Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Tiptoety (Talk) & Salvio giuliano (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Casliber (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Malleus should be added as a party here

A significant portion of this case concerns the interactions between myself and Malleus; it's inconceivable that a rational investigation can take place without looking at the behaviour of both editors, and this should occur from a fully neutral perspective, without rancour, although that might be somewhat tricky. However, any Arbitrator that has had previous dealings with with myself or Malleus should recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of bias. Rodhullandemu 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by MLauba

Proposed principles

Administrator status is a privilege, not a right

1) Administrators are elected by the community and granted additional tools for the maintenance of Wikipedia. This status is granted with the trust that the administrator will conduct themselves appropriately. No amount of dedication nor length of service can offset the loss of trust by the community — in that event, their administrator status should be revoked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

+1 Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In this whole affair, the sense that somehow dedication to the project absolves any conduct issues is one of the recurring factors. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But is ArbCom suited to determine a loss of trust by the community ? I think instead of loss of trust by the community, which is a concept difficult to apprehend, it should mention conduct expected from administrators, which is something ArbCom can consider, and the basis of it is in the admin policy which the community determines. This also relates to Carcharoth's comments in the next proposed principle: what do we mean by the community here. Cenarium (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are not infallible

2) Regardless of their personal conviction, administrators are expected to be receptive to community feedback. The inability to admit that the community sees a particular administrator's actions or conduct as incorrect in a given case is incompatible with the status of administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, good. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Cube Lurker and Carcharoth have good points, and I'd welcome alternate wordings for a principle along these lines. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A discussion at WP:ANI that results in no community consensus cannot be binding upon anyone. In this case, although opinions were strong, the discussion was closed without any community consensus being either reached or expressed. To claim otherwise is to pretend a falsehood. And in relation to the most recent ANI report that seems to be in issue, please see the second paragraph of WP:NOTPERFECT; what would you have done? In my view, I did what I thought was best in the circumstances. Tell me otherwise, if you think I should have become even more involved, please. Rodhullandemu 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. An administrator must be receptive to community input and be able to accept that as an agent of the community, they cannot ignore its feedback when it is at odds with their own convictions. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue would be, what is "the community". More than once I've been told that noticeboard consensus does not equal "the community" because you're only getting the opinions of the "vultures".--Cube lurker (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is also who are the "community" doing the "electing". The community at RFA can be be very different from the community at AN or ANI, and very different again from the community found in other places. What you really have is overlapping communities and local consensus on various issues. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The same could be said for every single action requiring consensus, including policy making or arbcom elections. There is no quorum for a consensus, the "community" forming a consensus on any matter is and has always been the vocal minority who bothers writing. As an admin, I cannot cherry-pick and decide that the "Community" is, for all intent and purposes, adequately represented by the people who voted at my RfA, but that a different subset of editors who comment on an action of mine at ANI are not representative enough to carry any weight.

Changing this would require rethinking not just the way we elect administrators but how we manage them, monitor them and feed back on their performance and conduct, and this is definitely not a matter for here and now. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, in principle I agree with this principle. I've dealt with admins who did cherry pick. For this to carry future weight though it should codify what you just said. That an admin can't decide that a subset of editors who comment on an action of mine at ANI are not representative enough to carry any weight.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@Rod: You were already under an ANI injunction to stay away from Malleus since November 13. You could, and in hindsight should have been blocked for any of your actions prior to the last ANI, in particular the Clown affair. There's about 800 admins active, including other some admins who had already dealt with Raleigh before your ANI post with a definitely not neutral title. What you should have done is resist the temptation and stay away. And what I personally find further shocking is your adamant refusal, over and over and to this very day, to even consider that your actions were out of line. As long as an admin is unable to admit that he may have been wrong, he has no business being one. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• There was no such injunction. The discussion was closed, if I remember correctly, before such a motion passed, although I did take on board the concerns of the community. And I avoided Malleus for almost six months before he started his antics again. However, there is opinion that vindicates my position on clown and related articles. Make no mistake, I have no particular opinion as to me abilities here, and am open to argument and rational discussion. But Malleus is one of those editors who will not even take "yes" for an an answer, yet alone "no". Collegiality is perhaps a word that he is able to spell but not practise. I'm somewhat comforted that in the last couple of days, he and I have met in relation to content on a couple of occasions, but make no mistake, it shouldn't be such an uphill struggle. I was fully able to admit my infallibilities as an Admin, when brought to book, and admit mistakes, but the reality is that the last three years, without serious complaint, have now resulted in this situation, and now I am being assailed by the "throw enough mud" brigade. That ignores the good admin work I've done here, and to me is nothing short of disgusting. Words fail me. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrative conduct

3) Due to their status, administrators are subject to higher expectations from the community, and perceived as the de facto official face of Wikipedia by new editors. When interacting with others, whether in an administrative or editorial capacity, administrators are expected to maintain a decorum in accordance with those implicit expectations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good, but prefer "Due to their status, administrators are subject to higher expectations in regard to their conduct. When interacting with other users, whether in an administrative or editorial capacity, administrators are expected to maintain a high level decorum in accordance with those expectations." PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Something along these lines is clearly appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Should be self-explanatory. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To this one, and the next one, I would add principles that apply to long-term editors as well. Long-term editors who have been here for years also influence the behaviour of new and less-experienced editors and administrators by their behaviour, and I would argue that some editors have been around long enough that expected standards for their conduct is higher than for administrators that have not been around so long. Some long-term editors are also very good at playing the "I contribute so much I'm entitled to act how I want" card as well, and that can be just as harmful in the long run. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes, it would be nice if everyone would stick to decorum all of the time. What disturbs me with what I read into your comment is that there is no equivalence, no way to honestly state "the other side does it too", because in practice, there is no level grounds. It only takes one administrator to block an editor no matter their contributions. Administrators are rarely blocked and unless I'm mistaken, it takes at least a month to simply fully revoke their tools.

An editor who has gained the recognition of the rest of Wikipedia did so solely on the merit of their contributions, and sometimes in spite of outbursts that lead to much comment all of the time. An administrator has sought tools which give them the ability to judge both conduct and content of others. When a long-term editor abuses a newcomer, in usually reflects badly mostly on the editor. When an administrator does it, it reflects badly on Wikipedia itself. Point in case, much of the off-wiki controversies around, say, our handling of Climate Change or, more recently, Old Man Murray, have put particular emphasis on the administrative status of some of the involved parties.

It is not a level playing field, and holding long-term editors to the same standards as admins, who have been vetted to become judges on content and conduct of others. It is a platitude to say that with power comes responsibility. The responsibility that comes with the reputation an editor has gained for their competence is certainly desirable, and we have many long term contributors who are perfect role models for everyone else. But we cannot codify this.

Last but not least, long-term editors who actively seek strife (as opposed to those who react, sometimes too vigorously, when engaged) have always found that in the end, their contributions offer no shield from a year long ban. And in those cases it may indeed take as long as it takes for a full desysop. But an administator ran for the position and explicitly accepted to be held to higher standards. And this is where we have to draw a line. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully endorse this response (without commenting on any editor/administrator whose conduct is being considered in this case). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators under an interaction ban

4) An administrator placed under an interaction ban with a particular editor is expected to heed the implicit loss of trust such a measure conveys and take particular pains to avoid even the appearance of further involvement, whether in an administrative or editorial capacity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I wonder if this could be better worded along the lines of "Everyone makes mistakes, but administrators are expected to not make the same mistake twice"? The principle extends beyond interaction bans. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Where is the interaction ban between myself and Malleus, and if it exists, why is it not mutual? Rodhullandemu 02:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@JClemens yes, but then it could probably be folded back into the non-infallibility clause. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by Chester Markel

Proposed principles

Abbreviated desysopping proceedings

1) When revoking administrative privileges under circumstances which do not require immediate action and outside the context of an arbitration case, the committee should inform the administrator of the reason for which desysopping is contemplated, setting forth specific evidence of misconduct in detail, except that non-public personal information may be removed. The committee should allow a reasonable period of time for the administrator to respond to this evidence before making a conclusive decision. Any desysopping motion passed should include evidence supporting the committee's action as described above, with only non-public information which should not be posted online omitted. When administrative privileges are removed on an emergency basis due only to concerns about apparently good-faith administrative actions, such removal should be temporary, pending more thorough consideration of the matter as described above, or in a public arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, agree. ArbCom should modify the Level II procedure to ensure the admin receives evidence of misconduct, there should be a built in minimum period - perhaps 7 days - to give the admin enough time to respond, and the desyopping motion should include this evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Some very interesting points below. Perhaps a bit of context might be helpful here.

