Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | Rodhullandemu

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 16 March 2011 (→‎Previous interactions with Malleus: cite4). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Tiptoety (Talk) & Salvio giuliano (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Casliber (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Elen of the Roads

Rodhullandemu is a prolific admin and anti-vandal fighter, and is often very helpful to new editors, but he can also be uncivil, has a habit of owning articles, edit-warring and using admin tools in disputes, resulting in several appearances at WP:ANI, and two blocks by other admins. I do recognise that admins and vandal fighters get a great deal of flak and can regularly end up at ANI, but Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. These problems go back to 2008, but seem to have increased in frequency and severity in the last nine months or so.

Earlier problems

  • 5 July 2008 - ANI report: edit warring then indefinitely blocking the other editor (Betacommand)
  • 8 July 2008 - ANI report: edit warring over a source, then indefinitely blocking the other editor (new editor). Block reduced to time served.
  • 15 September 2008 "Just fuck off, will you? We don't need your shite", followed by (to the same user) "I'd rather die than let people like this edit here" [1] —the edits in question about which he'd "rather die" were, four pieces of trivial vandalism to the birthdates of minor celebrities, and a joke edit to River.
  • 1 August 2009- overturning a block on an editor who was supporting him in an edit war. (GriffinofWales) Block reinstated by Prodego.
  • 11 July 2010 "I'm here at least twelve hours a day, and seven days a week, minimum … don't criticise me for playing the admin card, because above most other editors, I have the right to do so, because I am committed to our mission".

Conduct unbecoming - unsuitable comments in block and edit summaries

Following this, there is a long interval punctuated by comments, mostly it must be said aimed at vandalising editors. I've worked in customer service for years so I do know what it's like, and I dare say most people have had days when we long to tell someone to f*** off. There is a need to cut some slack for our volunteer admin corps on those occasional bad days, but admins are generally expected to behave with a certain amount of decorum.

  • 20 October 2010 Rod closes a discussion at ANI in which he has been involved with the summary: "Going nowhere; as usual, no consensus for anything in particular; we have better things to do here: Nothing will happen. Wankers". (This appeared later in another ANI report)
  • 28 October 2010 Blocking reason: "Vandalism: tosser, knobhead- your call, but unproductive"
  • 3 November 2010 Block notice: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for stupidity. Go away."
  • 4 November 2010 Actual post is unproblematic - edit summary is "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!! Q wanker!!!" (You wouldn't think it was the same person - this appeared later in an ANI report.)
  • 2 December 2010 Comment on block of user with Japanese name: "And I thought Japanese women were such delicate people, worthy of respect. There are obviously exceptions"
  • 13 January 2011 Blocking reason: "Fuck off. I'm upping your block until you learn some manners." (Schoolblock)
  • 14 January 2011 This is an odd one. The block reason says sockpuppetry and adding unsource material. In fact, the user is adding copyvio, he's made five or six edits to an article on a tv show - and the added material was copyright, as can be seen from the talkpage [4]. The user has also edited logged out, and Rod has accused him of proxying for the IP. The user's contributions [5] confirm that the edit which caused the block appears to be the one on the user's talkpage, where he said the IP was him editing logged out.
  • 3 February 2011 "For fick's sake, NO, NO, NO, and NO again. Get to know your own pet band's history, you maroon."
  • 11 February 2011 Blocking reason "Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: removing block notices is disapproved; kindly grow up, if you can."
  • 15 February 2011 Response to editor with whom Rod is in a dispute. The response is not unreasonable, but the edit summary is "Forget the amoeba until he grows up, please".

Reported at ANI

In and amongst this, there were several ANI reports.

  • 31 October 2010 ANI report at which Nuclear Warfare threatens to request a block if he has to strike any more of Rod's unseemly comments.
  • 13 November 2010 ANI report which reveals that Rod is claiming not to have made the 4 Nov edit (above) with the strange edit summary [6]. He later admits that he did make it [7] but was not compos mentis at the time.

