Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 28 February 2011

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User:Rodhullandemu

Original announcement

• I am highly disappointed by this decision. Rodhullandemu has made poor actions in the past. But the Arbitration Committee has rarely if ever desysopped anyone without a full case or at the very least a public vote at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions except in cases of sockpuppets, compromised accounts, etc. This situation clearly does not fit those circumstances. NW (Talk) 02:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  There are two cases where we will proceed with a desysop off-wiki: when delay can prove harmful (such as the cases you used as examples), or when an on-wiki process is more likely to aggravate a situation than to fix it, as is the case now. — Coren  03:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  It's a Level II procedure Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Temporary removal of permissions. If Rod wants to request a full case, he would be entitled to do so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Even if he chooses to do so, the desysop here is highly prejudicial – ArbCom's action has shifted the status quo to "Rod has no special access and must request to get it back" instead of the usual "the burden of evidence is upon evidence gatherers and arbitrators to show why Rod no longer should have the admin tools." NW (Talk) 03:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy provides for it to be done in certain circumstances where it is necessary to stop the use of tools, and it was followed fully. I think the rest of the committee would agree with me that we wish it hadn't been necessary.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Making it clear that yes, I agree with Elen's statement above. SirFozzie (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct: there was a formal decision taken in this case, the result of which is the posted notice. — Coren  03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear to anyone who followed these matters that it was in the best interests of R that a public case was avoided. I say this as someone who has (frequently and loudly) objected to off-wiki decision making. This time I think it was fairest. DuncanHill (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Seconding NW. More backroom rubbish? Really? I thought the committee had learnt. If it's needed for emergency purposes, bother opening a damn case and use it as a temporary injunction. This is effed up, folks. That's all there is to it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations; way to kick a guy when he's down. What are you planning to do next? Kill and eat a puppy? HalfShadow 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll just say this; I was negotiating with ArbCom as to the allegations against me, which were unsupported and appeared to constitute "throw enough mud". I asked for diffs, less than two hours ago, but didn't get them. That is unjust and disgusting. The Arbitrators who voted for this should resign immediately and put themselves to the same test they propose for myself. To do otherwise would be completely disreputable for this project. ArbCom isn't meant to be a kangaroo court. Furthermore, I retain all Wikpedia emails for this very reason. If anyone wishes to view the full exchanges, I am prepared to forward them to interested parties; they will show an interesting light on the one-sidedness of all this. Rodhullandemu 04:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This is not correct. In fact, in those emails, ArbCom was consciously and privately offering you a way to resign your tools with the possibility of regaining them via a future RfA, rather than being publicly desysop'ed, as a way to provide you a means of saving face, because of your history of positive contributions to the project. You still have the option of simply moving on, instead of causing us to elaborate a history of behaviors that led to our decision. I'd urge you to consider what's been provided to you so far, and seek the counsel of non-ArbCom experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with both you and the situations we've alluded to before deciding whether or not to pursue a public case. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, if only I had psychic powers! How am I supposed to know what was ArbCom's intention when it wasn't made clear to me? Now I know what "Kafkaesque" means. Rodhullandemu 12:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Do I have your permission to publicly post the relevant parts of your reply to ArbCom's email to you which prompted the immediate desysoping? Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
          • It seems like it would be more relevant to post the ArbCom's mail and the response to it in their entirety, rather than cherry-picking comments. If the response was intemperate and ill-considered, it would be needlessly inflammatory and prejudicial to present it out of context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Tell you what... if permission is granted, I'll post the relevant clauses of both the message and reply, and if you still believe that insufficient, we can discuss more then. Until that point, such is essentially moot. Remember, however, that ArbCom consciously decided to initiate this off-Wiki. Rodhullandemu has the power to post any of the relevant messages in their entirety, but given his public characterizations of the messages to date, I doubt he will choose to do so. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And I'll add this: The policy under which this has been purported to be done mandates "while an investigation is in progress". Unless and until I have had a proper chance to meet the allegations against me, the investigation is still "in progress" and that policy does not mention re-applying via RFA. So, without wishing to be Wikilawyering, I should have been desysopped ab initio and given a chance to meet those allegations. I suggest that the Arbcom reads its own policy, and applies it properly. "Fools rush in", and all that. Rodhullandemu 04:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As Elen pointed out above: if you wish to request a public hearing, you're free to do so. Kirill  04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Let's be clear here; you want me to appeal to a body that has already taken a private decision affecting me to which I have not been a party, to overturn its own decision? I only started practising law in 1974, but never have I seen such a thing. Never at all, and as others have pointed out, that would not be the best thing to do. The best, and most honourable thing to do, in my opinion, would be for ArbCom to realise that it has made a mistake in both procedure and process, and vacate its decision forthwith. Anything less would only make it appear to be more foolish than has already been achieved. Rodhullandemu 05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • That's not going to happen. You can request a public hearing; or you can appeal to Jimbo; or you can accept that you're no longer an administrator and move on. Your choice, really. Kirill  05:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I assume that's your personal POV, without discussion with your fellow-Arbs. Well done! Let's get rid of ArbCom, and just have you, then, and everyone will be happy. Rodhullandemu 05:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Your assumption is incorrect. Kirill  06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Kirill is correct about the three options you have. SirFozzie (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Temporary removal of permissions doesn't seem particularly applicable here. This doesn't appear to be a temporary measure (unless you completely discard the meaning of the word "temporary"). Maybe I'm just missing something? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's "temporary" in the sense that we will conduct a normal proceeding should Rodhullandemu request it; however, we are not planning to do so in the absence of a specific request, due to the unusual circumstances of this unfortunate situation. Kirill  04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't what the policy says. Kindly read it. Rodhullandemu 05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the "unusual circumstances of this unfortunate situation"? NW (Talk) 05:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

They involve private, off-wiki matters. I can't go into greater detail here, for obvious reasons. Kirill  05:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have had a very limited opportunity to put my case to ArbCom, and meet its case against me; however, I keep all Misplaced Pages emails and am prepared to forward them to any interested party. I doubt that the Arbs will have the same courtesy and openness. Rodhullandemu 05:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. (Though I think a user actively requesting an Arbitration case against themselves might make me doubt their judgment more than anything else. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why it won't happen. And furthermore, if you follow the principles of natural justice, it can't now happen, because only five Arbitrators are now untainted by this decision, and the others must recuse themselves. That would leave a majority of three out of that five to endorse this decision; hardly a resounding embodiment of the principles we seek to espouse here. Rodhullandemu 05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We aren't talking about "natural justice"; ArbCom isn't an experiment in sociology. The decision to desysop was undertaken by the arbitrators in their official capacity, which means they would not be required to recuse from a later case. AGK 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, people DID say they wanted desysopping to be easier. (X! · talk)  · @403  ·  08:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• The thinking of the Committee here seems to be that this is a "temporary" removal of permissions, made, per above, under the "Temporary removal of permissions" provisions of the procedures page. But this removal is clearly not temporary. The Committee's intention here is for the desysopping to be indefinite, unless Rodhull files an appeal. Accordingly, it is pretty odd to me to see this being called a level 1 or level 2 desysopping: it is neither, because it is a permanent desysopping (with a provision for appeal and for re-RfAing). It is in my view important for ArbCom to be honest about what they're doing. I won't talk any more about this because I don't wish to pile on criticism—and I'm also very mindful of how quickly discussions on this page can descend into lunacy, having had to shut down a few threads here myself in the past. AGK 11:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note at the bottom to try and explain this, as it is covered in the policy, and does warrant explaining clearly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sure the committee are acting in the best interests of the project, and not desysopping likely, and while I'm sure the intention is to be fair to Roddhullandemu and not drag him through the mud, this does seem poorly thought through. At very least the committee are doing something new with "summary permanent desysop, with an option of appeal" - and should admit that and update the appropriate policy pages. (Although retrospective policy changes are generally thought to be a poor way of proceeding). Offering someone a "fixed-penalty to avoid a drawn out case with possibly predictable results" is fine, but it needs to be an offer, and not a summary sentence for someone who evidently contests the fact - because they way this has been done looks like it is what the committee wants, and not what Rod wants. Who is the best judge of Rodd's interests? We have to work on the assumption that he is. Is the a breach of "natural justice"? Yes, it certainly is. But I'm not sure that matters. Arbcom isn't about justice, it is about administering an encyclopedia - but predictability and transparency matter here. Be that as it may, Robb, you've now got a choice. You can accept the verdict of the star chamber and have the details of the case kept from public view, or you can contest it. That will force arbcom either to open a public case or to make public the reasons for their decision. It isn't really possible to vocally complain to the community, when the community have no knowledge of what the details are. Sorry, but that's how this falls.--Scott Mac 12:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A point that seems to have been missed in all this is why the committee would handle matters of this nature off wiki in the first place: editors tend to associate process against them with attacks on their persons (which isn't entirely surprising in a reputation-based community). When an editor is about to loose a bit or some "right", it is much more desirable that they be allowed the opportunity to save face by handling the matter discreetly than make it a tar-and-feather occasion.

In a case like this one, the committee has already examined the facts (which are not in question) and voted en banc that a desysop is warranted. The admin is then told that they will have their bit removed unless they resign. At any point, the admin can offer possibly mitigating circumstances and request a public or private appeal or some other protocol whereby the committee's concerns are addressed in a way that allows the editor to save face. That a motion ends up being posted for a forcible desysop simply means that the editor did not or would not do so.

Why not, then, open a whole case instead? When the facts are not at issue, then it's just a cruel extension to an already unpleasant process. The committee has already examined the evidence, and letting the peanut gallery pile on wouldn't help anything or anyone. — Coren  14:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just on the Level II procedure itself, while it is couched in the terms of a temporary desysop, in the hope that some satisfactory explanation will ultimately become available, editors should note the section on return of permissions. Where we are at is that the Committee has decided that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate (hence the fallback to the default position that tools can be returned via Rfa, ie if the community process endorses the return of tools, there isn't some way Arbcom can refuse to endorse it). If Rod wants an arbitration case onwiki, we would obviously do that, but we are leaving it as his call.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Amen, Coren. Who the hell needs this "process" crap, anyway? When it's obvious that you're guilty, fuck being fair to a longterm contributor, to the gallows with him! The facts are indisputable here! I've never been a big fan of Rodhullandemu (or the Arbitration Committee, for that matter), but this whole thing is unprecedented and should be noted as another hop down looney lane.

  There are a few extraordinary aspects to this, the first of which is the lengths to which the Arbitration Committee will go to try to justify its own behavior. "Well, you see, we wrote these 'temporary removal code red procedures' a few months ago without any community consensus or approval. And even though this isn't really temporary in any meaningful sense, these rules that nobody agreed to are totally applicable here, guys. Just think about it." When you look a bit deeper, you see the Arbitration Committee's collective bargaining power. "We can remove your rights and let you fight a case, or we can just remove your rights." That's, um, kind of like plea bargaining, if you do to that term what you all have done to the word "temporary."

  Most importantly, however, it occurs to me that calling the Arbitration Committee a "kangaroo court" is no longer really applicable. A kangaroo court has hearings/trials/public debate generally; that's the whole point, isn't it? No, no, the Arbitration Committee has leapt forward now into new territory. We'll need to revise the terminology appropriately. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • A tad hyperbolic, perhaps, but the essence is entirely true. Why is it that the Committee can simply decide without the posting of any evidence whatsoever that they are entirely right? It is as if you all learned nothing in the past two years. NW (Talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• This does seem more than a tad bizarre, I don't see how one can reconcile RodHullandEmu's statement that the case is based on unsupported allegations with Coren's statement that the facts are not at issue, unless Arbcom is making a decision without being willing to let the RodHulland Emu know exactly what he has been accused of. Does RodHullandEmu now accept that "the facts are not at issue"? As for the wider issue of appeals, I don't see why five people can't form an appeal committee. Three are enough for a magistrates bench.... ϢereSpielChequers 16:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The onwiki stuff is pretty much all here and here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• As regards the outcome, we cannot review the appropriateness of this action because the evidence was not made public. That we do not know the reasons for which it was not made public is disappointing and has yet to be explained by the Arbitration Committee. Nonetheless, the fact that the Arbitration Committee voted unanimously to desysop Rodhullandemu makes it seem very likely to me that the evidence is convincing enough to support that outcome. We did elect these people to exercise their judgment in matters like this, including in cases in which a public discussion is not appropriate. The unanimous decision makes me rather confident that the desysop is justified on the merits.

  As regards procedure, I take a more critical view. I agree with AGK in that it appears that the Arbitration Committee did not follow its own procedures by enacting a permanent desysop under rules that I read as being clearly intended to cover only temporary desysops (that is, pending further proceedings). This is problematic. While the Committee has the authority to make its own rules, including about how to desysop users, it is expected to abide by them once they are made, so as to avoid appearing to act in an arbitrary manner. The choice given to Rodhullandemu to request a public hearing does not remedy this problem, because the arbitrators have already made their decision on the merits and would therefore not approach any public re-hearing without bias. A better way to proceed would have been, after finding that the requirements for a Level II procedure were met, to desysop Rodhullandemu temporarily and inform him that the Committee would decide privately about whether or not to desysop him permanently should he not request a public hearing within a certain delay. This would have allowed the Committee to conduct a public hearing without the appearance of bias.