• This procedure was originally conceived as a way of urgently desysopping admins. It was intended as a preventative measure for situations where the concerns didn't quite reach the level where emergency desysopping by stewards was appropriate but where there were nevertheless substantial/significant concerns that needed urgently resolving. Most importantly, it was intended to be unilateral with the desysop triggering a full review of the admin's conduct. Detailed review would come later either by public hearing or by private case (at the admin's choice), unless the admin decided to waive the hearing (and thus implicitly accept the desysopping). I suppose the committee would be acting in the first instance as a type of grand jury, determining initially only whether probable cause/reasonable grounds existed for desysopping.
• Now if detailed evidence/rebuttal is submitted at the preliminary part of the process, it changes it from a simple determination of whether at first sight there's a case to answer to an informal but secret mini-trial on the facts. This exposes the committee to all sorts of accusations (didn't give sufficient weight to r, s, t etc; ignored u; overlooked v; were biased because of w, hopelessly involved because of x, y and z), which would all muddy the waters. What's more if the preliminary procedure were to become elaborate and drawn-out, and the admin were to continue engaging in disruptive behaviour in the meantime, the whole purpose of having an expedited/summary desysopping procedure would be defeated.
• This is the first time this particular procedure has been used and many useful lessons can be learned. However, the key point is that it remains an expedited/summary procedure for very occasional preventative use and it is probably best if it stayed that way.  Roger ^talk 19:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The problem in this case was the decision to try to persuade the admin to resign, which only got part of the way through the process. I think (and this is just a personal view) that if this included a proviso that the communication could be offwiki if the administrator requests, or if the case revolves around personal info (if the main reason for desysop is that the admin has suffered a mental breakdown, rather than the actions he took while off his head, then you wouldn't want that plastered everywhere). I think the community cannot demand that a case is aired onwiki in all instances. In fact, probably the correct course is to confront the admin privately, outlining what the Arbs are looking at, and offering a choice to continue with a private "hearing" or move to a case. Including a few salient diffs in the motion is probably also a good idea most of the time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of this proposal, howevever I would prefer the term "redacted" instead of "omitted". While I agree the personal information doesn't need to be shared, I think getting a feeling for the entire context of the issue would be important. Should information be plainly omitted, the precedent could be used to justify a different set of circumstances without understanding some of the context behind the previous decision. Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't given much of an option; it was "fall on your sword, or be pushed". Not even a "we think you need a break from the flags because we think you take your job too seriously and could do with a holiday". A middle ground could, and should, have so easily, been offered, and discussed. Fact is, apart from a mini-break in Dublin 15 years ago, I haven't had a real holiday as such for decades. So I came here to give my best as well as I could, and this is the way I am treated. On balance, it's rubbish, isn't it? Rodhullandemu 02:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

While I admire the willingness of arbcom to address serious administrative misconduct without requiring a prior request for comment, or the delays inherent in a public arbitration case, you should always proceed in a manner which displays judgement and impartiality. While Rodhullandemu's behavior as an administrator was unacceptably problematic, reaching a decision to permanently desysop a good-faith administrator without his input, contacting him only to request that he resign in lieu of desysopping, and even then not providing specific evidence, and passing a desysopping motion without a detailed supporting rationale, does not inspire confidence on the part of the administrator in question, or the community. However fairly the decision to desysop Rodhullandemu may have been reached, your actions have caused needless acrimony. A comparison to the process for revoking editing privileges (any administrator can block, without any prior discussion) really isn't apt, since such decisions can be appealed to, and reversed by, other administrators in appropriate circumstances. Arbcom actions, by contrast, are essentially non-appealable, in that they can only be revised by the same arbitrators who imposed them, their successors in office, or Jimbo Wales, who has yet to undo any of the committee's work. Requiring more process for desysopping than blocking isn't a matter of elevating administrators to a higher status than ordinary editors, but simply ensuring that administrators receive a level of consideration appropriate for the durability of the sanction imposed. Chester Markel (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The above looks a little too squeamish about restricting an administrator, even where a plausible case of good faith can be made out. At Level 2, it makes sense that you immediately indefinately restrict the adminstrator's privileges, whenever it appears to the commitee that such is warranted. After that, allow for an answer from the restricted adminstrator based on, if requested, public presentation of the evidence that the commitee relied on. This would put presentation of the issue to put everything in the public arena, solely in the hands of the restricted administrator, while at the same time respecting that fact that the restricted adminstrator, has been entrusted with a substantial privilage, and can do alot of damage, if they are left with the power to do so. All administators should already be presumed to know what actions are expected and appropriate, and given the commitee's inherent pro-adminstrator bias (because they are all adminstrators) such should be sufficient protection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Georgewilliamherbert

Proposed findings of fact

History of good service

1) Rodhullandemu has had a long and constructive history both as a content editor and administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Community concern

2) Recent behavior of Rodhullandemu has caused noted concern among the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Sense of the community - Desysopping

1) Due to concern raised among the community by Rodhullandemu's recent behavior, it is the sense of the community that Rodhullandemu should be desysopped indefinitely, with the ability to reapply via the community process or via appeal to Arbcom if and when the community concerns are resolved satisfactorily.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sense of the community - Appreciation for good service

2) The community extends its thanks to Rodhullandemu for his longstanding efforts to improve the encyclopedia and its community and wishes him well. We hope for constructive resolution of the current situation and an eventual return to constructive participation by all parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: