Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 03:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  It's a Level II procedure Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Kirill is correct about the three options you have. SirFozzie (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 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 ^{[talk] [prof]} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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, "[n]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^talk 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^talk 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:Rodhullandemu con't for an expansion on this point. –xeno^talk 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 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:Rodhullandemu con't may also help to clarify things. –xeno^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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^(talk) 14:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

For the encyclopedia's sake

Resolved

 – Please take future requests to the appropriate forum. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

[1]. 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^talk 01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Nawlin Wiki is also active. It's ok, not much going on. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 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 [Rodhullandemu] ... – in other words, ArbCom did not request evidence from him. And, you confirm it: [Rodhullandemu], 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)

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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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^talk 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)