  Looking forward, this case illustrates that it would be advisable for the Committee to delegate certain functions, including the temporary removal of permissions, to panels. This would allow appeals to (or, in this case, public hearings by) the Committee en banc, who would be less subject to suspicions of bias because most arbitrators would not have participated in the initial decision.  Sandstein  17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I suspect the 'suspicion of bias' charge would persist whether or not the committee had said anything about resysoping, as it would have to already have had to review evidence to make a decision to desysop. Hence your suggestion of a panel is interesting. It's something that has been suggested before - maybe wants exploring in another venue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Poor form. Prodego 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So can one say your preferred option is an arbitration case onwiki? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Although my preferred outcome would be no change, these things should be done properly and openly. Prodego 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I too have some serious qualms, not about the outcome, but about the way it has been arrived at. Pretty much per Sandstein. --John (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So what would your actual preferred process be? I have said before that Arbcom is big enough to act like a board of school governors does when a pupil is excluded. They split into teams - one reviews the Head's decision if the parents request a review, and another acts as an appeal panel if the parent makes an appeal. Maybe (and perhaps not for this venue) there is scope to examine some possibility of similar working in future. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Return of permissions seems to be quite clear (emphasis added).

Temporary removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.

There is no provision for the ArbCom to permanently remove an admin's privileges without going through a normal case; indeed, they are explicitly required to reinstate the admin's permissions if they aren't prepared to open a case. Absent any concerns about sensitive, private, or personal information, it seems reasonable to expect the ArbCom to be able to concisely lay out their findings of fact, and the evidence on which those findings were based. They should be able to outline the alternative remedies that they evaluated, and allow the community and (particularly) the parties the opportunity to suggest alternatives. Explaining the reasoning behind their actions to the community isn't optional.

I have difficulty reconciling statements that a case was avoided (and ArbCom failed to follow its own rules) due to the "unusual circumstances of this unfortunate situation" and "private, off-wiki matters" with the statements that a open on-wiki case would occur at the desysopped admin's request. I am also concerned by Elen of Roads' declaration that if the ArbCom doesn't wish to undo a 'temporary' desysopping, the "default position" is to leave the admin desysopped permanently. This doesn't seem to be in line with any normal understanding of the word 'temporary', nor does it match up with the ArbCom's own rules that they set for themselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is something of a gap in the procedure in situations where there are substantial private issues. In this case, Arbcom are quite happy to open a case - most of the evidence is onwiki and the decision to desysop was made just on the onwiki evidence, so it would be possible. I've already posted a link to two of the ANI reports that are at the heart of the matter. Rod seems to be indicating above that he doesn't want a case. Is it your belief that it should be done anyway. I'd be interested in the general consensus on this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct procedure would have been to open a case. If you didn't want to do that because it might not be in Robb's interests (which is a fair desire), then you ought to have given him the opportunity to resign to avoid it. I see no indication that Robb didn't want a case (I could be wrong). I do see him declining to appeal against a decision which you've already made, which is a different matter entirely. Temporary desysops are not there for summary disposal of cases - they are there for emergencies and urgencies where waiting until after a formal decision is made would be dangerous. I don't yet comprehend why the committee did this so irregularly. The claim seems to be "for Robb's sake" but it is evident Robb doesn't agree.--Scott Mac 19:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to note (and I think Jclemens has refered specifically to this case above) Arbcom would pretty much always offer a chance to resign where it is at all appropriate - long term contributors do burn out, or suffer real life problems, and if it is possible to resolve the matter by a private resignation, that has surely to be more respectful than dragging the whole thing out onwiki.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Am I the only person here who sees the parallels between this and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin? NW (Talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes. Or, if not, then you're simply not the only one to imagine parallels where none exist. As far as I can tell, there is no hint here of a decision not having been made by the whole committee, or of an announcement made in the name of the committee that did not, in fact, have majority support. — Coren  19:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  (belatedly) @NW, yeah, very different in the underlying processes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  The reason I brought that up was not because of the miscommunication issue with FT2, but more of the secret trials issue. From what I recall, the Committee had investigated a number of issues about a particular editor. After their deliberations, they decided that the editor was not at fault, but Orangemarlin was, and he was summarily banned. Now, part of that might have been due to miscommunication, but a very real part of the problem was that ArbCom believed it had the power to summarily ban someone without even the pretense of asking for the Community's input with regards to evidence. What has changed since then? NW (Talk) 02:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've been reading this from the sidelines since it was posted. Believe it is time to say something. Is there a specific provision in the ArbCom rules to allow a "permanent" desysopping to be handled via private discussion? It appears from the comments here that there is not. If this is true, the committee's only recourse in this case is to either reinstate R or hold a brief public case on the matter and place all public evidence for all to see. Otherwise the committee is in effect creating rules and process on the fly, which is a possibly dangerous precedent to set and will lead to further grumbling in future cases as has happened here. The committee then has two options: 1. formalize the process that apparently occurred here for use in future cases of a similar nature. or 2. Contact the admin privately, inform them that a case is about to begin, and give them the opportunity to resign; otherwise proceed with a public case. Both options carry certain baggage. A private process will lead to grumbling even if it's fully allowed by the rules. A private offer to resign might be seen as "railroading" a user with the threat of a public case. N419BH 19:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• In support of the ArbCom decision, I am aware now of two such desysoppings involving highly sensitive personal information or situations, and I find the ArbCom bashing here to be unhelpful and unnecessary, likely to lead only to further airing of delicate personal matters. We elected them, I for one generally trust them, there is an abundance of on-Wiki evidence to back this decision without dragging through a formal case, and this is not comparable to OrangeMarlin, who was not an admin. I wish Rodhullandemu the best, and hope he will find it possible to continue contributing, while enjoying a break from the pressures of adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think what might have made people more comfortable was a notice here that a case was being looked at, since on the surface it did not look like an emergency situation, and note that the evidence was primarily private. That was done on the Slim/Lar case a while back, and there weren't really complaints about how that was handled (that is a better comparison than OM). Based on the stuff onwiki alone, a desysop was appropriate, so I would think that once the offwiki stuff was combined there would be justification. Nonetheless (I never thought I would say this), my primary conern is that this was rushed. Did the offwiki evidence constitute getting this desysop done asap, or was this in the works for a while? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu con't

The Arbitration Committee is tasked with balancing various and sometimes competing concerns. Level II procedures were followed; and as per Return of permissions, the committee determined that a routine reinstatement of permissions was not appropriate. Return of permissions suggests that in such cases, "ormal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances". Normal arbitration proceedings includes the examination of situations in camera in order to balance the various concerns previous mentioned, and such proceedings were conducted. As the primary concern here was behaviour unbecoming an administrator, the committee decided that a new request for adminship would be the most effective way to determine whether Rodhullandemu maintained community confidence. Rodhullandemu is free to 1) immediately request adminship through the usual means 2) appeal publicly or privately to Jimbo Wales, who has complete access to the factors and discussions that lead to this decision or 3) request the committee open a formal case in order to allow the community to examine the factors that lead to this decision. –xeno 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the Arbitration Committee being able to mandate "what is the most effective way" forward. It may specify options, but if it offered an opinion, it would be "descending into the arena", which has traditionally been deprecated when judges get involved with content of trials rather than behaviour of the parties. As it stands now, none of those options currently appeal to me, for various, very pragmatic reasons. There is the other option, of course, that ArbCom takes a step back, sees how inept it has been, vacates its decision, and at best, rehears my case properly, including a proper consideration of my input. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like your case re-heard, you can ask the committee to open a formal case (option 3). –xeno 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Step back and breathe

Have you/we gone collectively batshit crazy? I hear the very people who decry how much we are not a bureaucracy complain loudly that points of fucking process were not meticulously followed, and hollers for "natural justice" demanding that an editor be dragged publicly through the mud against their will! To what end?

"Dignity be dammed, we want our public spectacle!"

You disgust me. I'm taking a couple days' break. — Coren  19:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable considering some of the statements above; you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If this had drug into a public spectacle, an equal amount of editors would be clamoring to know why the arbs didn't deal with it privately. They tried. You were elected by the community-- carry on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I suspect that others have different problems with this matter, but my objection is that the current procedure for desysopping are not adequate. If neither of the desysopping procedures (Level 1 nor 2) are for anything more than temporary removals of permissions, then we should write in something else: make a Level 3, for indefinite, but not necessarily permanent, desysoppings. ArbCom have done a stellar job of writing up some good procedures and a new policy of late; my suggestion is that they continue that. Especially relative to some of the previous messes that have taken place on this page, this discussion is in my view pretty level-headed - and I certainly think there are positive points being raised. It certainly doesn't, Coren, warrant disgust. Regards, AGK 19:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you like us to try and shoehorn this into policy as currently described? You can re-cast it as temporary, until he regains the trust of the committee and the community if that would help you parse things better; the net result is the same. I've only seen Sandstein comment that if we're unanimous on a desysop, (and correctly so, IMHO, but that's obvious) there is probably a pretty good reason behind it. Allow me to extend his reasoning: if the trial wasn't held on-wiki, there's probably a pretty good reason behind the committee choosing to do it that way. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume that there is. But it would probably help alleviate the concerns that have been voiced if you told us that reason - at least in general terms - or explain why you cannot do so.  Sandstein  20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, all the evidence that started this off is onwiki here and here for summaries. I'm not sure we'd have been thought much better of if we'd dragged all this out onwiki for a long term editor who I know is well liked by many. It's lose - lose really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your last four words speak volumes. If all the evidence is onwiki, and ostensibly adequate for a desysop, why on earth wait until my block expired? On the other hand, if it wasn't, why take secret decisions without full visibility right up front and mislead me as to whether the evidence was adequate for a desysop and lead me to believe that I could have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations? As to your links, the first has been grossly misinterpreted and the first, id adequate for a desysop, is over three months old and stale, so I think it unjust to the point of insanity to rely upon it otherwise. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and especially the ex post facto apparent moving of the policy goalposts when put to the test. There's only one word for this: "disgraceful". Rodhullandemu 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod, it's over. We did it this way to try to protect you from becoming the target of the peanut gallery, given everything that you've said onwiki about your health. If you want to spend the next four weeks hashing it all out, we'll do that, but I don't know what you expect to gain by it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for pre-judging the issue, but in no way it this "over", and kindly stop side-stepping the failure of this process. It has only just begun, and I know you're a recent Admin and Arbitrator, but the principles here go far far, beyond mere optimism and inexperience. I am going to spend some time considering all this once I have caught up on some sleep, but make no mistake, it still stinks. Rodhullandemu 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like increased transparency, feel free to either post the email message you were sent by ArbCom and your reply to or consent to us doing so, per my offer above. I'm sure you may have missed my request in the sea of posts above, but since you're engaging in public about this topic, I'm sure those not privy to the contents but concerned about the privacy of the initial parts of this process would find the relevant parts enlightening. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to embarrass the ArbCom in that way; however, I'll just say this: I came here to write an encyclopedia, and nothing else. Some people do not share that view. However, when pushed into a corner, however foolish a corner, my reaction is to "put up or shut up". Secret evidence is, however damaging to me personally, still secret, and that evades the transparency that should be basic to a Wiki. So I'll say this; I am angry, of course I am, and sometimes I may not have expressed myself as perfectly as you and others might have preferred. However, given the options, I invite ArbCom to commence a full investigation, and put itself up for scrutiny, as well as myself; that's only fair. I'll make it plain: I don't see the results being helpful to the governance of Misplaced Pages, and if I must be personally sacrificed to demonstrate that incompetence, I'm happy with that, to some extent, if only to expose bias and incompetence. However, all and everything is up for grabs. I didn't want a public spectacle; but I did expect a fair hearing. So let the world, inside and outside Misplaced Pages, see whether I've had one. I don't think I've had one. Over to you. Rodhullandemu 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I shouldn't do this, I really shouldn't. I feel like the character in a genre story who handles demon-deals. But ... (ominous music) ... Mr. Rodhullandemu, do you swear on your Christian soul, that by proclaiming "So let the world, inside and outside Misplaced Pages, see whether ...", it is your wish to have The Press (crackle!) investigate and publicize this event (loud thunder)? It may be possible to arrange it. But if your wish is granted, you shall forswear holding me to any moral responsibility for the eventual results. Think carefully before you reply. Remember what usually happens to people who make deals with the devil. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. I was brought up in the Church of England, ostensibly Christian, but like most other embedded religions, riddled with inconsistency. That's why I rejected all "organised" religion, because as far as I'm concerned, it's a form of slavery. However, morality does not necessarily depend on religion, as Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative indicates, particularly in the paradox of the "murderer at the door". And of course, there is a critical conflict there with utilitarianism, which no philosopher has yet achieved in moderating; it's arguably a conflict between principle and number, absolutism and relativism, and the moral dimension is unclear between those two perceived extremes. Having said that, you believe what you like, and I will stick with evidence. What they mean is open to interpretation, and until someone comes up with a valid mediating theory, we're stuck with a set of paradoxes. Next! Rodhullandemu 02:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• There's been an assumption here that there was some sort of secret evidence at play in the ArbCom decision. There was no evidence considered in this motion to desysop which isn't currently available on-Wiki. What was conducted off-wiki was en banc review of the publicly available evidence; discussion about the level of sanctions warranted, including considerations of how to balance the need to publicly reprimand administrators who are uncivil to non-administrators (even to chronically uncivil non-administrators like Malleus) vs. the respect due you as a long-term productive contributor; and considerations on how to offer you a face-saving out. The reasons there was no public case or request for evidence from you is twofold: 1) All the evidence of your sub-optimal behavior is public and nothing you could say would modify the sanctions that were and are a natural consequence of such behavior, and 2) preserving our prerogative to extend to you a less-public desysoping. The facts of the matter are pretty clear: You've been brought to ANI multiple times, and been blocked twice for good cause. At this point, you aren't behaving like an administrator, and you drove home this point in the email responses to our offer for you to step down quietly. Even with the hubub this has generated, I do not regret offering you a chance to avoid this spectacle, because it was the humane and professional thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but your statement is wholly inconsistent with what has gone before. If you're going to move the goalposts, at least have the nous to cover your tracks properly. I refer to Elen's previous posts and references to my email responses, which were apparently inadequate to point you in the correct direction. And, without prejudice, Malleus walks away free? No thanks. Justice, please, not papering over the cracks and clutching at straws. Rodhullandemu 02:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) Coren, I don't want a public spectacle either. But if what was done isn't provided for in the rules it isn't provided for in the rules. If this kind of thing is for the best (and I believe it is) then this needs to be formalized so it can be utilized in the future with less grumbling. N419BH 19:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Coren, you are missing the point. My own view is "screw bureaucracy" - we elected a committee, and if any admin has lost the confidence of the committee - remove their bit and don't even tell us why. It is no big deal anyway. However, you can't go writing in-depth policy and process pages and then ignore them (pretending you haven't) - it is just dishonest. Nor can you say "we're doing this for Robb's dignity" when Robb doesn't appear to think so - what are you? Arbcom or his mother? Now, I'm not asking you to reverse the decision, or to share the reasoning, I'm just asking for some coherent understanding of where this leaves us. If you want to power to permanently desysop without full cases, that's absolutely fine by me. Just say so.--Scott Mac 20:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As for myself, I simply saw it as piling on the poor son of a bitch. He was already blocked for 48 hours, then you wander onto his page and say "Oh yeah, by the way, we've also taken away your keys to the janitor's closet. Have a nice...whatever." HalfShadow 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Not quite so-- there are previous posts to Rodhallandemu's page, requesting that he correspond with the arbs. Notification was evident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe that people might have overlooked that "normal arbitration proceedings" also include in camera discussions. See above at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:Rodhullandemu con't for an expansion on this point. –xeno 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Coren's right; the AC caters to the toxic community's desire for public spectacle. This is a pretty public mess; my being publicly damned has dragged on for fucking years. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As in "That damned Gold Hat; the coating keeps coming off"? HalfShadow 20:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No; Gold Hat. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis

The above is getting a little messy, so allow me to try to summarise the main points:

1. There has been no public decision-making in relation to this case. Many view this as an arbitrary desysopping more akin to an action of the Committee of Public Safety than of an elected dispute-resolution body.
2. In actuality, the decision-making was private because much of the evidence is not suited for public viewing. One role of ArbCom is to make decisions based on private data. We elected them to do that, and we must trust their judgment.
3. The desysopping was prompted by something that Rodhull said to ArbCom during their discussion, and so is "temporary" in that he must explain himself in relation to whatever it was he said. (I was confused about this earlier too.)
4. As he has thus far declined to explain himself, he will remain desysopped. When he decides to do so, the indefinite desysopping will be finalised - one way or the other. The ball is currently in Rodhull's court, not ArbCom's.
5. Screaming and shouting is for the most part unhelpful.

Correction welcome if I am wrong on any point. AGK 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:Rodhullandemu con't may also help to clarify things. –xeno 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A slight correction: to reinforce what I said above, what was considered off-wiki leading to the de-sysop decision doesn't include any evidence not already present on-wiki. Any interested editor has access to all the evidence considered by ArbCom in private deliberation which informed the decision to de-sysop. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I urge Rod to formally request a case here, even if he thinks it's a lost cause. The committee might not have been interested, but some of us would really like the principle of examining all parties to be applied here. As far as I can see, and there's no evidence offered up in contradiction, Rod didn't just one day become an alleged Grade A bastard worthy of summary desysopping, this has been developing for months, if not years, and outside of relations with Malleus, he was a very good and definitely committed admin right up until this motion. In addition to answering for his actions, as he of course has to, other people, through action and inaction, have cases to answer here for allowing this 'toxic environment' to develop. The charge here is "feuding" after all. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No relation to Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's "Rod," not "Rob." (I've made this mistake previously.) It helps if you think about it as four separate words: Rod hull and emu. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops :P. Fixed, with thanks. AGK 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And, erm, knowing what the name was inspired by. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I hate to be seen as kicking a guy when he's down. But with all due respect to Rodhullandemu's dedication, that same, let us say, devotion, seemed to combine very poorly with his evident life situation - in a way I would contend raised serious questions about his ability to function well as an admin. He's given me grief for a long time, as I'm often critical of Misplaced Pages. I try not to bear him any ill-will, and to respond as compassionately as I can under the circumstances (often not easy). But when he recently used his admin status as a threat, I felt he'd really crossed a line. Granted, he did knock it off (so far) when requested. But it's definitely a problem of "free-fire zone with live targets". By the way, while we're on the topic of private vs. public cases, can I ask some Arbs who will treat a critic fairly to email me (so as not to thread-hijack) about ways a critic can effectively address future admin misbehavior? Thanks. The problem with a critic doing any public complaint is the possibility of the admin then making extensive personal attacks - in terms of social game-playing, they have everything to gain by doing so and almost nothing to lose (sigh, I know, this makes me a censor, but any dispute resolution system has to balance public vs. private). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing against Seth as a guy; he's probably good to have a pint with. But if you are inimical to Misplaced Pages, and/or Jimmy Wales, I don't see the need to come here and push the point. The guy has a platform already on his blogs, and if that is inadequate, there's always Misplaced Pages Review. As regards his contributions, they do seem somewhat focussed on talking us down. Seriously, neutrality apart, do we need that? Sorry, Seth. Rodhullandemu 23:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seth made some edits to List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction I recall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

yep; 1, 2. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Next section

@Elen and Coren. The two threads Elen posted, here and here, are very illuminating, making me wonder how anybody who has followed the case, or who now reads those diffs, can claim that "the community have no knowledge of what the details are" (Scott Mac) and similar, as if there were some kind of mystery. The community has seen this sad tale unfold, if they've kept their eyes even approximately open. The reasons the committee are refraining from describing the problem in detail seem quite clear to me, from the information Elen has provided. Not only arbcom but all of us have a responsibility for not spreading sensitive personal information over the Internet. Please read the information that we already had, and that has been given again in this discussion, from that point of view rather than through some wiki-legalese spectacles. MZMcBride, you're talking like a fool. Not that you're the only one. Coren has nailed it with his "spectacle", and, ironically, Gold Hat seems to be one of the very few people to keep his senses in this context. Perhaps it's The Lord of the Flies that does it. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

What people miss is that the choice of Jack Merridew was never intended to refer to myself. And for years, I've been tied to that name and the associations. The problem with Misplaced Pages is the ambient toxicity of the "community". It's all fine to pretend, and to look at the 'bright' side of the community, but far too many of the regulars are simply toxic game players. They treat it as a free-fire zone with live targets, some of whom are tied to stakes. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Xeno's explanation above sums up the Arb's thinking on the matter quite nicely, and I agree with it. They might consider modifying the wording of removal of permissions to avoid consternation in the future, but the way Xeno described it convinces me that they have applied their rules appropriately to the situation. The ball's in Rob's court. If he wants to appeal he can, if he wants to have a go at an even bigger zoo he can do that too. The threads above point to the possibility of what kind of evidence was being dealt with. N419BH 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the guy or he's acting like a jackass and you don't want him to be an admin (and you've got the power to simply remove him), there's not much anyone can do to stop you. But let's not subvert the English language, logic, and a sense of justice/fairness for vested contributors and pretend as though this is standard practice or within the bounds of "temporary removal procedures." Coren's comments are so jarring as they go against every principle of social justice and fairness. The reason it's so easy to ban an anonymous user and so difficult to de-admin an admin is that one is a vested contributor (and a VestedContributor). The fact that it's difficult is a feature, not a bug. When you simply push people off the cliff like this (not that he didn't necessarily deserve to be) under the guise of an "emergency removal to protect the wiki," it further eviscerates any concept of a sane system. At a minimum, the Arbitration Committee should be more forthcoming about what they're doing. As AGK alludes to above, just write Misplaced Pages:We can de-admin, ban you, block you, or do whatever else for whatever duration at any time, mark it as policy, and be done with it. Being upfront about all of this won't make the Arbitration Committee any better liked, but it will at least be able to stand on some sort of principle. The current practice of manipulating and coercing made-up policies and real words isn't acceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Change "temporary" to "indefinite" on the policy page and you have exactly what's happened in this case and others (Tan comes to mind). Now that it's been explained, I see we're dealing with a question of wording and not with a question of policy. Kind of like the consternation that occurs today over what these guys really meant when they wrote this. N419BH 21:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why this is a big deal. After all, aren't we lead to believe that adminship is no big deal? From what I can see, almost all arbcom decisions are made in a back smoky room. (You have to be drunk or delusional to think anyone in their right mind would read through a request page and its talk, a workshop and its talk, and an evidence page and its talk before making a decisions.) At least they are admitting it.

If we all put this much time, energy, and brain power into a stub it would be a GA by now. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, I do read all those pages, the back room is smoke-free, and I still have time to nominate an FA. You're welcome to comment on it :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd be mistaken about how much reading we do.. just to try to keep ahead of things.. which admittedly is no fun on our more complicated cases. SirFozzie (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected SirFozzie and I will look at that page David Fuchs. The game was published in my birth year. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• To comment on Bishonen's point at the beginning of this section, as a member of the community who has not been following the Rodhullandemu situation at all, reading this discussion and the various threads linked to it sheds no light on the wisdom or legitimacy of Arbcom's actions here, or lack thereof. I see in the one case a tangling with Malleus Fatuorum, one of the most storied editors around, and on the other a string of bizarre out of character edits. You could spin thoroughly opposed interpretations of either of these incidents, and for me to understand the underlying case I would have to either an organized indexing of the underlying material, or the careful, neutral, commentary of uninvolved editors I trust. Of course the evidence is all there somewhere in Misplaced Pages's edit history (and possibly some private messages and emails), it always is. If that were the standard no case would ever have to be done publicly. But instead we have open processes for most things, not just decrees from above. What's missing is accountability - a record, available to interested editors like me, from which to form our own opinions on whether ArbCom and its various individual members are acting wisely or within their mandate. You can't just tell the community that ArbCom knows best and that the we should trust their decisions (something I generally agree with, albeit with some healthy skepticism and exceptions), and then hold a vote every year on who should be on the committee. Without openness and accountability any body - particularly an online one with anonymous membership and few real life reprecussions - will drift off and become useless. Even if for one reason or another the evidence and discussion had to be suppressed (avoiding criticism and controversy does not seem like a good reason), there should be some way for uninvolved interested community members to evaluate after the fact whether ArbCom is doing its job. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nicely put. For that to happen, we would need transparency, which is why we have evolved processes. Without being a process-wonk, I really don't see why there was the urgency to desysop without a process here. --John (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair John, you're not seeing it because that's the bit that's confidential. The circumstances that would warrant a desysop is onwiki. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

For the encyclopedia's sake

. Ridiculous. Needs a short block or protection to deal with that, but nobody else is being as reactive as am I. But I am powerless, while the ArbCom fuck about amongst themselves. Come on! When did they recently cope with vandalism at the coalface? Get real, please. Rodhullandemu 01:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That IP is reverting vandalism in that edit. –xeno 01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I will go patrol. --Diannaa 02:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nawlin Wiki is also active. It's ok, not much going on. --Diannaa 02:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness of all future ArbCom proceedings

Earlier in this extended thread, JClemens posted the following addressed to Rodhullandemu:

The reasons there was no public case or request for evidence from you is twofold: 1) All the evidence of your sub-optimal behavior is public and nothing you could say would modify the sanctions that were and are a natural consequence of such behavior, and 2) preserving our prerogative to extend to you a less-public desysoping.

Let's consider this carefully. An arbitrator stated that there is no need to take evidence from an editor that the Committee is considering sanctioning, basically because (s)he cannot imagine any defence that might be offerred. This is exactly the kind of argument that is used to justify secret trials, and screams bias. In the wake of OrangeMarlin, Jimbo made it abundantly clear that no editor would be sanctioned without having the opportunity of responding to evidence against them before any decision is made. So, I have two questions:

1. To all arbitrators who endorse JClemens' view, why is it suddenly acceptable to sanction an editor without presenting him or her with evidence and providing an opportunity to respond? Under what other circumstances will such star chamber tactics be acceptable?
2. To all arbitrators who dispute JClemens' view, why have you not publicly repudiated this approach? Have you rebuked JClemens privately, and if so, why do you believe that it is appropriate to not record publicly the unacceptability of a proceeding which includes no opportunity to present a defense?
3. To JClemens, do you stand by your statement? If so, why? If not, what has caused you to change your view?
4. To all arbitrators, is it now clearer why the actions taken here have forever tainted the action taken against Rodhullandemu, even if an unbiased review of the evidence would support the conclusions you have reached?

There is a lot more that can be said here. I accept that at least most of ArbCom were motivated by concern over Rodhullandemu's health, but the actions you have taken were unwise and damaging both to Rod and to ArbCom. Please, stop trying to defend some outrageous actions and do something ArbCom almost never does - admit you stuffed up, and try to do something about the mess created. You will earn more respect with an honest mea culpa that with a stubborn defence that many already see straight through. EdChem (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So here's a counter question and a clarification statement:

1) What sort of explanation should ArbCom have expected, given Rodhullandemu's history of inappropriate behavior? (Just search the ANI archives and read 'em to make a judgment here before responding... I know I did) This is not a rhetorical question--if there were excuses for behavior, they would have been sought before a motion was made. Being uncivil back to a non-administrator is not a matter of motivation, however--strict liability seems a more apt metaphor: it's not that I or the committee as a whole couldn't imagine a defense, it's that there simply wasn't any defense--not for the most recent poor conduct, not for any which had been previously noted. To reiterate, I am serious about this question: which community member, seeing all of Rodhullandemu's block log and various discussions at ANI, believes him fit to hold the administrator bit at this point in time? If none do in good faith, then we're looking at improving the process rather than the outcome, aren't we?

