QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 16th May 2009, 5:59pm)
Well if problems associated with his POV/editing can still exist in spite of the topic ban you've got more work to do, eh Luke?
Some people find it incongruous to have a topic banned admin--supposedly the topic ban would indicate that the individual doesn't fully have the community's trust. I doubt that, but I would not support any sitting checkuser with a topic ban, as you apparently would. These positions are very high profile, and they should exemplify best practices. I think that POV checkusers are especially demoralizing to opposing editors in a way that POV admins are not.
So how about that as a standard? If we apply a topic ban, then the user should not be a functionary. I would apply that across the board. Reasonable start?
I did not base my votes on Jayjg's previously-examined conduct, but that does not mean that I would have voted differently in the past. I would have generally imposed a more sanctions if I had been on ArbCom. I'm not slighting your case or any others, but I looked primarily to his present conduct.
The reasons individual arbitrators voted might vary, but I can report that there was no behind-the-scenes agreement that Jayjg be removed him for any particular
X. The prior cases were an important part of the complete decision, but there was no off-site evidence or agreement by arbitrators. You're looking at the thing we agreed upon; there's nothing else. I signed them simply because I don't think seasoned POV warriors should have advanced tools. Maybe some others voted for private reasons, but I'm not aware of them, nor do I necessarily agree with them.
You seem to believe that the only reason for removing tools is misuse of those particular tools. I think you're wrong both descriptively and normatively. There's nothing else I can say.
This post has been edited by One: