Archives

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

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

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • Your assumption is incorrect. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kirill is correct about the three options you have. SirFozzie (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Poor form. Prodego ^talk 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 airinig of delicate personal matters. We elected them, I for one generally trust them, there is an abudance 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)[reply]

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)[reply]