "community support" for a person's actions, and thereby stir up huge vats of trouble with very nasty RFA wars.  The imposition, however, of a date is a restriction on the right of this community to select its admins -- is it too great a restriction for the AC to impose?  Or it is a reasonable sanction, given what we are tasked with accomplishing?  I'm open to any ideas.  Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not have any objection in principle to a "no renomination before X date" ruling (again, I'm avoiding comment on what is desirable in this specific case). That is more in the nature of a disciplinary measure, and I do not think my argument applies in the same way. I am more concerned with the possibility that the Arbitration Committee might resysop someone who has "completed their sentence" even though the community no longer wishes that person to be an administrator.


 * Personally, I would consider that if someone has been desysoped, they must start from scratch in earning the trust needed to become an admin again. Accordingly, if the person came up on Requests for adminship, I would expect at least the same length of time since desysoping as the time of participation I would expect a new candidate to have since registration. While I don't know how other people feel, I believe that any immediate renomination would certainly fail for lack of consensus anyway. --Michael Snow 00:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether it's worth imposing a specific limit on how long before they can again be put on RFA, because, as Michael says, any immediate renomination is likely to fail for lack of consensus. Moreover, it's likely that anyone who was desysopped wouldn't be too keen on being put up immediately afterwards, because of the bad blood often generated by a request that would be doomed to fail. Ambi 00:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm just about to add in a few proposed ideas for decision, but how about temporary injunctions - do you lot feel that it would be over-stepping the mark to temporarily de-sysop someone due to a case being brought?
 * James F. (talk) 13:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see a temporary injunction as a measure to prevent serious harm that might well happen during the pendency of the arbitration case. It's not a decision on the merits of the case (i.e. the question of whether the person actually abused admin privileges). So my objection is not quite the same. However, I think that if the case is severe enough to warrant this as part of an injunction, it amounts to a conclusion that desysoping should be the result if the Arbitration Committee finds that the allegations are true. So the only situation where a temporary injunction of desysoping would be reversed is where the admin is exonerated on some or all of the most serious charges. --Michael Snow 17:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, indeed, and I would suggest that in almost all of the cases where this might be used, some sysop would probably have done it already, extrajudicially AIW.
 * James F. (talk) 19:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Uh, sysops don't have the ability to desysop. But it is quite possible that a steward or developer might already have taken the action in this scenario. --Michael Snow 19:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * s/sysop/steward/, indeed, sorry.
 * James F. (talk) 21:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point of view
Why is the particular viewpoint of a user relevant to an arbitration proceeding? I don't think anyone's arguing that L6W's views are a problem, but rather, his complete lack of neutral editing, or any willingness to work towards consensus. I share most of his views, but I'm still well aware that his behaviour is problematic.

It just seems to me that there's been a spate of these lately - someone comes along who holds a minority viewpoint and is disruptive, and their having a minority viewpoint is then used as an excuse for their disruptive behaviour.

Please don't make us go through this again. L6W has made biased contribution after biased contribution, and has still shown a complete inability to work towards consensus. He's made no decent contributions outside of this area. Do we really have to put up with him for another three, six months, before the Committee can finally accept that it might be a good idea to slap a ban on him editing Middle Eastern articles? Ambi 11:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My attempt to address the problem as a failure to adequately attribute a viewpoint assumes that in this area biased opinions and information are part of knowledge thus legitimately included in articles. Not presented as the truth but attributed to those with identifiable biases. Fred Bauder 03:47, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, all points of view need to be included. Zero has biased opinions. I have biased opinions. You have biased opinions. The difference is that when we edit the article, it usually still reads neutrally. If I can then write neutrally on Middle Eastern matters, when I largely agree with L6W and Pipes, wouldn't that suggest that the problem is not with the opinion, but with the user? Ambi 03:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is those who hold a minority viewpoint who are motivated to present it. Where they go wrong is to assume that having presented their viewpoint, that settles the matter and that they have then trumped other viewpoints. The role of other editors is to help put such viewpoint in their place, expressed but identified as to the point of view expressed. Editors with a perspective not covered adequately in an article are dispruptive from a Wikipedia policy standpoint only if they won't follow policy, but keep on, like a bulldog, insisting on having their perspective dominate the article. As to new editors, there is a possibility that they don't understand Wikipedia policy and ought to be given a fair chance to conform. With old editors there is a possibility that they can be brought around to an understanding they must give up their old habits now that the NPOV policy is being enforced, not just mouthed. Fred Bauder 11:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous edits
How are L6W's anonymous edits going to be handled if this ban on editing Israeli-Palestinian articles passes? He edits anonymously at least as often as he does with his account, even now. Ambi 13:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not a trivial problem. He is quite skilled, at least going by his talk about it. Fred Bauder 16:35, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)