2) What makes you think he didn't get a chance to defend himself? He, in fact, did submit multiple emails to the arbitrator who contacted him between the time in which he was told he was going to be desysop'ed and the time he was, in fact, desysop'ed. Rodhullandemu has declined to make those emails public. I'd encourage you to see if he'll revisit that decision, or perhaps just share them privately with you. I suspect you'll find them enlightening.

While the other arbs can certainly speak for themselves, I have not been contacted privately by any of the rest of the committee, which probably says more about our relative time zones than anything else at this point. I think it too early to speculate on damage, but the negative feedback certainly is not pleasant. I neither regret voting to desysop Rodhullandemu, nor doing so in a manner that offered him an opportunity to save face. If there were a way to achieve both those goals consistent with a public hearing beforehand that I and the rest of the committee have overlooked, then I welcome that feedback and would enthusiastically implement such an improved process, and I am confident the rest of the committee would, too. In a choice between process wonkery and humanity, I side with the latter--which is ironic, in that several ArbCom voters guides suggested that I would do precisely the opposite. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

JClemens, you ask why I think he didn't get a chance to defend himself: in fact, it's simple - you said so. You said The reasons there was no public case or request for evidence from ... – in other words, ArbCom did not request evidence from him. And, you confirm it: , in fact, did submit multiple emails to the arbitrator who contacted him between the time in which he was told he was going to be desysop'ed and the time he was, in fact, desysop'ed. – in other words, he was told the sentence and then allowed to comment. The process here is so flawed that it is irretruevably tainted, and that is ArbCom's fault. It would not have been hard to hold a hearing, even in camera, but your own statements prove that never happened. You should be ashamed that your own code of ethical behaviour failed to scream at you that a verdict without even inviting evidence from the editor you wish to sanction is simply wrong, and that you defend that as the "human" thing to do is amazing. In your rush to desysop you failed to treat Rodhullandemu with humanity, and that is truly sad, and you (collectively) acted in a manner unbecoming an arbitrator. The question now is whether you or the Committee can admit to the mess you have created. EdChem (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a further response from me, I am expecting a response to the three questions in my point 1), above. If a dialogue isn't desired, then that's unnecessary, of course. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that Ed did in fact answer one of J's questions but J gives a sarcastic and dismissive answer as if Ed had not. Not improving the public perception here! 212.183.140.50 (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I simply don't desire to dialogue about the process in isolation from the circumstances that prompted it, and clarified that expectation, which I'd hoped I'd made clear above. To the extent that someone's seeing sarcasm and dismissiveness, that wasn't intended. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll engage with you, but you aren't going to like my answers:

What sort of explanation should ArbCom have expected, given Rodhullandemu's history of inappropriate behavior?

Firstly, it is not for me to speak for Rodhullandemu nor to predict what other evidence he might have offerred. Secondly, and vastly more importantly, it is not for ArbCom as the body with the power to sanction to declare that you can imagine no extenuating circumstances and thus choose neither to seek an explanation nor to consider what the editor has to say in imposing a sanction. To decide, as you did, that nothing that Rod could have said would have made any difference demonstrates a huge failure to act in an impartial manner. Your own words disqualify you from making a decision {"if there were excuses for behavior, they would have been sought before a motion was made") irrespective of the evidence and they taint the decision made. This is such a basic principle of reasoned decision making in any context that I am astonished any arbitrator could fail to recognise it – gather all evidence before making a decision.

As for what Rod might have said, perhaps there had been abusive emails to Rod and he was provoked – that might alter whether a truly temporary desysop might be warranted, and also might indicate other sanctions were appropriate. Were there such emails? I have no idea, but I recognise that it is a possibility that Rod could speak to, had he been given the chance. Perhaps there were interactions on other projects that were spilling over here. Perhaps there were emails to Rod from others egging him on, encouraging him to let fly. Perhaps he happened to snap the day he learned of a close relative's terminal illness. I don't know what was going on in Rod's mind and neither does ArbCom. The on-wiki evidence may justify a de-sysop but off-wiki circumstances warrant perhaps a temporary relinquishing of tools. My point here is that ArbCom were wrong to reach a decision without providing a fair chance for Rod to comment. It would have been easy for ArbCom to have provided that chance. But, you failed to act appropriately, and that is your fault and your mess to sort out. Not one ArbCom member should have a problem endorsing the statement "we will not sanction an editor without first showing the editor the evidence against him or her and then considering any response / defence which s/he offers".

Before we go on, it is important to note a very serious flaw in the argument you appear to be planning to make. Arguing that the decision was correct so there is no problem is an "ends justify the means argument". Even if the decision / conclusion is correct there remain serious problems. Even if the decision is correct, ArbCom have just publicly declared that there are some cases where editors will not be given the opportunity to have the evidence prevented and their defence considered – this undermines the credibility of ArbCom into the future and raises questions about what other short-cuts ArbCom might take in the future in the interests of expediency or for their own convenience. Even if the the decision is correct, the taint of sentencing Rod without seeking evidence leaves open suspicions that there is something being hidden and that ArbCom acted from secret motives – this undermines whether ArbCom statements can be trusted, and it raises fear of ArbCom as a body that act on its own whim to desysop at will. Even if the decision is correct, what was done is clearly inconsistent with the policies which are supposed to govern ArbCom – this leaves ArbCom appearing more as a body with unlimited power and which is a law unto itslef. Even if the decision is correct, what was done to Rodhullandemu in terms of making him feel persecuted, powerless, and a victim cannot be undone. ArbCom must act in the interests of the encyclopedia, yes, but that doesn't mean by deliberately mistreating editors. How do you think Rod feels when you declare that nothing he could have said would have swayed you and so it wasn't necessary to even ask for his evidence? How do you think onloookers feel about that? What you have done here, even if the desysop decision is correct, has been very much to the detriment of the editors, the encyclopedia, and the institution of ArbCom.

To reiterate, I am serious about this question: which community member, seeing all of Rodhullandemu's block log and various discussions at ANI, believes him fit to hold the administrator bit at this point in time? If none do in good faith, then we're looking at improving the process rather than the outcome, aren't we?

I have expressed directly to Rod that I had doubts about his status as an admin. Had ArbCom dealt fairly with him on this topic, there likely would not be an issue. But, even if no one questions the desysop, that does not mean we are only talking about process and outcome. The outcome here includes damage to ArbCom, which you should be ashamed to have caused. The outcome includes reinforcing the negative views of ArbCom and reminding us of the failures of previous Committees. To me, the outcome again points to the need for an arbitrator code of conduct that is outside the control of ArbCom, the past Arbitrators, and the close circle that defends Arbcom. What happened here was a huge failure in process, but that is not nearly as serious as the evident failure to comprehend why a sentence without a trial is an outrageous injustice both to Rod and to the editor community as a whole. Looking to allow Rod an opportunity to save face is noble, and it is good to hear that this was a concern facing the Committee. Unfortunately, by deciding without consulting Rod and acting as you did that opportunity was denied. The subsequent ultimata "well, we can have an on-wiki case but if you do that we'll bury you to prove we were right" (and that is how some comments above read, at least to me) is also not a meaningful offer of a chance to put his case or to be judged fairly. The decision has been made, the sentence is in, holding the case now would be a farce and we all know it. You tainted any possibility of a fair case by deciding to desysop and then contacting him afterwards. There is no remedy I can see to redeem the situation so as to make the decision seem fair or made in an unbiased way. The Committee's credibility in this case is gone. What you need to decide is whether you are willing to admit to the mess you've made and see whether the damage can be minimised, or declare yourselves incapable of error (unfortunately, a common ArbCom attitude) and hope most people forget what you have done. EdChem (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for that response. I think you stray a bit towards hyperbole, though. No one needs to be buried in evidence--as the evidence you've seen on-wiki has caused you to question Rodhullandemu's status as an admin, it so influenced every ArbCom member who voted on the motion. No one piece is damning, so much as the totality of evidence paints a picture of someone not currently suited for the tools. Everyone can have a (presumably explainable) bad day or a bad week, as I can personally attest, but that wasn't the case here, which involved a long-term pattern of behavior. If we'd hashed this out on-Wiki the result would have been the same, but with the public spectacle unavoidable. No one is desysop'ed for a mistake or for human frailty. Rather, any explanation which bears on a chronic pattern of behavior unbecoming an administrator is really more aptly explained to the community in a future RfA--that is, the committee has handed Rodhullandemu's administrator status back to the community.

Rodhullandemu is not desysop'ed for any period of time; he can start an RfA today, though I doubt it would succeed. Had he chosen to resign quietly, the offer was for him to "volunteer" to go through RfA should he desire the bit back. While multiple editors might suspect what had transpired, actual documentation of the outcome would have only been shared with the Bureaucreats. He did not take us up on that offer.

Indeed, you're not privy to the contents and tone of the message that was delivered, nor of the response ArbCom received. Every effort was made to give Rodhullandemu a choice to walk away from his bit, but that didn't happen. The evidence that would have the best chance of restoring your faith in ArbCom and the processes are the emails sent and received on the topic. Rodhullandemu has cast that email exchange in one particular light, which I find not congruent with what was actually said. Do you really think we up and said "You're fired. Are you going to quietly or make a scene?" Had we done that, it would be entirely inconsistent with the goal of treating Rodhullandemu as gently and humanely as possible.

No, the right outcome doesn't excuse poor process, and I've seen several excellent suggestions for process improvement below--which hopefully won't be necessary again anytime in the near future. Since desysops for personal conduct outside the scope of a case are so relatively rare, I'm not surprised there's room for improvement. I don't want to see that "improvement" force us to drag people through the mud in public in order to maintain order, however, and I'm afraid that's what I'm seeing that your suggestions would require. If you don't see things that way, you've got my personal invitation to run for ArbCom next go round. You're passionate and articulate, and I'd love to be there to see what tradeoffs you'd make in a case like this. Jclemens (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several quite obvious inconsistencies in Jclemens's explanation above. Spot them all and win valuable prizes! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So do feel free to point them out so I can correct or clarify them. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On what basis, EdChem, is the process flawed? ArbCom is not a criminal court with powers to incarcerate or fine, it is a dispute resolution body on a Wiki. In fact, Rodhullandemu was given an outline of ArbCom's concerns and was asked to respond. He was also asked to refrain from using the tools until it was resolved. In many ways, this situation as comparable with blocking. Should administrators ask people they are about to block for their side of the story before a block is placed? What does the admin do if the blockee simply claims that posting obscenities or edit-warring is acceptable, or completely fails to get the point in some other fashion? As JClemens says, very often, especially when the standard of proof is balance of probabilities, the facts really do speak for themselves.  Roger 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger, JClemens has admitted already that the "outline of ArbCom's concerns" was given to Rod after the decision to desysop had been taken. "Here's your sentence, would you like to offer evidence for the trial?" is not dispute resolution nor is it justice. If you really don't know why evidence before punishment should be mandatory at ArbCom then I am unsure what to say. You already have the power to temporarily desysop in a true emergency, and that would be the apt analogy to your blocking example. What happened here was not like that... as a Committee you made a decision which you then communicated to the editor as a fait accompli, denying Rod any right of input into the decision making process. That is an outrageous misuse of ArbCom power. EdChem (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was after consensus to desysop had emerged. Which, of course, doesn't mean that the consensus was immutable as arbitrators can and do change their minds. I can't speak for the others but I only made finally decided in favour once I'd seen RH&E's responses. My primary concern was the prevention of harm to the encyclopedia and RH&E had emphatically stated that he wasn't prepared to refrain from using the tools while the situation was being resolved so the blocking analogy is more apt than it seems. It would be helpful though to see all this in context. Take edit-warring for example: the bright line there is 3RR and policy provides a few "statutory" exemptions. If those exemptions aren't argued, or aren't applicable, what defence is there? Clearly, to simply say that "I was right and the other person was wrong" is no defence at all. Similarly, the civility policy prohibits personal attacks. Is a defence of "I'm like that. I respond in kind." a valid defence? I think not.  Roger 09:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It would help if people making proposals like this indicate whether they have followed the public history. The public history is more than sufficient to justify what has been said about arbcom's desire to keep their deliberations private. There is plenty of reason to believe that a public raking of the coals would be very unhelpful to those involved. There is no reason to imagine that arbcom is about to embark on a vendetta against admins, so no benefit to the encyclopedia would result from turning this into a circus. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I do believe a major point of consternation is the manner in which it was done. It was eloquently explained by Xeno above; the difficulty rests in that the committee is combining sections of policy: off-wiki deliberation, Level II desysop, "temporary" in as much as Rod may regain his permission by seeking appeal or reinstatement via RFA. While not abundantly clear at the beginning it makes sense now that it's been explained. And for those who followed the ANI incidents it's also abundantly clear that lines were crossed that a sysop cannot cross without reasonable explanation. Frankly I'm slighty surprised that the ANI threads did not result in a desysopping right then and there; there was ample evidence to warrant it. Certainly no user with a block log like Rod's would be given the bit at RFA these days. I am sure Rod knows this, and perhaps some of his complaints on the result here are because he knows a RFA will probably fail (Herostratus's reconfirmation RFA comes to mind here). I'm sure he also knows neither Jimbo nor arbcom is going to restore his bit. So his only chance for getting it back is to find fault with the process by which it was removed. Bearing these points in mind, a couple suggestions:

1. When announcing motions on the noticeboard, include a section listing the ArbCom policies utilized. In this case it would be "in camera, Level II desysop, reinstatement by appeal or RFA". This will clarify to the community what policies are being utilized.
2. Change "Temporary" to "Indefinite" on the Desysop policy. Indefinite removals are what's occurring, and the policies as written seem to say that a "temporary" removal would only occur if someone's kid got a hold of the account and started messing with it. Once the password's changed, have the bit back. I really don't see how a level II "unbecoming behavior" desysop could result in a "temporary" removal in any way. "Indefinite" would bring the terminology more in line with blocking policy and would prevent the consternation over the "temporary" nature of the desysop as has occurred above.