In the course of the ANI of 13 November, Rod was asked to stay away from Malleus Fatuorum, as it appeared that every time their paths crossed, a serious amount of arguing broke out.

The final straw

  • 13 February 2011 Edit war on Clown. Rod made a WP:BRD reversion [8] which was reverted [9] by Malleus Fatuorum. Rod then reverted seven times between 23.00 on the 13th and 02.00 on the 15th (27 hours), reverting not only the reversion of his change, but the inclusion of a source to support the original version.(Full sequence: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) Rod was making these reverts while discussing on the talk page with the editor who was reverting him. I would have said both were edit warring, the issue is that an admin is supposed to know better.
  • 22 February 2011 The final straw as far as ArbCom were concerned - this is what sparked the decision to move to desysop. An IP kept changing the spelling of Walter Raleigh to Ralegh - which is the spelling used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so it's not just vandalism, even if doing it without edit summaries, discussion etc wasn't particularly helpful. Rod twice reverted the spelling change, and the IP was eventually blocked by another administrator. Malleus Fatuorum, following a discussion that had been going on elsewhere about the ODNB and various names, then moved the article to Walter Ralegh at 22.06 and started a discussion on the talkpage. At 22:14 Nolancarey changed the spelling to match and Rod blocked them for 31 hours without warning, citing "Abuse of multiple accounts, or at best meatpuppetryy" [19]. The move was reverted at 22.18 and discussion ensued. In the meantime, Rod made a report at ANI at 22.14 that Malleus had moved the page. You can read the discussion for yourself, but in the course of it, Rod said "I've already taken MF's Talkpage off my watchlist, but if I see him vandalising, it's my job to deal with that." There was a proposal for an interaction ban, which had general support although the exact form was not agreed (should both editors be banned from each other). Rod's reaction was to replace his talkpage with the words "too many idiots".

Emails

For the record, other than acknowledgements and requests to contact, Rod received one email, sent personally by Roger Davies, which advised that Arbcom were considering a desysop, mentioned some of the concerns under broad headings, and suggested that Rod might like to resign. It contained no diffs - it did not set out evidence. Rod made two replies in which he disputed that there was a problem with his conduct as an admin, and forthrightly opposed the suggestion that he should resign. Neither Roger's email nor Rod's contain anything material to the proposal to desysop, but Rod's emails were taken by the committee to mean that he intended to continue to use the tools, and this (rightly or wrongly) led the committee to move that an emergency desysop was necessary. (Added 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)) (phrase in italics added for clarity --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Responses

responses to other parties

Response to Tijfo098

To be honest, I never formed an opinion as to who was right or wrong in terms of the content - it was the edit warring that got my attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC) He said somewhere (edit summary, talkpage?) it was a support of the original contention. I have no opinion on whether there is merit in the contention. "I am right" is not grounds for edit warring, and is usually something both sides are saying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Silverseren and Nuclear Warfare

In my opinion, the evidence above warrants a desysop for the admin concerned. If he or NW has a different opinion, it might be helpful to make it more clearly.

As to NW's concerns, I personally can entirely appreciate them. Arbcom are not going to thank me for saying this, but (in my opinion) their absolute conviction that Rodhullandemu needed protecting from himself, and that a public case should not be launched because it would have a terrible effect on him was, while sincerely held, an inappropriate case of what William Hague used to call the nanny state. There may occasionally occur a situation where shocking and confidential information from a third party necessitates a desysop without onwiki comment. This was not that case. With all the evidence onwiki, and the other party pressing for public comment before the motion was posted, with hindsight I believe it ought to have been done by case and that was that. This is a personal view. I know some of the other Arbs and some of the community also [20] believe that it would be better for Rod not to hold this case at this time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hasteur

  • Re: The Actions of Rodhullandemu. I can only recommend reading WP:ADMIN. If the community gives you the sysop tools, the community expects you to behave with a certain minimum standard. This is why Rodhulland emu ended up being reported to WP:ANI so many times, and why at the last such report (diffs above) the community were about to start the process of requesting Arbcom to carry out a desysop. With respect to Hasteur, I have to point out that only Arbcom, not the community, can authorise a non-voluntary desysop.
  • Re: The actions of the committee. The only action taken in an official role was the motion to desysop. Coren's decision to close the discussion was a personal one. I appreciate that distinguishing the difference can be difficult for someone not familiar with the whole rigmarole - perhaps that is something that needs further examination. In respect of Coren's style of closing, I'll let him respond further if he wishes, but there was a general feeling in the committee even then that it was of no benefit to Rod to examine his shortcomings in public. With the benefit of hindsight, as I have said above, I personally believe now that it would have been less harmful to him to have just started the case, but the principal remains that even "bad" admins are people - people who have volunteered to act in a community role - and some consideration must be given to the needs of the individual in all this.
  • The committee's arbitrary adherence to policy (both ArbCom and General Community) leads me to question and review the policies in place. I'm afraid I can't quite get what you are saying here. Would you care to elaborate? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bishonen

Rod's last edit [21] was at 02.32 yesterday (7th March), so I believe it is too early to say yet that he has in fact retired from the project. It is unclear whether the element on Rod's talkpage is contesting the evidence, arguing that it is insufficient for desysop, or just criticising the committee generally. It would more helpful to Rod if they came and presented some evidence on his behalf, if they do not believe his behaviour warrants a desysop, or even if they just feel he is a net asset to the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Rodhullandemu

Extended content

My impression now, in hindsight, is that the committee's attempts to 'soften the blow' in light of your continued statements about your ill health, has probably had a worse effect on you than coming straight out with all the evidence might have done. However, the evidence is out there now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, you sent me an email - in fact you sent me two. I didn't spontaneously send you that message. Would you like to publish both your emails to me? I would point out to others, that Rod contacted me personally, and I replied personally, so technically he is publishing my email in breach of our policy, however I do not intend to ask for any action on it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Rod. You aren't helping yourself you know. You sent me an email telling me to withdraw forthwith, and I responded with Sorry Rod, We will post the case against you online if you want - I've already pointed anyone who asked at the ANI summaries. What came up at those three ANI cases (July, November and last week) is the case. This isn't going to go away. That's not creepy, it's factual - this hasn't gone away, has it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another oh dear. I don't know what made you think that suggesting that you got your tools back on the first of April was going to be acceptable, even with your suggestion of a voluntary interaction ban (on interacting with Malleus). And you specifically said that this was your position, and you weren't prepared to deviate from it, so how is anyone supposed to negotiate with you? You didn't take my suggestion of waiting a year too well either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

without cogent evidence of "admin abuse" Points upwards.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, I'm a patient soul, but can you please knock off the personal attacks. They are not necessary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I say "rightly or wrongly, I took this to mean that...", it means that I took it to mean that, but I do not know whether I was interpreting it correctly. That's normal English usage, nothing tricksy. The Arbs all took your 'pry the mop from my cold dead hands' response to Roger asking you to suspend use of the tools pending more discussion, to mean that you would continue to use the tools regardless of any discussion. Ergo they decided to emergency desysop. Without mind-reading capabilities, I have no way of knowing whether that was actually what you meant or, if it was, whether it was your final position on the matter. It would appear from the exchange about your offer that although you say something is your final position, you still want people to continue negotiating with you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Tijfo098

Clown article

With respect to the clown article, myself and 71.141.88.54 found that Rod was basically right about content there; please read the last top-level section on the talk page there. Sure, one can argue about the style of disagreement, but MF seems to be wrong about content, promoting pseudo-scientific memes propagated in the mass media in "Wikipedia's voice", and being quite disagreeable with anyone disagreeing with him. (Am I in hot water now?) 13:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you gave the impression that you did parse the matter at a semantic level when you wrote "with the inclusion of a source to support the original version." Tijfo098 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Silver seren

NuclearWarfare discussion

There was recently a discussion over on NuclearWarfare's talk page, which you can find here. NuclearWarfare had copied over the discussion to continue it with the users involved, where previously it had been held at WJBscribe's talk page here. The discussion had been initiated by Arbitrator Coren in response to WJBscribe's statement before the case was opened here. Arbitrator David Fuchs also commented a single time in the discussion. Arbitrator Shell Kinney also began joining in with the discussion. I believe the information and discussion between these users is pertinent to this case, especially this comment made by NuclearWarfare. With NuclearWarfare's permission, I formally submit this discussion as informational evidence for this case. SilverserenC 21:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Hasteur

I see the case in 2 parts

The Actions of Rodhullandemu

While caustic and not the expected level of a "trustee", there appeared to be no explicit violation of Admin rights (though I saw many people express significant concerns about Rod's actions). He was edit warring? Apply a warning template (despite DTTR and WP:TR), write out a concern on their talk page, raise the concern on appropriate noticeboards, let the community attempt to sort it out. If editors are subject to double jeopardy (both through the community policing and ArbCom) it will lead, in my opinion, to a very stifled and bland community. Nobody taking a truly bold position for fear of being labeled and put on the chute to having privileges revoked.

The Actions of the Arbitration Committee and its members in their official roles

When I read EotR's notice in the last ANI thread that the committee was considering this, I expected to see a Case request show up in 24 to 48 hours. Having not seen it show up I thought the issue placed on the back burner. When I poked my head in from the central discussion and discovered a "archived with extreme prejudice"[22], I dug further to find out what was going on. To discover both Rod and Administrators acting significantly below the bar for civility was something I expected to not see. To use an analogy, attempting to douse a smoldering campfire with gasoline is probably not the best idea. The committee's arbitrary adherence to policy (both ArbCom and General Community) leads me to question and review the policies in place.

Responses

Evidence presented by Bishonen: another "final straw"

I may provide more complete evidence of inappropriate conduct on the part of Rodhullandemu later, but probably not, as it's all out there, perfectly visible, with Rod's e-mails the only bit which is exclusively available to the arbcom — and also because I don't want to embarrass him unnecessarily. He himself seems keen to, but will surely change his mind when he regains his sense of perspective. That is IMO the worst aspect of this case.

This is the evidence page, not an argufication page, so I'm assuming that the aspect that Malleus Fatuorum deserves to get to edit without Rod circling him like a shark has already occurred to the committee, and I'll say no more about it. (Compare [23] [24], note timestamps.) Anyway, right now I'll just complement Elen's diffs of Rod's inappropriate conduct with something very recent, and involving a few other users whose conduct arbcom might care to take a look at

I tried yesterday to persuade Rod to remove an obscene attack in the farewell message currently on his talkpage ("It seems that total commitment to this project isn't enough; you have also, apparently, to suck the right dicks."). There is little left visible of my efforts on the page, as Doc9871, Pdfpdf and MickMacNee took turns to revert me, but my original post read like this. The History tab covering the incident is altogether interesting reading. I hoped in vain for some hours that Rod would comply (I didn't have a lot of faith in the "retirement", and turned out to be right about that, compare [25]). Then I removed the bit about sucking the right dicks from the page myself. Doc9871 and MickMacNee took turns reinstating Rod's original wording; I suppose they found it valuable. Incidentally, if I were you, I'd take a look at MickMacNee's conduct w r t this issue generally. Not being prepared to edit war, I perforce left the page with Rod's attack intact (he has edited since "retiring", but steadfastly left it up; I regard it as a try-on). It's still there, bringing the project into disrepute and, for my money, making the atmosphere here less congenial than ever for female editors.

