Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-07/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases

Open cases

Rodhullandemu (Week 1)

This case, which was opened earlier today, will examine the circumstances surrounding the removal of Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)'s administrative privileges. The Committee revoked the relevant motion that was passed last week (cf. Signpost coverage) and replaced it with another motion: Rodhullandemu's administrator privileges are suspended for the duration of the case. Rodhullandemu indicated that he will not be participating in the proceedings. 18 kilobytes of on-wiki evidence was presented during the day, of which more than 16 kilobytes was submitted by recused arbitrator, Elen of the Roads.

Monty Hall problem (Week 4)

During the week, another 4 kilobytes of content was submitted as on-wiki evidence, while drafter Elen of the Roads submitted additional proposed principles in the workshop.

Kehrli 2 (Week 4)

During the week, another 2 kilobytes of content was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while drafters David Fuchs and PhilKnight submitted several proposed principles in the workshop.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

7 March 2011 (all comments)

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Ugh. While I've never met him, from the evidence I've seen so far, Rodhullandemu clearly deserves getting desysoped. On the other hand, Elen's assertion that ArbCom went nanny state on Rodhullandemu is also correct, and deserves condemnation. This is an ugly affair all around, but then again, most things involving ArbCom meet that description. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whenever ArbCom decides to remove any kind of administrator privileges, be it admin, checkuser, oversight, or whatever, it's probably best that they don't publicly give a specific reason. They should just announce it with something like, "The Committee has removed user:so-and-so's administrative privileges. The committee will have no further comment on the matter." Then, the Committee members should studiously ignore all the resulting Henny Penny drama that results. A desysopped editor is, usually, still allowed to participate in Wikipedia as an editor, which is supposed to be the default status for all of us. If the committee would do this every time, eventually people would come to react with shrugs whenver it takes place, because it will no longer be a big deal. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About