N419BH 07:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ed, your arguments suffer from the simple reality that you are not in possession of a full set of facts (a situation beyond your control). Above, I had suggested that Rod could appeal to Jimbo Wales, who could review all the factors and discussions that led to the committee's discussion. You too (or anyone else, for that matter), could ask Jimmy to investigate this to see if there has been a failure in process, or a lack of adherence to basic principles of fairness. –xeno 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The only question that needs putting to Jimbo is to ask him if the complete absence of any wider investigation of this feud, and the complete absence of any attempt by the committee to lay down any general principles or directions based on the evidence, except of course that Rod can't be an admin anymore, bodes well for Misplaced Pages becoming a less toxic place in future, given that it is an eminently repeatable situation given many of the prevailing themes and tactics. He's usually able to take the wider view, and is likely to understand that this whole thing is bigger than just that one black and white decision. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Xeno, I agree I'm not in possession of the emails, but I am taking the word of JClemens and Roger Davies that the decision was taken without consulting Roddhullandemu, that it was not necessary to even invite evidence from him, and that he was first contacted when the decision was a fait accompli. Not one arbitrator has yet been willing to endorse that these actions were acceptable in a fairness sense, but also none has contradicted that this is exactly what was done. Had the process included taking evidence from Rod before making a decision, I think there would be arbitrators edit conflicting each other in their rush to say so. Certainly, the option that JClemens mentions being offered to Rodhullandemu was a compassionate way forward once a desysop decision was reached; however, it does not rectify the flaws in reaching that point. I am at a loss to understand why ArbCom is apparently unable to recognise either the damage to its reputation by declining to take evidence or the damage it has done to Rodhullandemu psychologically. Neither of these was necessary to deal with the disruption allegedly associated with Rod. EdChem (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will say something I have said before: Perhaps Arbcom got this right. If they did get it right it was because they were more lucky that they were given a case that was straightforward all the way down, rather than that they used good and rational procedures which could give them confidence that they got it right. If they use the procedures used here on a less than lucky case which is not exactly what it seems at a glance, they will get that case wrong. I urge the Committee that if they ever need to try a case privately in the future to ensure that at least two people develop presentations of evidence in isolation and the parties concerned are at least allowed to review the presentations of their owns actions for errors and omissions before any decision is reached. These are the most basic requirements that must be met for the Committee to have any rational claim to confidence in it's own decision. However the greater the amount review that any evidence receives by disparate parties the higher the level of confidence that the resulting decision merits.--BirgitteSB 16:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen several suggestions about how the evidence can be examined independently by several people, and it is going to be worth looking at how we manage in camera cases so that there is clarity on the fairness of the process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To amend that, BirgitteSB; those might be the most basic requirements that must be met for observers to have claim to confidence in the Committee's decision. Our confidence isn't the issue here; whether cases where there are good reasons for not going into full disclosure, like this one, should have some other mechanisms changed is another question. I echo Elen's comments that we are looking into making this less obtuse from a process standpoint. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with observers. This is necessary for you to have any rational claim to confidence at all. Confirmation bias can lead to strong claims of confidence, but not rational claims to confidence. There are a number of other tricks human brains use beside that one to instill irrational confidence. If you proceed in a way that comes naturally to you, that seems obvious, you are not going to rationally be able to claim confidence in your decision. You can't rationally depend on what will seem obvious to you, you have follow a careful, unnatural procedure to mitigate the irrationality of human cognition.--BirgitteSB 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Emails

I am, as a member of the Misplaced Pages community, requesting that a transcript of the emails directed towards Rodhullandemu from the arbitration committee be posted/made available to the community. If Arbcom is truly representative of the Misplaced Pages community's interests, then it is the community's right to know the extent of the committee's activities. And if a ruling made by the committee is particularly contentious in nature, then it is imperative that transparency be maintained. It is my understanding that Rod has not authorized emails sent from his end to be made available, so I would only like to see the text of the emails the arbitration committee sent. -FASTILY 20:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support this, as a secondary preference to releasing the entire conversation with Rodhullandemu's permission. I wasn't the arbitrator who authored the emails, though. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support (and support SG below). Fictio cedit veritati . Lord Roem (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC) This issue really has been bothering me. Roger below makes me think of the other side of the issue. It really seems like a Catch-22: reveal the information and possibly hurt someone or keep it disclosed and put distrust on the Committee. At the end of the day, I am willing to believe that the Committee knows best as to this matter. And, another Latin quote comes to mind: Veritas odium paret. Lord Roem (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support and I have asked Rod if he will consent to having his side of the conversation made public too. I think this would alleviate the concerns some of us have about lack of transparency. --John (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am, as a member of the Misplaced Pages community, requesting that this spectacle and hounding of the arbs stop; if they do release e-mails, that's the end of ArbCom and sensitive deliberations in delicate matters. Everyone should go write articles, and express their views about this matter in next year's elections. No wonder so many good editors don't want to be arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While I share the "get back to work!" sentiments, SG, considering that the committee's efforts to shield Rodhullandemu from publicity over the desysop'ing have failed, I don't think releasing the emails is as bad for either the transparency in this case or for the future of private deliberations. Obviously, if everything had gone optimally, there would be no need to share any emails--nor any indication to the general public that such correspondence had taken place. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You open that door, you shut off any more private conversations about far more delicate matters than the unfortunate specifics of Rodhullandemu's life, which are already spread all over the Wikpedia for those who care to look and stop this spectacle before it results in airing of sensitive and delicate private matters involving a real human being. On the other hand, Rodhullandemu has certainly asked for it, in spite of the arbs' best efforts to preserve his dignity. People put things on the internet all the time that a real-world attorney would advise not to even say, much less write, much less write in a public forum. There is absolutely nothing contentious about the conclusion here-- the evidence is all over Misplaced Pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not advocating that ArbCom release any contents of its private deliberations, which I agree are too sensitive to be released. What I'm not objecting to is the release of emails sent and received--there are about 5 total. I've gone back and read Roger's initial email again, given his reaction below, and still don't see that it is anywhere near as sensitive as the deliberations. I'll defer to Roger's preferences, now that I've made mine known. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the email and believe that releasing it would create a terrible precedent. We write to people about delicate situations all the time and they should not fear the release of the email to public fora a day or two later.  Roger 21:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh? And why is that? What is in those emails that cannot be shared? Is there something you're not telling us? Do you have something to hide? -FASTILY 21:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No :) It's bad enough trying to write to individuals persuasively about some of the things we do without having to keep in mind that it might be routinely released to public fora a day or two later. While I agree that there's nothing here that's especially sensitive, I do believe that it's a very bad precedent.  Roger 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many people discussing this work for a larger organisation? Would you expect discussions about say a capability hearing on an employee, or the transcript of a disciplinary hearing, to be posted on the noticeboard with the announcement about the pub quiz? In fact, think about it, do you routinely get to hear when employees are disciplined or dismissed? Or is this considered confidential? It is sometimes appropriate to carry out actions in public, and it sometimes isn't, and if something was done on a confidential basis, it would require the agreement of all parties to make it public, and even then there are, as Sandy says, issues with doing it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Elen, one difference is that in a professional setting people are often represented, either by lawyers or unions. The difficulty on WP with private decisions is that there's neither representation nor transparency. I think a positive development would be to set up some form of "public defender," for the want of a better term, for people being sanctioned in non-public processes, and an assurance that either the subject or his representative gets to see all the correspondence. The representative could then act as a go-between between the community and the Arbs if needed (as in "I have seen all the correspondence, and I can assure you that ... etc.) SlimVirgin 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that such an individual can be found amongst the community that would be deemed to be more "trustworthy" than those we elect to ArbCom, with the expectation of felicity and honesty, or might be co-opted from the WMF - and they would be prey to all the usual accusations of bias and lack of transparency as soon as they declare a conclusion which counters an individuals (or a group of individuals) position. Unless the position is going to be entitled "WikiScapegoat", this is a non starter. Indeed, the effort for creating an "advisory panel" to help ArbCom better interact with the community was very quickly deprecated a few years back; people really are not interested in finding a champion of an uninvolved viewpoint, but rather a champion of their viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of representation, LH. The subject would choose his representative from a panel, and that person would be privy to all the correspondence, including material that was not intended to be seen by the subject. It would need some working out, but I think it would help resolve the private/public dilemma. SlimVirgin 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Or, to follow the analogy, if an employee was dismissed and believes the dismissal to be unfair, should they have redress? Or should it be ok for the employer to say "we did what we did in secret and we were right, and we don't need to discuss it with anybody"? Let's see what Rod says to my request; if he is happy to leave it like this then I am, and if he says it's ok to publish the emails, then let's do that. --John (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Has he responded? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Elen, your analogy places ArbCom in the position of the all-powerful employer with the admins and editors as subordinates. Sorry to disillusion you but ArbCom are not the bosses of Misplaced Pages – as has often been said, ArbCom are not GovCom. Yes, you are authorised by the community to act on our behalf in certain areas, but that does not mean that the community is not entitled to question ArbCom decisions, criticise process and outcomes, and defend the sovereignty of the community. Further, accepting your analogy for the sake of discussion for a moment, how do you think an employer who routinely demoted employees based on secret evidence and refused to allow the employees to defend themselves or offer evidence until after the decision was taken would be viewed? How long would an emplyer acting like this would retain the confidence of employees? EdChem (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

EdChem: I'm not talking about making decisions without consulting the editor (although this is fairly standard practice in the HR departments of large organisations - if you've never had it done to you, count yourself lucky). I'm talking about not conducting HR business in public. Quite different. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing more that can be achieved from this discussion. For the good of all concerned, let's lay this to rest. ArbCom are elected to make decisions on the behalf of the community. I make no comment on this decision, but if the community doesn't think its interests are being represented, then they can voice their concerns in the elections in December. In the meantime, Rodhullandemu has two avenues of appeal—through a full case or to Jimbo—but the decision as to whether to follow either avenue is his alone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved the above post here. SlimVirgin 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC) and then placed in sequence EdChem (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) Regarding releasing the emails, I actually agree with Roger that the precedent is terrible unless all parties agree to the release. Further, it is not necessary for the community to be confident that there is a genuine problem here. JClemens has directly stated and confirmed that the desysop decision was taken before Rodhullandemu was contacted and that taking evidence from him wasn't necessary. Roger has confirmed that consensus had emerged before Rodhullandemu was contacted, which amounts to essentially the same thing. No fair and reasonable process forms a consensus amongst the decision-makers before involving the accused. Even if there was a theoretical possibility of consensus changing, presenting the conclusion as an essential fait accompli is a fatal flaw to any claim that the process followed here was fair, irrespective of the "correctness" of the conclusion reached. EdChem (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at previous examples

In terms of the discussions about process around this action, it would be useful to look at past examples. The case of a desysopping that I think was handled relatively well, was this one (from May 2010, example 20 in the list below). What seems to be key is to recognise that any expedited action (be it Level I or Level II desysop) should then have a follow-up review, and the public gallery should wait while that review takes place, and only comment if a public case is requested and opened. It would probably be worth assembling a listing of previous examples from the archives of this noticeboard (currently 6 archive pages). Example 9 on the listing below is another one where there was a follow-up posting after a review of the initial expedited action. It is now also easier to follow the parallel discussions that took place on this talk page, as someone very kindly fixed the links to the archived discussions. Also, for what it is worth, the announcement about the proposal about removal of advanced permissions was made 2 years ago (not a few months ago, as someone said above). Anyway, the examples of desysopping (or matters related to use of tools or restoration of previously removed tools) that I found are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 (last one an external link to the current one under discussion). That makes at least 23 actions taken in relation to administrator tools (ranging from admonishments to desysoppings) outside of desysoppings within a case, over a period of around 2 years. Some were by summary motions on-wiki (at the request page or the motions page or some other page), some were off-wiki decisions announced here. I believe there were also some desysoppings that took place before the noticeboard was set up, but they haven't been put at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 0, which may or may not be complete and isn't on the listing of the noticeboard archives, so maybe I am misremembering that. Anyway, the above should be ample material for anyone really wanting to sit down and do a thorough review of best practices (both from the perspective of arbitrators who will be able to review the discussions at the time, and from the point of view of those in the public gallery). Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflicted with the section below)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The above discussion relates to a decision of the Arbitration Committee in which an editor was desysopped for inappropriate conduct without a prior arbitration case or an on-wiki motion. Many editors have voiced concerns about whether this manner of proceeding was appropriate with respect to transparency and established arbitration procedures. This request for comment is intended to provide the Committee with advice about whether it should modify its procedures so as to take these concerns into account, and if yes, how.