Finally, am I really the only user who finds it obvious that the purpose of arbcom's actions has been to protect Rod from himself? Once his words are on the loose on the internet, he won't be able to put them back in the bag at some future time, you know. That's a fairly awful thought. Bishonen | talk 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Response to response from Elen: You're assuming helpfulness was the aim? I find it a bit of a stretch to AGF to that extent, sorry. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Evidence presented by Rodhullandemu

General

I must retain a holding position, despite my apparent retirement from the project; there is so much misinterpreted stuff here that it requires careful analysis and thought, both qualities which seem to have been thus far avoided, insofar as WP:AGF seems to have been thrown out of the window. So be it. I didn't want to spend as much time as I did on my thesis refuting this evidence, and frankly, neither I, nor ArbCom, nor anyone else, wants a hard time, apparently. However, if it must be done, it must be done, even though it remains clear on the face of things that ArbCom remains intransigent in its position, at least for the time being. Sadly, this might involve publication of various emails between myself, ArbCom and other editors, but the bottom line is that this must be done to expose the full horror of the situation in which I have been placed. Can't apologise for that, since it's important for outside observers, and posterity, to be able to follow the links and make up their own minds. I've initially identified about nine heads of contention that really should be addressed, and obviously it is going to take me some time to marshal the links and the arguments. This may be difficult, in my current situation, to organise. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) @Elen "but obviously you are entitled to ask for the full evidence should you wish to examine it."[reply]

      • email exchanges readable here.

@Elen: I'm perfectly prepared to make our email exchanges public; the question is, are you? "This isn't going to going away" is decidedly creepy and borders on hounding, and I've been around long enough to realise that such exchanges are unacceptable either on or off-wiki. I'm prepared to give you credit for being a fresh Arbitrator, but you should remember that "The light that burns that twice as bright burns half as long". A step back is what I would take here. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen: Go for it. In the long term, it could have saved ArbCom a ton of embarrassment, and resulted in this being put to bed quietly with the least criticism all round. Sorry that you are still pursuing this, as if it were a personal crusade, but then recent events don't tell me much otherwise. The olive branch was the least I could offer, but you didn't even make a counter-offer despite my stated position. That's not the act of a politician; it's the act of a dictator, and you have obviously never been a politician, or a diplomat. I've been both, and am used to mediating difficult positions. To my credit, nobody has yet assassinated me in real, or political life. That tells me that although I have retired from both, I largely get it right. You ponder, please. This may be a small venue in such terms, but if I put my mind to it, I can and will, criticise those who oppose me. You are lucky that I have other things to do. Rodhullandemu 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen again: It was a genuine offer. Given my contributions here, it was the least I could do, but it seems that ArbCom weren't prepared to take it seriously, even to the extent of realising that the community wasn't happy with the way I'd been treated. I'm fully aware from my legal experience that the prosecution tend to be single-minded as to getting a result, and so do the defence. But when it comes down to the details, it's what will get through a judge and a jury. You have set yourself up to be both, whether as an Arbitrator or otherwise; the originator of this case, Hasteur, is not an involved party, but you are, and as Jehochman correctly pointed out, there is no prior WP:RFC/U. So it seems that bypassing established procedures is somehow acceptable here, without cogent evidence of "admin abuse". And doing so by a pretence of "temporary desysop" is fundamentally dishonest and especially so without the opportunity for me to meet the allegations against me. I hope you are never arrested for an offence which you have never committed, because on your own record, you will meekly accept it as the reality. Somewhat strangely, I will not. Rodhullandemu 02:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen, you could have offered a middle position, regardless of what I said. Rodhullandemu 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Raleigh, Malleus and ANI

Executive Overview: I've done nothing wrong here, in fact I have been misunderstood, misrepresented and generally not been assumed to have been acting in good faith solely on the basis of "give a dog a bad name" on the basis of the history. That's unjust and therefore should form no part of the ArbCom's final decision.

  • Part the first:
  1. February 22 : IP editor 76.4.127.100 changes the long-standing "Raleigh" to "Ralegh" in the body of the article, breaking image references in the process, without giving a reason, and is reverted by Icairns seven minutes later 1.
  2. 76.4.127.100 reverts ICairns, restoring his defective edit and is again reverted immediately by Mike Rosoft 2.
  3. 76.4.127.100 reverts Mike Rosoft and is immediately reverted by Wikipelli 3 who leaves a {{uw-vand1}} on his Talk page.2A
  4. Then 76... reverts, this time with an edit-summary "Since Ralegh was the name in usage in his day (as well as the name in the DNB) Ralegh should be the name on Wikipedia."4. By this time, the IP is already at WP:3RR, so I reverted and left advice on his Talk page that his edit is obviously contentious and should be discussed on Talk, invoking WP:BRD, although not explitcitly.2A
  5. The IP then reverts yet again, with the edit summary "According to Wikipedia: His most consistent preference was for "Ralegh". Why do you keep changing it back? It's Ralegh in the DNB. Please give a proper explanation next time. If you must change anything, change "aluminium" to aluminum" 5. Of course, the ODNB is only one source but it did need to be discussed on the article Talk page, not via edit summaries, so I reverted again (only my second revert) and warned the IP about 3RR on his Talk page, and again invited a discussion on the article's Talk page.5A
  6. The IP then reverted again, 6 and was blocked by Favonian for edit-warring and disruption. 6A. The IP was at at least 5RR, and I was at 2RR. So far so good; an intransigent and initally uncommunicative IP editor has been blocked, and I think correctly so.
  7. Less than a minute later, Malleus moves the article giving principally the same argument as used by the recently-blocked IP editor.7.
  8. Eight minutes later, Nolancarey performs the same edits as the blocked IP editor,8 using exactly the same edit summary (even down to the poor grammar), on only his second edit here, and I blocked him for evasion of the IP's block, per WP:DUCK, if not WP:MEAT.
    • Question: So far, what have I done that no other Admin should have done?
  • Part the second:

Following Malleus's intervention in the middle of an apparent edit-war, I didn't want to revert him myself, for obvious reasons. Maybe it wasn't the best decision, but I asked for "extra eyes" on ANI. Big mistake, and I was unprepared for the monumental deluge of bad faith that followed. All it would have taken was someone to add  I'll take a look at this..., but I was assailed from all sides by those that support Malleus, who assumed that my magical powers should extend to knowledge of discussions on the Featured Article project that weren't even mentioned by Malleus when moving the article and in fact, I don't think such a decision would have been binding upon the article without at least a mention on its talk page, and allowing other editors to offer opinions. So much for a good faith attempt to distance myself from criticism, and it seems that "you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't". But there is no rational way I could leave the situation untouched, which is why I sought to pass the overview elsewhere; to do otherwise would have been totally hypocritical on my part as regards responsibility towards the integrity of Wikipedia. This isn't, of course, seeking to own the article, it's a request for an independent review, without appearance of bias on my part, and for some reason, it blew up in my face. Why is that? Because I tried my best in difficult circumstances for me, but failed because there was, in reality, no way I could succeed in those circumstances? I tend to think so. However, I take some comfort in that consensus on Talk:Walter Raleigh now seems to have settled on the commonly-used version of his name. Whether that is the objectively correct name for the article is of little importance to me; that's up to consensus, and I respect that as long as there has been a full discussion of the full range of sources.

    • Question: Ask yourself: in my position, what would you have done?

Clown and related articles

Executive summary: A mess. It will take me some time to marshal my response to this farrago, but in brief, popular mythology and unsupported assertions just do not cut it as reliable sources in an encyclopedia. Some extensive pruning of articles is necessary.

