Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins

Case Closed on 13 Nov 2004

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.

Originally entitled "209.135.35.83 and in the range of 69.138.236.###".

This anon user (209.135.35.83=69.138.236.##=Lance6wins) (thought to be the inactive user

, among others, causing them to be protected for extended periods. 209.135.35.83 makes minimal effort to engage in dialog on Talk pages, and when he does he rarely signs his posts, preferring the cloak of anonimity.

On July 9, he (Lance6wins) edited various listings on

concerning articles protected because of edit wars in which he had been involved [1], an action which was reverted and for which he was reproached by user Texture [2]

On July 22, 209.135.35.83 reverted the article

, dissing one of our estimable colleagues with the edit summary (Restore Chris73 version....undo Zero(Censor)0000 removal of ambulance photo), and thereby repeatedly trying to circumvent the concensus reached on the Talk page with regard to the inclusing of the controversial photo.

I request disciplinary action against this user (Lance6wins). -- Viajero 14:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This anon (209.135.35.83=69.138.236.##=Lance6wins) displays bizarre behaviour which is a mixture of politeness and pathological obsession. Often puts extremely right-wing viewpoints into articles and then reverts endlessly if anyone tries to remove them. Even after something has been fixed for weeks he is likely to suddenly pop up and revert it again. Quite a large fraction of his edits have been reverted (by a wide variety of users). It has been a tremendous waste of time trying to protect Wikipedia from him. --Zero 14:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have mentioned this user (209.135.35.83=69.138.236.##=Lance6wins) and some other anonymous IPs who engage in similar behaviour, which I have described, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 8. -- Simonides 23:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Has now created an account Lance6Wins but the behavior is the same. Something about it feels like an illness rather than pure fanaticism. Recently a good fraction of the little time I have for Wikipedia has been taken up by cleaning up after this guy, and I don't see why I should have to put up with it. Now I blocked 209.135.35.83 and 69.138.236.221 for one month. If members of the committee feel I am overstepping my role as sysop here, please write to me. I request the committee to make this block permanent. -Zero

Since hes (Lance6Wins) not on a hard-ban yet, I have unblocked him, asking that he comment here, and adhere to the ID Lance6wins. Since Zero wasnt explicit about where this was filed I have only just now found it. -SV 17:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are at least two issues: a smaller immediate one an a significantly larger one.

Smaller issue: Zero0000 and Lance6Wins disagree how an incident in

.

The July 23rd event is detailed in

. A single news source (APF) has diffenent details: 18 years old, road side bomb and targeting soldiers rather than civilians.

.

Larger Issue: Zero0000, recently given admin privs, is abusing those privs to silence Lance6Wins and block any IP address that Lance6Wins uses to connect to wikipedia. Lance6Wins 18:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that this is a case being made by Viajero against Lance6Wins (initiated when the latter was anon). I intend to support the case as a witness. I protest the action of Fred Bauder in adding my name as a defendant. The Current Events and Tali Hatuel instances brought here by Lance6Wins are trivialities. My blocks of his IPs when he was anon were brought by me to the committee's attention immediately (see above) and it is unconscionable that they be accepted as a the basis of charges. --Zero 08:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) and 07:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note that all three of the "accepts" were added before my name was gratuitously added to the title of this section. Therefore none of them apply to me and I will not accept the role of defendant (Fred Bauder's word) unless the requisite number of "accepts" explicitly name me. --Zero 13:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Matter of User:Zero0000

Zero0000 has violated the blocking policy by his actions of blocking Lance6Wins. I submit that this actions violate the Unpopular opinions and Vandalism policies, among others. His behavior constitutes abuse of Admin privileges. I request that appropriate action be taken against Zero0000. This request comes after Jimbo Wales stated on the Wikipedia mailing list (WikiEN-l) on Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:17:10 -0700

It is for the arbcom to be decided, but based on the content of this email, it is clear to me that zero should be desysopped.[4]

This opinion was seconded by "The Cunctator" on Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:59:59 -0400

That's my opinion, as well.

Thank you for considering this matter.

(Please note that for a short period of time I used the new account Abu Ala while I believed the Lance6Wins account was blocked. I was informed afterward by Mirv that RickK has unblocked the Lance6Wins account.) Lance6Wins 14:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I object to merging this matter with the on-going Lance6Wins. This case is a simple matter of abuse of privilege. The Lance6Wins case concerns in Zero0000 efforts to limit Wikipedia to reflecting a single point of view to the exclusion of other points of view. The two matters are of a markedly differnt nature. Lance6Wins 17:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to fill in the details, the statement quoted from Jimbo refers to this email by Zero0000 on WikiEN-L. --Michael Snow 18:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And this one (Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:19:21 -0700) :

Rick wrote:

> Jimmy, you need to know the whole history of the case.

In order to know if Lance should have been blocked by someone, yes, I would need to know the full history of the case. But we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in.

If you think we get silly complaints now about sysop abuse, just imagine what it would be like if we let sysops win arguments over content by blocking people who disagree.

--Jimbo

"we have a cardinal rule"..."never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in." Clearly sysop is a privilege and a trust. Zero0000 has violated that trust. Lance6Wins 19:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes and comments by Arbitrators

1. Accept, should be merged with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins Fred Bauder 15:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept as merged with Lance6wins case. James F. (talk) 17:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept as merged --the Epopt 20:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Accept as merged Jwrosenzweig 21:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5. Ditto.
   Martin
   14:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor, among others, has asserted that the primary for Wikipedia to achieve a NPOV is to provide all mainstream POVs regarding an issue. This policy is explicitly reject by the deletion of POV material that a small minority of individuals at Wikipedia. These individuals include Zero0000, Viajero and others. The two cited are, to my experience, the most energetic at deleting material that does not fit their POV.

There are numerous examples involving myself and others. I will cite several of them here. I have spent a considerable period of time looking into the articles and the individuals that Viajero and Zero0000 mention: OneVoice and 209.133.35.83. While I can not speak for them, I can show some of what has happened regarding those individuals. Material appears on most recent to oldest order.

Zero0000 claims that this issue is between Viajero and Lance6Wins, yet an examination of the history of the pages mentioned:

.

Please see the evidence page: [5]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

• Accept Fred Bauder 12:39, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Accept complaints of both sides.
  Martin
  22:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Accept -
  mav
  10:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Principles

• Wikipedia editors are expected to be courteous and respectful towards other editors, especially those they may have a dispute with, see
  Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  which specifially admonishes editors to "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check."

Accepted 7-0'

• Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution, it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute.

Accepted 7-0'

• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Accepted 7-0'

• Wikipedia:Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed.

Accepted 7-0'

• Wikipedia articles are edited from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented. Where necessary, contributors must be willing to "write for the enemy".

Accepted 7-0'

• Sysop powers must not be used to win a dispute about content.

Accepted 7-0'

Findings of Fact

• Lance6wins in his edits to articles which concern the
  Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes a partisan perspective somewhat similar to that taken by the commentator Daniel Pipes
  .

Accepted 7-0'

• User Zero0000, frustrated by the inaction of the Arbitration Committee with respect to the editing of user Lance6wins while engaged in an editing dispute with Lance6wins improperly threatened him and blocked him.

Accepted 6-0

Remedies

• Lance6wins is banned from editing Wikipedia articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Accepted 7-0

• In the event Lance6wins is unable or unwilling to conform to the requirements in the arbitration rulings above, upon motion by any user to the Arbitration Committee and presentation of proof of such failure Lance6wins shall be restricted from editing articles which concern the
  Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  for a term to be decided at that point.

Accepted 5-2

• User Zero000 will have administrator privileges suspended for two weeks. Following that time, Zero000 will be on probation for a period of two months: during that time, if Zero000 takes any action which a majority of the active arbitrators consider an abuse of admin privileges, Zero000 will be desysopped. If Zero000 is desysopped as a result of this case, the Arbitration Committee reserves to itself the right to impose a time period during which Zero000 will be ineligible for renomination for adminship, if it is deemed necessary.

Accepted 5-2

Enforcement

• Any edit by Lance6wins to any article related to the Palestinian-Israeli confict may be reverted by any editor.

Accepted 7-0

• Any Wikipedia administrator may ban Lance6wins from Wikipedia for a short period (a day or up to a week for repeat offenses) if it is discovered that he has edited articles which relate to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Accepted 6-0

Post-ruling commentary

There has been some concern that we ruled against Lance6wins because of his personal opinions. This is absolutely not the case. I reproduce one of the key findings of fact in this case. While it narrowly failed to pass, it may help to clarify the motives behind the remedies above.

Martin

17:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5) User:Lance6wins is unable to conform his editing to the requirements of the

Refusal to serve in the Israeli military

. Note especially the repeated insertion of the header, "Resulting increase in suicide bombing".

Failed to pass with four votes in favour, nil against, and two absentions (required five votes to pass)