Added to Template:Cent. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by Sandstein

The Arbitration Committee should not remove advanced permissions from an editor without either

• a public arbitration case, or at least
• an on-wiki vote on a motion after the editor has had an opportunity to respond (on-wiki, if possible) to the concerns that may warrant a removal of the permissions.

The foregoing does not apply

• if the editor has explicitly requested that public proceedings should not take place, or
• to temporary removals of advanced permissions in order to prevent their misuse for the duration of public proceedings. In that case, the Committee should initiate the appropriate public proceedings at the same time as (or immediately following) the temporary removal of permissions. The temporarily removed permissions are reinstated if the public proceedings do not result in a decision to remove them for an indefinite duration.

This proposal does not limit the use of confidential evidence as a basis of the Committee's decision as provided for by the arbitration policy.

Opinions

• Support as proposer. In order to address the concerns about transparency and procedural justice voiced above, this proposal aims at ensuring that a public hearing occurs whenever the editor at issue has not explicitly waived it, but without compromising the Committee's ability to take precautionary temporary measures or to consider private evidence. It is worth noting that the current arbitration policy does not provide for, in my understanding, any other form of proceeding but a public case as described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Hearing, so even an on-wiki vote on a summary motion should remain an exception rather than the norm (at least as regards new disputes as opposed to motions related to prior cases). The editor should be given the opportunity to respond on-wiki to the concerns raised against him, unless compelling reasons prevent this, e.g. in the case of possibly compromised accounts or if the response would reveal confidential information.  Sandstein  22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support The committee's actions regarding Rodhullandemu were neither transparent nor fair, and there is obviously significant community opposition to their attitude. We, the community, must establish and approve procedures that the ArbCom must follow to avoid similar future situations. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose For better or worse this is what we elect Arbcom to do. If they did it every other day, sure, I'm on board with this. Otherwise; fuck no. If this pisses you off; go form an opposing committee and get community support, I'd probably be behind you... There are a lot of editors talking about fairness above, bottom line is that Misplaced Pages, like life, is no fair. We are not a democracy, or any other form of -cracy. It is surprising to see so many long term editors expressing surprise at that :S How many of you have ignored disruptive editors who cite freedom of speech? Same principle :) --Errant 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as I understand Rod has been informed of his ability to request a public hearing is he so desires. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact is a significant majority of ArbCom-initiated desysoppings directly concern privacy issues, often stress/mental health related. It is wholly inappropriate to discuss these publicly.  Roger 22:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree entirely. But such evidentiary matters can remain private even if the process occurs in public, which is what I propose. This is, in my opinion, a reasonable balance between the need to protect the privacy of all involved and the community's desire to ensure that ArbCom decisions are the outcome of a fair decision-making process, which includes the right to be heard before a decision is made.  Sandstein  23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have significant concerns about what occured here, but do not agree with Sandstein's solution in that a non-public process is not necessarily unacceptable so long as it is fair. ArbCom taking a decision for a non-emergency desysop without taking evidence or inviting a defense is unacceptable. However, had they initiated a discussion with the editor and taken evidence, and the editor was comfortable with the in camera hearing then my concerns would largely be addressed. Even starting with an emergency desysop (which is within ArbCom's power) might be acceptable so long as the editor was immediately notified and explicitly told this was an emergency and temporary measure pending a hearing at which the editor's evidence would be taken (on or off-wiki, depending on the editor) and that the decision would not be prejudiced by the temporary desysop. In that case, it would be desirable for the decision to emergency desysop be taken by (say) 5 arbitrators who would then present evidence at the hearing and recuse from the decision-making process that followed. ArbCom deals with personal and sensitive information and should not be forced to place such information on-wiki, but standards of fairness in decision-making are still essential. EdChem (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Disregarding the issue of whether Rh&e (an admin I have supported) has been "unfairly treated", I do not wish to see any furtherance of the near impossibility of removing advanced permissions from editors that currently exists. In this instance, the community can quickly determine whether Rh&e should continue to use sysop flags by commenting in a RFA; the former admin only needs to start one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Obviously I'm not going to offer an opinion, as you want to get the opinion of others. However, could you have a think as to what you would do in a situation (doesn't apply in this case) where there is third party confidential information involved, or where arbcom has confidential information about the admin that it doesn't want to disclose publicaly, but the admin is firmly refusing to accept the pearl handled revolver (I'm thinking an instance the previous committee did have where the admin had some kind of psychotic break, and it really wouldn't have been fair to trundle all that out onwiki, even though the chap concerned was convinced he was peachy keen). Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The evidence on which the decision is based can and should remain private in such circumstances (the problems can be described in appropriately general terms), but this should not prevent the procedure from being subject to public scrutiny.  Sandstein  22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Define how this would work in practice. I can't see how you can scrutinise the procedure - how would you scrutinise an HR procedure at work that was confidential and you weren't privy to. Stand outside the door while the meeting took place?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking your mental health example, how about posting a motion that says: "Because of private evidence relating to Foo's ability to exercise the function of an administrator, after having asked Foo to comment on this evidence by e-mail of (date), and with no reply having been received by (date), Foo is desysopped", and then voting on this in public.  Sandstein  23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So this isn't really about scrutinising the procedure - that's just different words. Do you really think a different set of words would avoid a shitstorm? If we had said 'Following the recent report at ANI, and a private exchange of correspondence between Rodhullandemu and the Committee concerning same, Rod is desysopped', followed by posting the sigs of all the Arbs that had already voted behind the scenes, would that really have been any better?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because in this case it would not have been clear that the editor had an opportunity to know (a) what specific concerns the Committee has about him (a link to an ANI discussion isn't enough, as such discussions typically contain many and varied opinions) and (b) that he had an opportunity to respond to these concerns before the Committee voted to desysop him.  Sandstein  23:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you'd still be in a position where the Arbs were saying one thing and the editor was saying another, same as you are now. You'd have no mechanism by which you could know who was right without seeing the correspondence. It's still how can you publically scrutinise a private process. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't, but if you have a public vote, then there is no need to scrutinise the private process, because all can see that the editor did have an opportunity to respond to the charges against him before the vote concludes. Of course, in practice, almost all people (including me) will believe ArbCom if it says A and one editor says B, but in general, transparency is preferable to trust.  Sandstein  23:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

But if the editor has to post an onwiki rebuttal, any privacy will be lost. Are you saying that desysops must be held in public then? Because if your response is 'he could respond by email', it comes back round to how would you know. Arbcom says he responded, he says he didn't. Again, how is this any different to what we have at the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How can we both offer a chance to resign privately in lieu of a desysop and hold the "real" vote on-wiki? Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the editor does take the offer and resigns on their own, then there is no removal of permissions by the Committee, and no proceedings, public or otherwise, need to occur. If they do not take the offer, there is a dispute that needs to be resolved in a transparent process.  Sandstein  23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that could work with a first, private vote to "resign or desysop", private communications, and then a public vote to desysop. It wouldn't have changed the outcome in this case at all, to the best of my understanding--what you got was a reposting of the "first vote" tally in lieu of a second, on-wiki vote. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My concerns do not relate to the outcome, which is very likely correct, but to how it was arrived at. It is in the Committee's own interest to choose a procedure that ensures that it can prove that the editor had an opportunity to be heard, even if the evidence and deliberations remain private.  Sandstein  23:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, if the editor has to respond onwiki then privacy must be compromised. If he can respond by email, then how can you ever prove whether he did or not. Think about it man! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in many cases (as apparently here) privacy is not an issue. And in cases where it is, the editor can choose whether he wants to make his statement in public or merely write that "I have sent ArbCom an e-mail to rebut these charges". Whether he has actually sent this mail does not really matter; what matters is that all can see that he had an opportunity to do so.  Sandstein  00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• • (ec) You've got it backwards, Sandstein: the evidence and outcome is public, the deliberations and communications are private. If the evidence is sufficient to justify the outcome, and the Arbs asserts that we've held our deliberations, why is there a need to "show our work"? With a committee of 18, about 15 of whom are currently active, the best assurance that ArbCom is handling things in an above-board manner is the size and diversity of the committee. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Other commentI'm not sure what the significance of the onwiki vote is. In this instance, we held an offwiki vote immediately prior to issuing the motion, which was unanimous. Other than giving more warning/time for gossip, what would the purpose of the onwiki vote be. Perhaps you might want to bring that out a bit further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• To bring the process to the community's attention and to thereby ensure that the editor at issue has an opportunity to be heard before the decision is made. It is not clear that such an opportunity was provided in this case.  Sandstein  22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And how would you do that. It seems in this case that what's happened is that the committee is saying that the editor was given an opportunity to comment, and the editor is saying he wasn't. With the actual evidence in camera, how are you going to tell who is right (or if it's just a mismatch of expectations). As above, can you give more detail on how you envisage scrutinising the procedure without access to the evidence? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

With a public case or vote, the question of whom to believe about whether the editor had an opportunity to be heard would not arise, because the editor would have at least the opportunity to comment after the motion was posted on-wiki.  Sandstein  23:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So we post the motion and the 15 or whatever arb signatures (3 were unavailable I think without looking), and he has the opportunity to post a rebuttal. How is that different to what we did? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference lies in that in your example, his statement is merely a rebuttal but he has no opportunity to influence a decision that has already been taken. (I realize that I may be very much influenced by my professional experience as an administrative lawyer, where audi alteram partem is of paramount importance even in inquisitorial proceedings.)  Sandstein  23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

But in what you're saying it would still only be a rebuttal. Whoever at the start of the whole discussion said that the problem was that any appeal has to be made to the same jury who found against the plaintiff was right. It's that, if anything, that's the problem (if it is a problem). If the committee has examined the evidence, discussed it, considered that the chap ought to be desysopped, offered him the pearl handled revolver, discussed it with the chap, and he won't go...of what significance is having the arbs post the message onwiki with onwiki signatures. Yes the chap could if he wished make an appeal to the gallery, he could ask to have an entire arbitration case if he wanted. In what way is that different to the situation we are in now? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I suggested in the discussion above that the initial desysop decision be made by a panel. But even if not, a situation where you tell a user "these are our concerns, you may resign or give reasons why you should not be desysopped" differs materially from a situation where you say "these are our concerns and you will be desysopped unless you resign".  Sandstein  00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That was the devil's bargain I was faced with: "Go or be pushed". The language of the email I got from Roger Davies made that quote plain; however, I strongly disagreed with the allegations against me and should have been given an opportunity to meet them, which is why I asked for "further and better particulars" of the case against me. There's considerable cogent discussion elsewhere as to the treatment of my post to WP:ANI in relation to an edit-war in which I was allegedly involved, all of which seems to have been ignored by Arbcom, because it seems like the trial in Alice in Wonderland: "sentence first, evidence later". As regards talk of "rebuttal" that is total red herring: I wasn't told the evidence against me, even when I asked for it. That is only one reason why this whole thing puts Misplaced Pages's governance in no good light as far as the public are concerned. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Newyorkbrad summed it up years ago:

  Last month, a situation arose that should have been addressed discreetly by senior administrators and with a minimum of public discussion. Instead, it became the topic of extensive discussion on-Wiki that caused egregious harm to vulnerable editors. ... The community needs to be more skilled in identifying and dealing with the (rare) sensitive situations like this that need to be investigated and resolved in a highly sensitive and confidential fashion. Newyorkbrad 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  The community has long decried that we have no effective desysopping procedures even in egregious and obvious cases (such as the one that led to this RFC), yet when the arbs did what they were elected to do, with discretion and to avoid a public spectacle involving sensitive personal details of a real person's life, they have been hounded. Buck up arbs: you knew you weren't elected to be "popular", and the outcry by a few dissenters here after a perfectly appropriate handling of a desysopping-- for which there was already adequate community support at ANI, and ample on-Wiki evidence -- is unjustified. This isn't the real world: anyone who thinks their Wikilife is over because they can't block a vandal probably needs a Wikibreak anyway. And all of those hounding the arbs over this should be resoundingly remembered in next year's arb elections, if anyone is still stupid enough to run after this spectacle. Sensitive and personal details should remain so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Rather than proposing changes, it might be better for a review to be done of the previous cases of non-case actions relating to admin tools (mostly, but not all, desysoppings). There are around 23 of these available now for anyone wanting to do a retrospective review (see here), though it is probably best done by ArbCom in the first instance, as it is their working practices that may be modified and they will also know which ones needed handling sensitively but rapidly at the time. Other than that, I agree with Sandy - the problem is expecting certain elements of the community to do anything other than assume the worst of ArbCom when they plead that sensitivity is required. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I know of at least one past case where I strongly oppose a re-examination for the very same reasons involved in this case-- vulnerable parties should not have personal and sensitive details reviewed on Wiki. So, no to this as well, unless it's done in private. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant a review of the processes and best practices, not a review of the decisions reached. Obviously in cases such as the one you mention, such a review of the processes used could only be done by ArbCom, but one of the advantages of new arbitrators arriving each year is that they can be asked to look at how things were done in the past and to give an objective view on whether things could be have been done better. In my view, the main things needed are to be clear on the reasons for process, to ensure communication takes place and that each party knows what is required of them at each stage, and to wait until things are clear (resisting calls from the public gallery for immediate actions). The final thing is for the statement issued on-wiki to make clear that the steps were followed and opportunities made available at each step of the way. See the examples I pointed to earlier where follow-up postings made things clearer following the initial action. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering we almost elected Sandstein, I'm no longer comfortable with even current arbs reviewing past cases, and will factor that new Arb election processes have resulted in arbs elected with lower support tallies into any future arbcases requiring disclosure of sensitive personal information. But I understand your point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of a logging/need-to-know process for such information. I haven't looked at any past private info that hasn't been brought up by longer-serving arbs as being relevant to a current case... but you have only my say-so on that. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per LessHeard vanU and SandyGeorgia.  -- Lear's Fool 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. Please read the onwiki material on this, then consider the increasingly thin or non-existent reasons offered by Rod for refusing to show anybody his e-mails, and then form your opinion of this sad series of events. Did we elect the arbcom to have them savage vulnerable editors? No. Then why insist that they do so now? Bishonen | talk 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC). P.S. And did we elect Sandstein to sit on ArbCom? Not quite, but, my god, we almost did. That was stupid, stupid, stupid. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