Previous interactions with Malleus

I've seen Malleus described elsewhere as "cantankerous".[1] That's a wholly inadequate description, and "poisonous" might be generally closer to the mark. However, I have no interest in participating in this circus unless and until he is joined as a party to this arbitration. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and unless there is equality of opportunity, and comment here, I, for one, will not accept that inequality. It's up to Malleus, or other editors, to make him a party to this, but cowardice in refusing to do so is just unacceptable. Neither he nor I is beyond criticism, and he, if he is prepared to defend his multiple breaches of civility, should do so, and he should do so independently of his tame fanclub, who unblock him without even consulting the blocking admin. Some equality of attitude would be at least welcome here. Rodhullandemu 01:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "The Lolcat Dialogues". lolcatdialogues.tumblr.com. Retrieved 2011-03-16.

Block comments and edit summaries

Executive summary: There's a cogent argument to be made for the failure of WP:AGF as regards those who come here with only the destruction or compromise of Wikipedia in mind. I've seen enough to know that they deserve little. Should we be gentlemanly and courteous to them, hoping that they will see the error of their ways and become good contributors, long after AGF has been vacated? However, although I may lose my reason with such people, this issue numerically is a very small storm in a very large teacup, and open to interpretation.

Let's be generous here, and take a look at these in perspective; some of these are very old, well over a year, and did not attract attention at the time. But it's not only that, it's also the stats that should be considered. At the time of my desysop, I had 120,000 edits (all numbers rounded for convenience, without altering the substance of the argument). I estimate that of my edits, 1/3 are content-related and 2/3 vandalism/incompetence/policy/guideline related. That makes 80,000 such edits. Let's assume, for the sake of generosity, that I always issue a warning on an editor's Talk page- of course I don't, because for some IP editors, they are long-gone and doing so would be pointless. That leaves 40,000 edits. Up to 20 are specifically complained of. I make that, at a very maximum, 0.05%. I haven't studied statistics since 1985-86, but that doesn't seem in any way significant to me.
So if there's a problem, let's see where it lies. There are three cases:

  1. Vandal or other editor never sees the message. So they can't be offended, by definition, and others being offended on their behalf is something of a Mary Whitehouse objection.
  2. Vandal sees the message, is offended, but goes away realising that such behaviour is not tolerated here. Result! We've lost a vandal.
  3. Vandal sees message, is offended, but chagrined and/or chastened into reforming and becoming a good editor. Back of the net! We've lost a vandal AND gained a good editor.
  • I may add to this, but this is my first-cut analysis.

On due process, however you define it

Executive summary: ArbCom has been compared to the Supreme Court, and in some ways, there are valid comparisons. However, it is said that those comparisons are useless because there is no overriding constitutional process that guarantees rights against the State, or a ruling class, here. In this situation, it is better to look at the situation from the point of view of a social contract between mutual members of a common venture, which transcends some idea of "rule of law", although Wikipedia has many "laws", and transgress them at your peril. When it comes down to the common ideal of humanity, whether it be between two people, a tribal group, or a more structured society, due process takes on different meanings.

On why Jimbo should not prejudge

Executive summary: Jimbo has enough to do without being involved in the day-to-day running of Wikipedia. However, if he is made aware of issues that may end up being contentious, his position as a "benevolent dictator" predicates that he should not "descend into the arena" unless absolutely necessary, and doing so prematurely calls his independence into question. Offering an opinion may be fine, but if he will not answer relevant emails, even by offering a holding, or neutral, position, that doesn't give much confidence in his interest in where his project is going.


Replies

Reply to TCO : This isn't a !vote. Do you have any evidence or merely an opinion? Rodhullandemu 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen: Your comment above in #emails "rightly or wrongly" is unclear; kindly indicate whether the ArbCom was in any doubt or not, because that comment just isn't consistent with the position you've put forward on their behalf. If they had doubts, I should have been given the benefit of them, but it doesn't seem that they had, and why am I not surprised by that? Kindly adopt an intellectually defensible position, or throw your hand in. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {fillin name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence&oldid=419051421"