• I do not advocate making sensitive information public in any form. I am merely advocating for a sufficiently transparent process to ensure that the affected person has had an opportunity to respond to any concerns before a decision is made. See my reply to Elen, above, for how this might work in practice.  Sandstein  23:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion Elen's response to you makes a lot more sense than yours to her. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

• Comment Sandstein, LHvU, SG and Bish make good points. Furthermore, communications are not often as clear-cut as one would like. Really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to see us develop an advocacy system to be used in non-public processes that result in sanctions, whether involving admins or anyone else. Any editor subject to non-public sanction by ArbCom should have the right to choose a "public defender" from a panel of volunteers screened in advance as appropriate. The advocates will be given full access to the correspondence. This would mean that all cases before ArbCom would involve either transparency or representation. SlimVirgin 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I know of one case where this worked well (a now deceased editor intervened on the behalf of someone who was drug into an arbcase to review private sensitive e-mails that she had received from a subsequently banned editor, to help avoid making them public ), but what if the "advocates" later revealed private, sensitive information? No, we don't elect advocates, and we can't take that risk. ArbCom is elected-- what is written to them should be private. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The problem lies with people possibly being sanctioned on the basis of evidence even they may not have seen, and which may not be correct or fair. There has to be a way to challenge evidence. Where it's very sensitive, the idea of having a representative—from a carefully chosen panel (e.g. bureaucrats and stewards)—who must be shown all the correspondence, would be a compromise. (I'm not saying that happened here by the way, that Rod was sanctioned on the basis of evidence he didn't see; I'm only suggesting this for the future.) SlimVirgin 23:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think this idea has significant merit, and it is an option I would be happy to explore; perhaps in a separate forum. At the end of the day if an accused editor asks someone to help organise their defence in such proceedings then there is no real way Arbcom can refuse access to the emails. I believe we actually have some sort of setup for this anyway in the obmudsman positions? This could be extended to community appointed positions for editors willing to defend on behalf of others. The argument about access to private information isn't overly compelling IMO; arbcom's only limitation is a community election, and we know very little else about them, no reason equally trustworthy (indeed, potentially even more trustworthy) individuals cannot fill a different role. --Errant 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have been involved in close to half a dozen instances of deliberations with arbs over highly sensitive personal information, and if my e-mails were disclosed to anyone other than those elected and identified to the Foundation, I'd say something that would make me subject to WP:NLT. In most cases, the evidence was all plainly in sight anyway; there were no secrets and nothing the parties weren't all individually privy to anyway, as in this case-- only information that shouldn't be made available to The Whole Damn Internet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have to be honest; I'd trust someone I personally chose to represent me over Arbcom, who are elected only vaguely and poorly identified to the foundation, any day. Don't get me wrong, I support Arbcom. But I would not trust them with highly personal information, and would definitely take extensive steps to deny them access to it if the situation ever arose. Handling personnel information has sod all to do with duely elected commitees and identification procedures and everything to do with personnel trust. I realise that becomes an issue when there are two sides to a dispute (how do you trust someone the other side trusts...) but this works reasonably in practice in the real world courts system. Anything arbcom sees or deliberates should, in practice, be 100% available to the interested parties, period. And there should be no real limitation on the "defendant" sharing that information with a third party they wish to represent them. In the very very few cases where arbcom sees information that really should go no further, well, they themselves shouldn't really be seeing that in the first place and the situation should have gone to known WMF representatives. It's the sanest approach. --Errant 00:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who's BTDT a number of times, I'd say the only problematic arbcom decisions I've seen involved very public cases-- they do a fine job in dealing with sensitive information appropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't at all disagree, however I don't see any real issues with a neutral third party being involved in those private correspondences as an advocate. Imagine, if you will, if Rod had had such a person and right now he/she was posting here to assuage concerns on Rod's behalf. I can't help feeling that might have averted the clusterfuck. (or if it really was a whitewash then it cuts it the other way more deliberately). I see no real down side ;) --Errant 00:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To confirm, Rod has seen all the evidence there is, there is no secret correspondence from third parties. However, if there were, as I commented to Sandstein above, then it does become tricky. One could perhaps consider having a third party act as advocate or guardian ad litem, but they would have to be from the arb/oversighter/checkuser/steward pool, given that one would be handling confidential information. However, it should be borne in mind that the Arbs do try to see all sides, and there are many of us, so there is quite a round of views, and we're Code Napoleon, not adversarial in structure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per SandyGeorgia. -- Avi (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Mainly because I don't like hemming future needs in by rule. In general, editors should have the right to an on-wiki hearing, as it appears Rod was offered, but hard cases make bad law, and it is plenty forseeable that there be cases where an on-wiki vote benefits none and harms some. And I say this as someone who is concerned about ArbCom transforming into a legislature and not a body to resolve disputes; reactionary rules like this have the quite real ability to cause harm in the future. If folks have lost trust in this ArbCom, (not saying they or I have) well, there will be elections in nine months to decide half the seats; that is the check and balance on ArbCom power, not limiting the Committee's ability to handle private matters privately. Courcelles 23:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. For all I can see, what needed to occur here is exactly what occurred. This was probably the best possible outcome in a scenario where an editor's reputation could have been permanently damaged by on-wiki proceedings, either by his own hand or by others. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal, Fully Support ArbCom Decision and Shame on those stirring up drama, with the exception of RH&E who deserves our consideration and understanding. When an editor goes so far off the rails that the elected representatives of the community concur nem con that he should not continue to be an administrator, we should be express our understanding for the editor involved, not use them, in their evidently distressed state, as a means to score points or air grievances. ArbCom is an elected body, and it is a body that conducts itself in a democratic fashion. Editors who disagree with ArbCom's actions have the same recourse as citizens in any representative democracy: they can vote for someone else next time. Geometry guy 01:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal. Hiding behind a "private hearing" and then carrying out a public action related to it sucks. Public actions deserve public hearings on them. And Geometry guy, if we voted everyone out and a new arbcom in every time we disagreed with them, we'd have no new editors left to take on the job within a few years :) BarkingFish 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as being an unnecessary restriction on part of ArbCom's clear venue - the establishment of behavioural and other requirements for sysops (for that is what admins really are). After reading the wall above, I note only a few dominant facts: 1. The issues about Rod had been adequately discussed by the community. 2. ArbCom and Rod were in contact before any decisions were made. 3. ArbCom has the authority granted it by the community and, more importantly, by the WMF to establish specific rules concerning sysops who have a specific ability to affect Misplaced Pages in substantive ways. As nearly as I can figure, this is all that matters, and the bickering is of no value given these facts. Of course, if someone demurs that these are facts, that is another matter entirely. Collect (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I want to comment on two of Collect's points: 1) Absolutely correct--my vote hinged on evidence which had already been brought up on ANI, and to which Rodhullandemu had already had plenty of opportunity to respond in that forum. It's not like we found some new infraction which hadn't been answered, it's that we looked at what the community had been saying via ANI, including Rodhullandedmu's responses thereto. As far as 2) goes, it is my recollection that the email conversation and desysop'ing discussion were occuring concurrently. Since there's currently no plan to provide that correspondence for community review, I'm not sure how much that matters. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Looking afresh at that thread, and the storm it generated, it's perfectly clear that I was being misrepresented, ganged-up on, and perhaps deliberatly misunderstood. It's difficult to AGF under that pressure. It would only have taken one admin, or editor, to post "I'll take a look at this", and do so, before it descended into a meta-brawl. Is there really any surprise that in those circumstances, I may not have wanted to respond for fear of further mistreatment? Rodhullandemu 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • So you expected to plead "no contest" by failing to engage the community when you not only had the chance but were expected to do so, but then somehow escape the presumption of culpability in any future proceedings? If you could wind back the clock and do that again, would you have chosen to engage more directly? And, while we're talking about things you might have done differently to avoid this outcome, do you think that quoting a certain dead American actor-turned-conservative-activist in your reply to ArbCom constituted "negotiating with ArbCom"? Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
        • How is this a serious, helpful or neutral question? WP:BLP applies here as it does anywhere, and you also are in danger of violating the privacy that hitherto, you have sought to uphold. When was I given a chance to engage the community, in the face of an onslaught of criticism that seemed totally biased against me? Rewriting history is a wonderful counsel, but impossible. I'd give chapter and verse if what happened in the Walter Raleigh edit-war, with diffs, but haven't been given the chance, and this is not the proper venue for that. Suffice it to say that I asked for fresh eyes, to avoid being seen to being involved, and got roasted (and not in the comedy sense) for my pains. Well, hot dog! I won't take anything to ANI ever again; I'll just sit back and let this encyclopedia suffer. Please reconsider your intemperate response. Rodhullandemu 02:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but to which of my three questions are you referring? Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am sensible to the perception that ArbCom acts as "prosecutor, judge and jury", and how it can be viewed as unfair and susceptible to result in erroneous decisions, especially when proceedings are mostly secret. We should keep in mind of course that this is due to the structure of ArbCom, not arbitrators themselves, and that there is no ground to doubt their honesty and integrity in handling this matter. We should always look carefully at proposals to improve the system, as a new election will not change the system, only the people. I am not persuaded that increasing the publicity of such proceedings could be a solution, the idea of panel may be worth considering, although that should probably be considered as part of a larger proposal, I may have some ideas along those lines which we could discuss in calmer times. (nb: This comment should not be construed as taking a position on any of the substantial matters concerning this specific case.) Cenarium (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support To regain general community credibility, if not perform damage limitation, ArbCom should now strongly review its own procedures, and particularly decide whether it has a duty to act fairly. It's no use saying "well, you can always vote for another lot in nine months time", because there is the potential for similar damage to occur long before then, if they are prepared in the future to act as shamefully as they have done in my case. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Do people read these proposals before commenting on them? Several have expressed concerns that vulnerable individuals should not have their circumstances displayed in public. That's a laudable sentiment, with which I strongly agree. But the proposal specifically states The foregoing does not apply if the editor has explicitly requested that public proceedings should not take place. To me the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between avoiding OrangeMarlin-style abuses and sensitivity to personal circumstances. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• The "OrangeMarlin-style abuse" was not a matter or private vs. public as much as it was one arb (mis)speaking as if for the entire committee. The decision here was unanimous. And OrangeMarlin wasn't an admin-- it is within the remit of the arbs to desysop. No, the community doesn't benefit from these spectacles in general, nor is it benefitting from the current one, but comparisons to OrangeMarlin are wrong. In this case, I decided to forego the public spectacle, and not launch the RFAR, which unlike OrangeMarlin, would have happened if an admin hadn't intervened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• So secret proceedings giving the accursed no right to present their evidence are OK then? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's not what happened here, nor is it likely to happen in another case. Besides reading the proposal, read the entire page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is ArbCom, not GovCon. -FASTILY 02:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes "This is ArbCom, not GovCon." (as Fastily put it). However, the actions that ArbCom took in de-sysoping Rod was not "GovCon-ish" in the slightest. They were doing what they were elected to do. as Geometry guy pointed out, "ArbCom is an elected body". As an elected body, they have been elected to preform certain tasks that pertain to the Arbitration of situations. In this case, the members were doing their jobs; jobs that we elected them to do. If people don't like the actions that ArbCom took in regards to Rod, Malleus, and company, vote them "out of office" in the next ArbCom election.--White Shadows 04:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - In the event where there is significant risk of harm, physical, mental, or otherwise, to the subject of an ArbCom decision, it would be extremely irresponsible for ArbCom to make it public - especially if the evidence relied upon, which eventually has to be referred to in any decision anyhow, would have dire consequences. Do I have to utter the words "H Incident"? —Jeremy 04:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Short Brigade Harvester Boris pointed out the condition "if the editor has explicitly requested that public proceedings should not take place" as a way to alleviate concerns about vulnerable individuals. The problem is, that provision is insufficient. One set of scenarios where this is true is when it is a third party that is a vulnerable individual - if an editor is credibly found to be abusing a person, and the victim is unwilling to go through a public case, ArbCom may have no real choice but to carry out the whole thing privately as possible. At the very least, it is a difficult question involving the best possible judgment, which is part of what we elect them for. Another problem is that the provision forces the editor to explicitly request proceedings not take place. For certain kinds vulnerability, its unfair and unrealistic to expect affirmative action of that sort, because of pride, embarrassment, or a dozen other reasons. Not to mention all the times where it is silence that is playing a role in provoking action. What is better for vulnerable editors, generally? To be given the opportunity privately to go away quietly, or to have a case opened against them in public, held hostage against the editor declaring to all that (s)he is vulnerable? And how else could it be proven, except by breaking confidence or taking ArbCom at their word?--Tznkai (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Bishonen. Especially per her addendum. This is a bad idea cloaked in a thin veneer of reasonable sounding rhetoric. Also, it's process wonking. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hope I'm misunderstanding here, but I'm reading that as implying "And did we elect to sit on ArbCom? Not quite, but, my god, we almost did. That was stupid, stupid, stupid." is not only a suitable thing to write on a talk page, but actually counts as an argument?? --Kotniski (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I believe I saw above that Jclemens and others on Arbcom gave Rod permission to post the correspondence between him and Arbcom. Can you confirm that?

I believe I saw above that Rod has rejected posting such. Rod, can you confirm that?

I believe I saw above that Rod was invited to request a formal public case, but has rejected doing so. Rod, can you confirm that?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Good questions all, but all remains open for now. It's all about misinterpretation, injustice and accountability, and the results may not be those that might be expected. Rodhullandemu 03:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain, at least in brief, why you have not yet accepted the public case or posting of emails? Do you agree that Jclemens appears to have authorized the emails being released? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense, but normally if an admin account is compromised the person responsible for it gets desysopped or even blocked. We do it to rank and file users regularly, and we reject unblock requests based on WP:GOTHACKED. If anything it seems Rod was given more slack due to his long record here, which until recently had struck me as exemplary. And then there were more problems with his use of the tools and repeated incidents of incivility. And now we see these non-answers to simple, straightforward questions. I don't know what personal problems are affecting Rod, and if he wants to keep that private I fully support his right to do so. If those problems are affecting his abilities to use the administrative toolset in a responsible fashion and behave in accordance with the minimum standards of decorum expected of an admin then I also respect ArbComs right to remove the tools. You can't have it both ways. Or he can appeal to Jimbo, I seem to recall that Rod was at one point one of the most active talk page stalkers at Jimbo's page, if anything he would be predisposed to be sympathetic to someone who essentially deflected a lot of the nonsense that goes on there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm the first and third, from my perspective. I cannot comment on the second, obviously. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: The community does not possess a full set of facts

Just a reminder that the community is not in posession of a full set of facts concerning the factors and discussions that lead to this motion. Many have made suggestions about what the Committee could have or should have done; in many of these cases, the Committee already did what was suggested. I would also remind everyone that any actions or decisions of the Arbitration Committee may be reviewed by or appealed to Jimbo Wales, who has complete access to the factors and discussions that lead to this motion, including the email exchange between the Committee and Rodhullandemu immediately prior to the motion being published. I would invite anyone who feels the Committee has acted unfairly or without due process to request his comment. The irony here is that a public spectacle was exactly what we were trying to avoid. You may rest assured that the Committee will be examining this situation and its procedures to see what might have been done differently, and how we will approach similar situations in the future. –xeno 02:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You would be correct in the first sentence if ArbCom had been consistent about the allegations against me. The fact is, they haven't. Elen said above "it's all onwiki", and gave diffs. That is at odds with the email I got from Roger, which raised other matters not covered by those links, yet gave zero justification for them, even on request. It seems that this may have to go public, even if only to expose the inconsistencies between the allegations raised against me onwiki and offwiki. This is no way for a supervisory body to behave. Until tomorrow, then. Rodhullandemu 02:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do you really think most people like and trust Jimbo enough to appeal to him? I respect him, as do many others, but that doesn't mean I'd go to him for an ArbCom review. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo is a decent, fair man, as far as I have seen. However, he appoints ArbCom, and has no reason to overturn their decisions except in cases of manifest injustice Neither, currently, does he necessarily have the time to get involved in this, for his own personal reasons. Rodhullandemu 02:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perfect example of the Streisand effect :-) - Lord Roem (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Well, yes and no. There is little we can do to stop those who inherently feel that the mere fact of Arbcom is anti-wiki from posting comments to that effect, and there is an entire cultural group on this project who seem to have great difficulty coping with the absence of absolutely black and white rules. Not one person in this entire page has said that the outcome was wrong, with the exception of Rodhullandemu, whose view is to be expected. None of the suggestions for changing the process would have had any effect on any of the desysoppings that have happened in the last 2 years, except for perhaps adding another few steps that simply extend the harm to the editor involved. (Arbitrators live around the world, and we aren't all available at the same time...why should it take 48 hours to revote something that we've already voted on once?) *That* would be a perfect example of the Streisand effect. Risker (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, that certainly would be. Lord Roem (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just start the case already

Extending drama and creating a bigger fiasco over this than is necessary isn't really helping you, Rod. I also believe that these actions by Arbcom were not in line with the policies that the community has agreed upon, but i'm not going to join the shitstorm up above. If we're going to do this, then let's do it. Rod, do you or do you not want to start a public case on this matter? Please answer yes or no. If yes, then we should get this under way immediately to minimize the drama that always seems to occur in these sorts of situations. Silverseren 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment:

1. We elect an ArbCom to make difficult decisions. Sometimes (regrettably for transparency) it is best for those to be made privately.
2. ArbCom made a private decision, with email discussion with the person affected. Those with some familiarity with the situation can probably divine why (further clues in the TLDR discussion on this page).
3. The person now has the choice of making those discussions public, or of pursuing a public case, but (currently at least) does not wish to.
4. Further discussion at this point (if the person doesn't wish to appeal the decision) is to the detriment of the person, and possibly of the community's faith in ArbCom. Either we trust them or we don't, and the choice to appeal the decision (either to Arbcom by arbitration case or to the community by publishing the emails) can only be made by the person affected. (It's probably in the person's interests not to make any hasty decisions.)
5. Hard cases make bad law, and kneejerk attempts to reform policy without full cognizance of the private discussions is neither necessary nor helpful.
6. Our sympathies should go to the person affected that they ended up in a situation where this was necessary, and encourage them to move on from this and contribute to Misplaced Pages in other ways; our thanks and commendation to ArbCom for taking a tough decision which would get heavily criticised whatever they did; and then we should all move on and get back to editing.

Rd232 08:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply...

1. True. The problem is not that ArbCom needs to act in private at times, nor that they did so in this case.
2. Wrong. ArbCom made a decision without consulting the editor in question. JClemens has stated directly that taking evidence from the editor was not necessary. Statements from JClemens and Roger Davies confirm that a decision was made before initiating contact with the editor. The editor was presented with a fait accompli and a choice. The face-saving choice was perhaps generous, but it does not make up for the failure to accord the editor the basic courtesy of considering his evidence / defense before making a decision.
3. The editor does not have the reasonable option of having a case because the 'jury' has already voted and the sentence passed. ArbCom's actions have made a fair case impossible, and the sooner they admit their mistake and undertake to never again make a permanent desysop without taking evidence ever again, the better. The issue of fairness is fundamental.
4. Wrong. My goal here is to enhance ArbCom's reputation by ensuring that never again do we find ourselves in the situation of an editor being sanctioned without being permitted to defend himself or herself.
5. Hard cases do make bad law, but this is not a hard case. The issue here is a basic principle - take evidence before making decisions. As for the notion that you can't help to improve ArbCom policy without knowing everything ArbCom does (i.e. being on ArbCom), that's just rubbish. The OrangeMarlin affair proved that good policy improvements can happen when the community gets worked up over an outrageous action. The improvement required here is ensuring policy mandates what fairness demands: evidence taking before decision making.
6. My sympathy does go to the editor who has been damaged. I believe less damage would have been done had he been treated fairly at the start.

EdChem (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to give an adequate response when to do so would mean going into details of why ArbCom wanted to keep the matter private (I'm not privy to inside knowledge, but I think I know why). But essentially, you're treating this as a criminal issue (someone's been accused and convicted of something) when it is actually an issue of someone being found unfit for a particular, onerous duty. Rd232 11:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree because I don't think the private details are relevant to my concern. I don't object to ArbCom seeking to handle this matter in private - I think they were correct to do so - and I have formed no view on whether the desysop was appropriate. Their mistake was deciding to desysop without first presenting the evidence to the admin in question and waiting for his response. This could have been done in private, off-wiki. The problem was that evidence gathering should always precede decision making and conclusions should not be presented as fait accompli. The admin in question would likely feel much less persecuted had he been engaged in dialogue before the decision was made, and I want to try to ensure that no one else is mistreated in this way ever again. It would have cost ArbCom nothing to delay making a decision until there was a dialogue with the admin - if there was a genuine emergency a temporary desysop could have preceded the discussion. By not doing the admin the courtesy of talking with him, but instead deciding on a permanent desysop which was then presented as a fait accompli, ArbCom damaged its own reputation but more importantly, they have harmed the admin in question in a way that was not necessary. It is disappointing that the arbitrators do not seem able to recognise the problem. EdChem (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bravo, EdChem - You hit the nail on the head. It's odd, ArbCom doing this, cause I made a comment here a few months back on someone's AFD about staff here, with a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude, and was told I was wrong. Clearly I'm not. This is precisely what Arbcom have done. They've shot themselves squarely in the...foot, by making themselves look bad and taking a user's privileges without having the decency or courtesy to listen to the evidence from the accused, or discuss it with them before making the decision to do so. The Arbcom need to accept that in this case, they've done the wrong thing - they need to reinstate Rodhullandemu's administrative rights, and redo the case properly - you ask the questions BEFORE you pass sentence on the accused, my lords. NOT AFTER. BarkingFish 13:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the motion being published, the subject was contacted and asked to contact the Committee to discuss the matter. They chose to delay in doing so, citing personal reasons. This much is public record . When the candidate did eventually get around to contacting the Committee, the character of that discussion informed the Committee's actions.

Given the unfortunate fallout, I think there are certain things we might have done differently (hindsight being 20/20).

@Edchem, the desysop is not permanent, as we have not enjoined the subject from requesting administrator rights at the appropriate venue. –xeno 13:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, we are aware of the sequence... "prior to the motion being published" is still "after the decision was made". I am disappointed that no arbitrator has yet endorsed the idea of evidence / discussion before decision-making. As for the desysop, it isn't "temporary" in the sense of the emergency procedures, and not going to be reversed by the Committee, so "permanent" seems an apt term to me - but I am happy to use any term that more accurately conveys the situation. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The committee did consider the evidence and discussed the matter prior to reaching a final decision on how to proceed. The Committee made every attempt to include the subject in those discussions at the earliest stage, but cannot compel anyone to make contact in a timely manner. –xeno 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if I could accept that statement at face value, but unfortunately it has already been contradicted by earlier arbitrator statements. JClemens explained why there was no need to take evidence from the admin in question before taking a decision. Roger Davies confirmed that the consensus was reached before the admin was contacted. That evidence may have been requested after ArbCom decided to desysop is irrelevant because the decision was already taken. I don't doubt that arbitrators were concerned for the admin, it is just so disappointing to see that damage was done by a mistake that was easily avoidable. EdChem (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I share your disappointment at the way this has all turned out, and will work to ensure that removal of permissions procedures are clarified or amended to better handle similar situations in the future. –xeno 14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's write some articles

I should sell tickets

Gold Hat

Based on the brittleness of how this guy took losing his moderatorship, he's the last I want running things here. Let's get to work people. Lot of crappy articles that need upgrading. There's a whole world outside there kicking ass at writing newspapers and books and magazines. Let's up our game and drop the drama.TCO (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I have something to help with! There are about 300 cases that have been heard by the US Supreme Court between 2000 and 2010 that don't have a page! C'mon! Just find a red link and help out :) Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's really rude, both in what you said about Rod and also with the assumption that we aren't concurrently working on articles. Silverseren 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If half the people here (including some Arbs) spent as much time writing as they do pontificating and listening to their own voices, the encyclopedia would be much better.  Giacomo  07:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Did I read that right? Did someone above talk about writing articles? That is what the enemies of Misplaced Pages do, content editors. The only value content editors have is that administrators can block them. Misplaced Pages is now about the dignity and power and glory of administrators. On no account should an administrator be desopped unless s/he has clearly done something terminally offensive to the administrator corp. That means attacking other administrators. Why do you think there is such an uproar here? Being an administrator is for life. Desopping is a very serious matter. We cannot have administrators feeling anxious about it. As far as I know, Rodhullandemu never attacked another administrator. He may have obsessed about destroying top content editors who can do things he can't do, but that is his job. Many administrators can't and don't contribute any really useful content and it is essential for them to feel empowered and take the bastards down who can. Many administrators of that ilk profess to believe that Misplaced Pages has been basically written now, and that content editors are endlessly replaceable, and certainly always dispensable. But administrators are here for ever. Please, before you are terminated, stop this disloyal talk about "content", and support our glorious and beloved administrators. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I must trout us all... this has gotten way out of hand. Off to the articles! N419BH 09:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I do not think it would do us good to continue to discuss policy in a thread that relates to a desysopping that occurred in a private (and so, presumably, personal) context. There are some things that ought to be left well alone so far as possible, and this is one. AGK 11:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• So can the guy have his mop back in the meantime? ArbCom needs to remember that while, logically, being deprived of the admin flag (or being subject to other partial restrictions on editing) for a time should be no big deal, they are in fact dealing with human beings who naturally react with great frustration and anger to having what feel like punishments imposed on them in public and under an incomprehensible or arbitrary process. It DOES matter if, by its actions, the Committee succeeds in driving good editors away from the project. I don't know what happened in this particular case, but I certainly know of one past case where a ridiculous ArbCom decision drove an innocent and good editor away, so I think Committee members have to be a lot more sensitive in the way they treat their fellow contributors. (I'd have thought that in this case a "X's admin rights are temporarily removed while the matter is being resolved" would have been a lot more tactful and less drama-inducing. Though I don't know all the facts either, so this is just a loose suggestion.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In what meantime? I think your statement "I don't know what happened in this particular case" probably sums up the merits of that suggestion better than anything I could say.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a suggestion - more a question to those who say that the whole thing is unimportant and a waste of time discussing. If it really doesn't matter, then it can't be very wrong to do the other thing (and it would also diffuse the drama).--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment