Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence

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

Elen of the Roads

Now that's how evidence should be presented. Clearly, concisely, coherently. Well done.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I try my best :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions raised by this case

Questions that this case brings up:

A) Was removing the administrative tools from Rodhullandemu a good result, based on the evidence provided?

B) Should all such details in such cases be held on-Wikipedia, despite health and well being concerns of those affected?

My thoughts:

A) There's not much doubt in my mind that yes, this was a necessary action. Please note, the Committee, in making this decision, passes no judgement on Rodhullandemu as a person. The last discussion on ANI got a good sense that the community found his actions with the tools and his interactions with other editors to be problematic, so much so, that only a comment that the Arbitration Committee would be looking in this area headed off a request for an Arbitration case. I don't believe that if we had accepted that theoretical case, anything would have changed, other than the amount of time it would have taken. Which brings us to B)

B) This is the crux of the issue at hand. The Committee tried to take action in such a way that would minimize disruption (asking Rodhullandemu quietly to step down as administrator, or at least to stop using the tools while a review happened, both of which were declined) , and avoid as much as possible, "adding insult to injury". I don't like going into personal details, but people who have worked with Rodhullandemu know that he states that he is going through serious health issues in real life for example. We tried to chart a middle course... as I said above in A), that this was a necessary action, but B) we did not want to take a user going through a significant health crisis down a path that had the chance to worsen it. So, does the resulting drama and issues mean that should an issue like this occur again, that we steer more to one side? Do we not take needed actions because of health or well-being issues? Or do we move forward with such issues publicly, and damn the human cost to editors going through a significant crisis in their lives who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours editing Wikipedia productively?

Honestly, it's troublesome each way. One way sits heavily on the job description that the 18 of us were elected by the community to do.. (amongst other things, handle problems regarding advanced permissions, such as administrative tools, checkuser and oversight), the other way sits heavily on my conscience. I know the general thought that Wikipedia is not therapy, but I feel like we have to remember that our fellow editors are more then just bits of electrons being displayed on a computer monitor, but that they are people as well. So.... how do we improve the process to balance taking needed action without unduly affecting people? We can look at the level II procedure that was used (I don't think this is the place, I think it would be best for all concerned that these case pages be courtesy blanked and/or deleted after completion), but we must remember to balance these competing factors.. SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Rod had heavily indicated both before and recently that, regardless of his health, he would prefer such information to be publically available on-wiki, it seems to render question B moot. The correct answer in every case, regardless, for this sort of question is how the person in question feels the case should be taken. If they feel that they wish for the case to occur on-wiki, then it should be done that way. If they prefer off-wiki, then that is also their right to do so.

In light of this, was Rod ever asked in the email discussions whether he wanted to have the discussion on-wiki or did Arbcom automatically make the decision for him, feeling that they knew what was best for his health? (Which, I might add, would be presumptuous and rude). Silverseren^C 19:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

@Silver: (Just passing through on my way to Commons) There has been no mention of my health issues in emails between myself and ArbCom. Never. I was given an ultimatum- "fall or be pushed". No middle ground, no negotiation, no mention of the "temporary desysopping" which, as has been seen, turned out to be not temporary but permanent predicated on conditions that may never have been be met. That's just wrong, whether you couch it in terms of human rights, due process or even some sort of social contract. To me, this whole thing highlights the arbitrariness of some of the decisions taken here. Although I mention them, ArbCom has not stated that my health problems formed part of their decision-making process, and I wish people would stop harping on about them; they are distressing to me, and I neither wish nor need to go into detail. Suffice it to say that in some ways, they have improved, but in other ways not. This is, as far as this arbitration is concerned, an unseemly sideshow, and kicking a man when he is down. Rodhullandemu 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They're the ones that keep pulling up the "it's for his health" defense. I'm only asking about it because they keep bringing it up. :/ Silverseren^C 19:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Has it ever been established that Rod was in fact telling the truth about his terminal illness, rather than inventing a reason to excuse his increasingly erratic behaviour? Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We have no reason for doubting or for verifying whether someone has an illness. And can you please just leave? You are not helping the discussion at all. Silverseren^C 19:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We have every reason for requiring evidence that what is stated as fact is in fact true, inconvenient as that may be for some. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed in that AGF assures that we take Rodhullandemu at his word regarding his statements regarding his health. The initial approach and emails were under the idea that we would take the approach we did because of the health concerns noted above (for specifics, see the post that RHE made after being asked to contact the Committee.) When that was declined, we took public action as requested. Indeed, this public case was authorized by RHE, as was his request that Jimbo look over things. SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is by no means uncommon. I'm not suggesting that's Rod's real problem, but assumptions make asses out you and me as the old saying goes. What health problems do I have? You? Why keep harping on about them? That in itself is unhealthy. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, I've left a comment on your talk page, but please, do not speculate as you do above.. if you have evidence that RHE is not what he says he is, please post it, if all you have is suggestions and theories, please cease. It's not doing anyone any good, I don't think. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll just note that Malleus Fatuorum has agreed to drop the issue, and wish to thank them for doing so. SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

@User:Silver seren: regardless of Rodhullandemu's condition, which I haven't the slightest wish to harp on, it's amazingly inappropriate of you to ask Malleus, the principal and long-time victim of Rod's aggression, to "just leave". Malleus has kept a low profile on this case (very much unlike Rod, whose attacks and vulgarities [1][2] continue unabated even when "retired"), ever since he persuaded Rd232/Elen to shorten Rod's harassment block. Would you perhaps like him to be completely silenced? Or to leave the project? Is it your discussion? Bishonen | talk 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

While i'm going to ignore and try not to facepalm at your worded victimization of Malleus, I should say that i'm not asking him to leave the case, but i'm asking him to leave off this line of questioning and constant badgering of Rod that he had conducted since this case began. I think he would save a lot of face if he stopped. Silverseren^C 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? I find your accusation of "constant badgering" to be absolutely astonishing. Yes, there has been badgering, but not from me, from you and your mate Mr emu. And that's been going on for a long time now, time it stopped. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you feel so hard done by, you should make yourself a party to this case, if only to vindicate your position, but of course WP:BOOMERANG might not give you the result you expect. That's all. Rodhullandemu 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to try and present your case in a way that doesn't make you look like a drunk shouting in the street. Wasn't that the phrase you used about me? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA; it's over. Either participate in this constructively, or leave it. It's no longer up to me whether you are blocked for persistently abusive edits, although I will not shed a tear if you are. Rodhullandemu 03:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your memory appears to be faulty. That was what you called me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In (partial) response to SirFozzie's questions above, this seems to be a good example of the difficult and unusual situations ArbCom is expected to deal with in which 'usual' processes may not be appropriate for unique circumstances (and the well-being of an person in distress certainly needs to take precedence). In situations like this there is no 'good' option and choosing even the least-bad option is troublesome as all the options are very bad. From what I've seen, ArbCom has acted correctly here and the situation appears to be a sad one for all concerned. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TCO

The fellow seems unstable

I know this is going to come across as a kick in the balls, but part of being an admin is keeping your cool in the face of drama. And this fellow has made a bunch of comments at least alluding to quitting the project in pique, to going off to drink because of losing disputes, and to seeing no point to the project without a mop, and also (I don't know the whole background) there are both kind and unkind remarks about the fellow havin some mental illness. Being an admin should serve the community. Not be some reward we give and are reluctant to take away. The guy has given a bunch of indicators of being "off". I know I'm going to get flamed for even saying it (and not going through the tedium of backing it up, but the comments are out there). But the emperor is not wearing clothes.TCO (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean if we had this sort of temper tantrum, drama-fest prior to an RFA, would we mop? I don't think so. So...de-mop.TCO (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: Please note I have moved this comment from the main evidence page here given it does not provide any real evidence. Tiptoety ^talk 23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. TCO (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 02:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not be evidence but it is what a lot of readers of this particular case are thinking. Rod seems to not be helping his case by posting in the manner he is. The more Rod states as a matter of fact while being refuted calmly and succinctly by Elen the more "unstable" he seems (I am hunting for a better term here but none comes to mind). He seems to be in a death spiral and not even realize it. 71.10.42.14 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"it is what a lot of readers of this particular case are thinking"; there's no possible way you can know that. I am trying to resist what appears to be a witchhunt as best as I can, and with little or no real support. Although everybody is entitled to contribute to the debate, may I suggest that from now on, your best contribution might be some silence? Rodhullandemu 02:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I am making generalizations and I do apologize for that. However, let me state that in my personal estimation you are coming off in your writing as someone who isn't aware your actions may have been detrimental. Others have commented at length in the numerous discussions leading up to this and at any time you and only you had the power to back off. Yes, others contributed to the mess but it was in your hands to make the right choices to prevent this. Calling other people names, ranting at length on your talk page, etc long after your de-sysopping comes off as someone who is "losing it" versus rationally dealing with the situation. Anger initially is expected and should be accepted to an extent. However, the level of rhetoric keeps getting raised every time you discuss this situation. Instead of focusing on what others did focus on what you did and how others have perceived and reacted to those actions. Unless something extraordinary comes along, this will be my last post so you can enjoy "silence" at least from me. 71.10.42.14 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinions count for nothing here, beyond interpretation of the evidence, and even that is open to debate. Anger is a powerful emotion, yes, but so also is a feeling of betrayal by those who are supposed to be colleagues, rational and sanguine. As for a "raising of rhetoric", I don't think you've really read my input here in the last day or two. Should I not regard attacks on my work here taken completely outside the totality of that work as anything other than an attack? Make no mistake, it is the duty of prosecutors to prosecute, and the duty of defenders to defend; and the duty of a tribunal is to to adjudicate between the two extremes. But when the role of prosecutor is confused with that of the tribunal, as it has been here, only ridicule and contempt for the tribunal can result. In some ways, it might have been better had SandyGeorgia proceeded with her proposed RfARB, but of course the danger to that process would have been that there had been no previous RFC/U, and it might have been rejected on that basis alone; as it is, ArbCom, of their own motion, initiated this circus, and having sown the breeze, must reap the whirlwind. But thanks at least to you for resiling from this situation, and I appreciate it. Rodhullandemu 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid using these proceedings as a means of personal attack. Contributors aren't given special dispensation because of unfortunate life situations, but neither are they given special disabilities. Any genuine case for desysopping can be supported without reference to the personal status of the administrator. Chester Markel (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The special circumstance here is that because one party claimed to be suffering from a life-threatening and terminal disability, whether true or not, the committee felt it appropriate to act discretely to avoid unnecessary stress. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that was clearly a mistake, but voicing suspicions is by no manner of means a "personal attack". Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The "evidence" above was offered as a substantive justification for the desysopping, not for the (lack of) process preceding it. You're recharacterization of comments away from their obvious meaning is a straw man argument. Chester Markel (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You are being tendentious and argumentative; I merely stated a fact, whether you like it or not. 04:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Discreetly" rather than "discretely", shurely? Rodhullandemu 05:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to consider investing in a dictionary. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Discreet" : Judicious, prudent, circumspect in speech or action, unobtrusive; "Discrete": Separate, individually distinct, discontinuous. Both from the Concise OED, page 274 of my edition. Which did you really mean to use, and which is closer to your version of ArbCom's intention here? Rodhullandemu 06:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. I meant "to avoid you any embarrassment". Malleus Fatuorum 06:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm much obliged. Rodhullandemu 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Process Duration

I do think it's important to Rod for him to feel he's gone through some kind of process here, but I'm wondering if there's any support in the community for trying to keep it short (cases often run on for weeks). I'm probably not the right person to suggest this though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Any "shortened" process will be seen and cast as a nefarious attempt at damage limitation - of ArbCom issues, not Rh&e's position. Give the individual a full hearing and have everyone conduct themselves in the exemplary manner which lack forms part of the allegations against the party. Hopefully a full, calm and measured case will be the best way in which matters can be resolved and parties move forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about cutting Rod off before he has finished. He needs to have his say fully. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Watching this, while I appreciate that the ArbCom people seemed to have had the best of intentions, at this point the result appears to have backfired. That's life. It happens. But another iteration of the same strategy strikes me as likely to be similarly counter-productive. Moreover, the speculation over the MacGuffin, err, email which prompted the desysop, is now probably worse than whatever it contains (I hope the eventual reveal lives up to the suspense which has been generated, but I fear it will be anticlimactic, as expectations have been raised too high). But while acknowledging the dilemma, I'd say proceeding fully is the lesser of two evils. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The email (now posted into evidence by Rodhullandemu) did not prompt the desysop - Rodhullandemu's conduct (outlined in evidence by Elen) did. –xeno^talk 14:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that desysop was warranted and agreed upon because of prior conduct issues. But it is also true that the second email—the "cold, dead hands" message—precipitated calls for him to be desysopped immediately, and his desysop was announced within 45 minutes of sending that email. Under those circumstances, I believe it's fair to say there was an "email which prompted the desysop." Cool Hand Luke 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it prompted the swift finalization of the desysop. –xeno^talk 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was it??? What a let-down. I had thought it must've been far more dramatic. Along the lines of the comments he sometimes writes which cause even people he's flamed (like me) to be concerned about him on a human level. People do know that "cold, dead hands" is just an expression/idiom, right? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I did say it would be an anticlimax. We just had visions of him doing something erratic with the tools (block Jimbo - although I'm sure some might say that was a good thing; delete the main page - someone did that once; or more prosaically, just block a load of people because he thought they were 'agin him). Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, while it's complicated to criticize a real-time decision, and I'm arguing against interest, but when looking over the emails a sense of urgency/emergency/immediacy utterly escapes me. He basically told one ArbCom member, nominally writing in an "individual capacity", to bugger-off. Granted, that certainly wasn't going to make him friends. But realistically, what did you expect? I assume this is what Jimbo was referring to as "threats to ArbCom" (and if that email is a threat, many high-ranking Wikipedians, including Jimbo, have threatened me far worse at times, and ArbCom sure isn't going to sanction him!). It really looks like the cause was that Rodhullandemu flamed the wrong people there, i.e. ones higher-up in the power-structure. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't think it was a threat of violence! But I did think he was likely to go out and block a dozen clueless newbies with really offensive block summaries. Which is quite enough to warrant taking the mop away. It's not as if we sent him to Devil's Island, just stopped him using the block button.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And paradoxically, just look at my block record. How many have been overturned or successfully appealed? Virtually none. Rodhullandemu 01:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone interpreted that as implying violence. But - note phrasing - I don't see where one would derive he was likely to be any more abusive in his conduct than he ordinarily is. I mean, if he wasn't desysopped for summarily blocking Larry Sanger - which in context was really spectacular in terms of poor judgment, especially from a claimed former lawyer - it's hard to see that mouthing off to an ArbCom member sets off the actions alarm. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the mouthing off, it was the fact that he still had a block button, and it seemed at the time that he was quite likely to go and block everyone opposed to him in the ANI debate, or all the Arbs, or a load of unfortunate newbies or something. He probably wouldn't have done, but as I keep saying, taking the block button away isn't sending the chap to Sing Sing, it's just turning off a tool on the edit bar. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see a "quite likely to go and block everyone opposed to him", etc. aspect in his reply. Or Jimbo's basis to use the phrase "threats to ArbCom". It simply looks to me like some relatively mildly rude posturing. The desysopping is hardly a human rights violation. But the above characterization is another lesson to always check the original evidence. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To call this a "real-time" decision is to seriously misunderstand the meaning of that term. Very many administrators, including Rod himself, are quite happy to block editors hours if not days after some incident that they take exception to. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if you are going to make allegations like that, you should put them in evidence, with diffs. Every block decision is different, and if it's not for immediately current behaviour, it's going to be for long-term conduct as evidenced by the user's contributions. Of course, dynamic IPs should not be subject to that, but if the same articles are being targeted over a period of time, or the vandalism has an obviously consistent pattern, or in the case of a vandalism-only account, then that editor's luck should run out, for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "Would you like to publish your second email? This was the one that Arbcom read as warranting an emergency desysop." (argh, Wikipedia history-rewrite strikes again, it's removed from the current version of the page) -- 14:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Finkelstein (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I tidied up the section a bit. Seth, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence#Emails Arbcom took the second email (with its hyperbolic statement about having to pry the mop out of his cold, dead hands - isn't that a Charlton Heston quote?) as meaning he was determined to continue to use the tools, even while a discussion was underway, hence the emergency desysop by motion as the committee wasn't sure what he might do with said tools, given that the concern was his erratic behaviour. I've said before that the evidence in support of removing the bit is all onwiki.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Cold Dead Hands" is Charlton Heston, however it actually goes back further. The WP:Citation Police Strike Again! Hasteur (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit tatty - having bits of e-mails scattered over the page. Could we have a clear run (with any necessary personal bits redacted) of any runs of e-mails to be used in evidence - perhaps on a separate subpage? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. The emails are what they are, and should be presented separately, without framing from one side or the other. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

conversations

I think the to and from between Elen and Rod should be removed from the Evidence. If they want to chat about their evidence, it should be on this talk page, or on the workshop. The same goes for other sections which are 'responses' to other evidence. Each evidence section should be supporting an assertion, and should have diffs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's hiding it. When the prosecutor-in-chief gets things so badly wrong, it is necessary for that to be exposed for what it is. The community should not have to dig beneath the surface to reach the truth. It should be right there, up front, for all to see. Rodhullandemu 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is for presentation of evidence; not convoluted conversations split between sections. Take your discussions about the 'truth' to the workshop, which is where the community will be looking for them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with John. There's a note at the top of the Evidence Page stating that input (I hesitate to designate much of it "evidence") must be kept to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. "Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely". I have seen many cases where this principle was enforced in a quite draconian way, but here it seems forgotten. Rod's input is right now just over 4000 words and he seems to be planning more. His text is extremely light on diffs, by contrast, but that doesn't exactly help; it just means the text is light on actual evidence, and is more in the nature of stream-of-consciousness. I'm the first to agree that the user being arbitrated may well need more space than other people writing on the page. But 4000 words? That's already tl;dr, which is no advantage to either writer or readers. I appeal to the clerks to move these "conversations", per John V. However, I'm not so sure of the advantage of unbalancing the Workshop by dumping long screeds on it; that would surely just move the problem from one page to another. A modest proposal: how about either moving it to this talkpage, or (if that's not against some rule) creating an extra page for the Elen/Rod exchange? Of course with prominent links from the Evidence and Evidence Talk pages, so as not indeed to "hide" it. Bishonen | talk 04:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

I'd personally prefer any evidential overflow went onto a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence rather than user space. The committee has made this part of the remedies in recent cases as it avoids later arguments about memorialising disputes in user space.  Roger ^talk 11:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

? Nobody has suggested user space, have they? Your view seems uncontroversial. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Would that it were so. In my experience, the community has/have enough to do without delving deep into the minutiae of Arbitration cases, and that's assuming they they are that interested to begin with. In this case, I think the treatment I've received is so dangerously wrong that that the community should have it all, up front, without hiding stuff away on subpages. This is because if it can happen to me, it can happen to them equally arbitrarily. For the community's own self-protection, all should be as obvious as it can be, and hang the rules if that is not the purpose of Arbitration. However, I've no objection to the email exchanges being on a separate page, with links. Rodhullandemu 04:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought much the same that the evidence section is getting significantly longer than it truly needs to be, however I to think the question and response of various parties to and of the case is important. Ergo my response to Elen was created on a subpage in my user space as it was somewhat ancillary to the core case as defined by the arbitrators. As I suspect it will have little relavance to the core case I intend for it to be db-authored at the close of the case. Hasteur (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go with however the clerks want to organise the page - collapse boxes (although these tend to suggest there is something salacious underneath, and people will be disappointed), moving to talk page - Rod's lengthy evidence should properly be accommodated on a page in his userspace, this is the customary way of handling very long evidence documentation. I agree with Bishonen that tipping the present discussions into the workshop is probably unhelpful. I have already removed some of the content, as I felt it was superfluous. If the clerks or Arbs want to move the rest,insert collapses etc, please feel free. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty I think is going to be that I believe Rod is not prepared to make any alteration to his evidence, or allow anyone else to refactor it. I believe it may be important in ways unconnected to this case not to break his flow (as it were). From experience elsewhere, the result may be that he will be unable to continue, and will have to start again from the beginning, which would be very unhelpful all round. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

← Hi guys. As the case clerk, I have recently been thinking over the best possible way to go about handling this situation so that everyone parties is as happy as possible with the outcome. While I could certainly just remove anything over 1,000 words altogether, I simply do not see that as being productive. The suggestion that responses and the like be moved to subpages is a good one, and has been done before in numerous other ArbCom case, which shows that doing so would not be an attempt by myself, the clerk corps, or ArbCom to hide anyone's evidence. If this were to be done, I would ask that one centralized subpage be created at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence/Additional evidence (or something similar). Additionally, there is always the option of simply placing collapse boxes around the content. I'm asking that the parties who this is relevant to choose between one or the other. Note there is not an option to just leave it as be. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 17:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As I say, I'll go with either, but probably best to do what Rod wants. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of moving my sub-thread response page to wherever is appropriate, I simply moved as I did so as to keep my section from getting much larger. As such I do authorize the clerks of the case to adjust my evidence statement and the linked userspace subpage to reflect the concensus.Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm somewhat bemused by these vague assumptions about what is best for me. However, what I would like to do, when the time and will are concurrently available to me, is to state the facts and defend my actions appropriately and fully from the viewpoint of policies, guidelines, Admin discretion and utter pragmatism. That isn't going to be easy, since you will see from my exchange with Malleus above that I was awake until after 6am today, and it is now 6pm and I am on my first coffee. I would prefer nothing to be hidden from view, because my experience of reading ANI and other fora is that collapse boxes are seen as somehow "solved" or "irrelevant", and are skipped over without further consideration. However, I'll give it further thought. Rodhullandemu 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Collapse boxes work alright if they are labelled appropriately - like detailed evidence on point re.... and so on. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that this may be one of those cases where working to refactor all the evidence may do more harm than good. Limits on submission length and formatting sometimes need to be strictly enforced in complicated, multi-party cases where otherwise the sprawl would make the pages almost useless for the arbitrators. I don't think this is such a case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I should note that Rod has been kind enough to move the emails to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence/emails and Ellen has placed collapse boxes around her responses. Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 03:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

• An arbcom case was on the verge of being opened (by sandy george? others?)
• Arbcom to their credit tried to deal with the matter sensitively and privately rather than publicly
• Should Rod have been de-admined? Sure.
• Were some harsh words spoken following this? Probably, but if this is not a long-term pattern of behaviour, apologies should suffice.
• Could Arbcom have handle this case better? Probably, but if there is not evidence of a long-term, structural problem, and Arbcom learn from it and amend the way they handle these, there is no need for a request for comment.

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For sure, but doesn't the lack of easy to introduce smileys really suck. Plus you look so much nicer with your sunny avatar than a "preceding unsigned comment...." tag. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts run along the same lines as Jon's. Usually I don't have a lot of use for ArbCom (sorry guys...but I don't), but this time I'm really feeling for them.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In what way? That they failed to get the process right, that there was a community outrage at that, that they refused to offer a middle position, or simply that they have now left Elen out on a limb to defend their position (which can't be good in the long term for her), or that the vast majority of them are irretrievably biased, and demonstrably so? If otherwise, please explain. Rodhullandemu 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Elen is doing quite well for herself. This is the first time I've seen her in action and I've really, I've been impressed. But to answer your question, I feel for ArbCom because Wikipedia had a problem that only they could fix and there was going to be Hell to pay no matter how they handled it.

You probably disagree about there being a problem but I'm sorry, you're wrong. You have burned out. Over the past couple of years you have done your dead level best. You've amassed more edits than almost everybody else on this page, combined. When it comes to vandal fighting you have been like a machine. But even the best machines can't run non-stop without maintenance and you are long overdue for some time off.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, what would a "middle position" have been? Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, but I specifically volunteered to stand here. I'm not particularly explaining anyone's position but my own. We tried to save you from precisely what has happened here but, as you're determined, do carry on. I'm interested as to why, given that your final position was that you got the mop back on April 1 or else, you expected anyone to negotiate with you, and what you expected to be offered. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Or else what? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is getting silly. I don't think I've said "or else"; I think I offered a "final" position, which is a standard stance in negotiating. It's then up the other negotiating party to say "Although your position is this, we are prepared to offer this". Playing hardball isn't perhaps appropriate here, but in the real world, believe me, it's real, and it happens. The difference is that ArbCom, and Elen, believe that their position is defensible, as do I for my own, and I am still working, when able, on refuting the allegations against me. Given the community input to the ArbCom's initial announcement, it seems plain that ArbCom should have realised that there was a problem rather than to retire into its own internal procedures, and accordingly, this case has become rather more than necessary. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Or else we'd regret it (as in the overwhelming sympathy for Rod, and the backlash from the community, would force us all out of office, NOT as in Columbine, since someone seems to have made the unlikely suggestion that there was a threat of violence made at some point.)Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Aiieee, no. I noted that Jimbo had used the phrase "threats to ArbCom", full context "Your threats to ArbCom convinced me only all the more.", which added even more to the mystery and suspense of what might be in the emails. But I'm sure he didn't meant violence, and I didn't think that either. Ack, rumors sure run wild easily here! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Phew! wipes brow with relief. Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, things can get silly around here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So was Rod's "middle position" that he'd accept being desysopped on the condition that he would be resysopped on Apri 1? Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to ask him. I think possibly what happened was similar to a situation the food writer Claudia Roden once experienced while visiting Germany. Being Middle Eastern, she had been brought up to only accept an offer of food or drink after refusing a couple of times (so as not to appear ill mannered by her eagerness), but her charming and kind German hosts felt it was impolite to force food or drink upon a guest who had said no. Rod can confirm this (my mind-reading apparatus is on the blink) but I think he expected us to come back with a counter offer, whereas the committee looked at 'take it or leave it', and left it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My middle position was a temporary and voluntary relinquishment of the tools for one month to enable me to emerge from this recent cold and harsh winter, and maybe be able to get out of my room for more than 20 minutes a day. Nothing to do with the above bollocks. I was prepared to accept three months as an outside limit, but if ArbCom didn't take the whole picture of my experience, work and commitment here into account, that isn't my problem. They say that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, power should, when appropriate, be tempered with mercy. Not in my case, apparently. Is there any more mud to be thrown? Rodhullandemu 00:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled. If you believed that you'd nothing wrong then why try to negotiate rather than to proceed to a case with all the evidence public? Which it still isn't I might add. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be puzzled. The politics of victimisation sometimes mean that is pragmatically better to seek a middle position rather than to fight an ostensibly impossible task. Whether I have done nothing wrong isn't my position; my position is that on balance, I am better equippped to fight vandalism here with the tools than without them; and that ignores the work I have done in relation to image copyright violations. If your two RFA's had been successful, which they weren't, and I have no opinion on that, you would probably have ended up doing what I have done. Sadly, the failure of those RFAs seems to have left you with a "sour grapes" mentality towards Admins, and that is no concern of mine. Suffice it to say that since then, you have persistently sneered at Admins, trolled the Bureaucrat's noticeboard and generally accused Admins of being corrupt, incompetent, or both. That's just unacceptable, not just to me, but it should be to anyone here. I've tried to reach out to you on several occasions, and have been met with attitudes of sneering superiority, and that, perhaps, is why I am here today. Bottom line is that however powerful your coterie of fans may be, including tame Admins, it is just unacceptable. Rodhullandemu 01:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, could you knock off the personal attacks. They are not necessary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"I've tried to reach out to you on several occasions". Those occasions I have missed. Diffs please? Bishonen | talk 01:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

I doubt that if one of my RfAs (when was the last one, two years ago?) had been successful I would have become the kind of administrator that you turned out to be. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• If Malleus is prepared to make himself a party to this arbitration, and put his money where his mouth is, with his evidence against me with his diffs, fine, and my diffs will follow. Until then, I'm not prepared to pander to his position. Suffice it to say that I am fully prepared to provide diffs, if necessary, but until he defends his own position, I see no need to do so. And, Elen, personal attacks are predicated upon unsubstantiated abuse. In this case, there is ample evidence otherwise. I'm prepared to excuse naivete and even innocent ignorance, but not ignorant abuse. Goodnight. Rodhullandemu 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there any more mud to be thrown? Bishonen | talk 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC).
    • You tell me. I'm reactive here, but when under attack, I'll fight back as best as I can. I note that Malleus hasn't sought to defend his position by providing evidence here, or by volunteering to become a part to this Arbitration. Are you telling me that his attitude is really beyond criticism? Really? Rodhullandemu 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rod, people aren't giving evidence against you because they don't want to play kick the guy while he's down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::That's a pusillanimous attitude to take, and demeaning to me. If they didn't want to do that, I wouldn't be here. I'll say this: I have a Talk page; it is open for discussion and criticism. If anyone thinks a block is outside policy or discretion, they have always been open to discuss the matter with me. But it hasn't happened. Similarly, blocked editors have always had a right of appeal, but have rarely used it successfully. Good grief, how stupid are you? My admin work works, and it's only a tiny minority that doesn't see that. The fact that you have seen less than 1% of it speaks volumes for your incompetence, and sorry, I make no apology for that. If I'm blocked for that, I'll take it as a badge of courage, but really, enough is enough. Stop pussyfooting around, and if you have cogent evidence against me, please produce all of it, and I will, if necessary, refute it case by case. Sorry, but my opinion is that you're a disgrace to Wikipedia. Rodhullandemu 02:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I shall be cross if anyone blocked you but...oh dear! Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rod, it's not demeaning to you to believe that a knowledgeable observer of wikipolitics can tell you are going down, and so there's no need to take any of the hits that would come with giving evidence. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can attest that is my thinking. That is not about your health - it's about not unnecessarily putting oneself in the line of fire. The "little father tsar" has forsaken you, and it is almost painful to watch the genre tragedy this has become. It hits every cliche in those stories. All that's needed is some chanting as the inevitable guilty verdict is rendered, with you defiantly proclaiming yourself the Last True Wikipedian while the sentence is carried out. Isn't there some way you could, say, use your education as a lawyer in true charity work to help people in need, rather than being ground-up by Wikipedia? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience is almost all in criminal law, so that's the most familiar analogy to me, although I have passed courses in constitutional and administrative law. However, I'm going to try and step away for a short time to gather my thoughts.Rodhullandemu 18:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Advocate for Rod?

First, the temporary removal of adminstrator privileges (like the intent and effect of the previous action) was an appropriate and unavoidable action needed to safeguard WP and a valuable editor. Quick action was necessary, and the critics (of ArbCom 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)) should be showing greater toleration for imperfection by ArbCom and greater concern for Rod. The legalistic demands (by critics of ArbCom 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC))that the committee release emails do not show sufficient regard for the safety and long-term well being of concerned parties (13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC) meaning Rod). (Bishonen noted the committee's concern with the well-being of Rod, earlier.)

I endorse NewYorkBrad's statement of concerns. In my paraphrase, NYB suggested that (1) Rod should have to return to his usual standard of behavior and expression, rather than the recent intense behavior, and (2) some time should pass before the committee would publish any emails (or take other actions, which might worsen Rod's situation, perhaps permanently). A version of the second criteria was proposed by another arbcom member a obviously thoughtful and experienced editor, GiacomoReturned (as noted by Elen).

For fairness, I make the following proposal: An independent wise-person should be appointed to take the role of advocate for Rod, seeking his best interests, at least until NYB's conditions be satisfied. That person might also be available to copy-edit Rod's remarks, to help him make his case. I do not suggest that serving as an informal advocate for Rod would be a fun role: It is only informal and not a legal role. Appointing an advocate for Rod would show appropriate concern and respect for a long-serving and hard-working administrator, who has made alarming statements lately. It might be appropriate for the WP Foundation to compensate such an advocate, recognizing the exceptional and serious characteristics of this case.

I also agree that the pages should be removed ASAP following the decision, again to safeguard the project and an especially valuable editor.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As regards advocating in his best interests - Rodhullandemu has indicated that he is "bemused by these vague assumptions about what is best for [him]", and prior assumptions about what would be best for his general well-being have unfortunately complicated this already difficult situation. –xeno^talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

True. However, the person has hinted at self-harming behavior, and therefore avoiding public humiliation of a vulnerable person takes precedence over all other concerns, such as avoiding patronizing or nanny behavior.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is for Rodhullandemu to decide how to take this situation forward as he is the only one in possession of the facts. It is not the prerogative of you, me, or anyone else, to decide what may or may not be in his best interests unless you are privy to all of the facts. And probably not even then unless you have solid evidence suggesting that Rod is unable to make his own decisions. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree - avoiding a public spectacle and conjecture as to the effect one would have on Rodhullandemu's general well-being was what prompted us (for better or worse) to attempt to resolve this privately in the first place. But we've ended up here nevertheless. –xeno^talk 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting an ombudsman or social worker to help a highly educated, intelligent & capable adult who is having a tough time recently, not a legal guardian for an incompetent ward.

The ArbCom is a rather exclusive group. I have previously suggested that such WP committees consider appointing one of their members to monitor the treatment of a minority, in a formal way, when there was not statement of stress by an editor. An advocate for a minority is often recommended to avoid groupthink and the other cognitive impairments of committee service.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It is problematic that Bishonen did not receive support for her (updated) politely suggested, and then delayed removal of the "sucking the right d*cks" phrase from Rod's talk page, which was warranted by WP:NPA, particularly the zero-tolerance on anti-woman and anti-gay abuse (in theory). (16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Update:) The hostility towards her was unwarranted, even on a contentious talk page.

I don't think that Rods views and opinions should be filtered through a third party. This is ArbCom - not an attempt to keep peace on a talkpage where the aim is the collaborative editing of a particular subject. Rod clearly has a strong view of the rights and wrongs of his situation and should be allowed to express them as he sees fit, subject only to redaction of inappropriately personal remarks about others. By the latter I do not mean serious allegations of misbehaviour of assorted kinds - because that is what the case is about - on both sides. A block should be avoided during these proceedings, unless there is evidence of piss-taking behaviour like socking - which seems unlikely as Rod is not the type. The case should run it's course unless Rod requests otherwise. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@Keifer (original post): "Legalistic demands"? ArbCom doesn't have "legalistic demands" Or requirements for that matter. This is Wikipedia! Wikipedia is NOT a democracy; or even a constitutional monarchy. Its a frickin' benevolent dictatorship which has been very benevolent to Rod indeed. ArbCom could (and are probably wishing they had) subjected Rod to the circus of a show trial (in which the final decision was a foregone conclusion). They could have refused to have held this trial at all. Lets be real. What would have happened had they done that? Answer: Nothing. Jimbo had already signed off on their decision to desysop Rod, and the odds of the Foundation doing anything were even more remote. Elections were a few months ago. This case will be long forgotten by the time the next ones roll around. Not that they were likely to lose their place because of this. It was a level two procedure. They didn't need the community's permission to take away Rod's mop.

• Re: ArbCom's lack of "sufficient regard" for Rod. ArbCom served itself up on a cross for Rod when they announced that his privleges had been suspended without explaining why. They withheld the reason out of respect for his privacy. They didn't have to. As Elin noted the evidence is more that sufficient for a de-mopping.
• Re: "Compensation" for the Rod's advocate: The ArbCom doesn't get compensation...why should Rod's "advocate"? --*Kat* ^(meow?) 17:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I endorsed ArbCom's decisions as reasonable and necessary at the time. My criticisms of "legalistic critics" referred to legalistic critics of ArbCom.

My post conflated two concerns. One, Rod might benefit from a copy editor and feedback before posting anything; however, there seems to be no support for any such advisor. Second, ArbCom might itself consider appointing one of its own members (in private deliberations) to try to act on Rod's behalf, if only to implement standard group-procedures to reduce groupthink; this suggestions seems sensible still to me (here and whenever closely integrated committees meet to make quick decisions).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:NPA

This discussion seemed moot yesterday, and still seems moot. It has been restored from its hidden status.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for the community to tolerate the personal attacks on Elen, e.g. as a "witch-hunter" following the earlier attack, either. Until such attacks cease for a week or more, offenders should not be allowed to make any serious decisions or continue editing. A temporary block is in order.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block would be helpful at this point. Rodhullandemu has since removed the retirement message containing one of the above-mentioned offensive statements. As for the inflammatory "Witchfinder General" statement: while Rodhullandemu would do well to refactor this, arbitrators have thick skins - comments of this nature simply serve to highlight the conduct that brought this situation to the committee's attention in the first place. –xeno^talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kiefer Wolfowitz: The issues you have raised are very indicative of the problems that led to the initial action, and it is not inappropriate to refer to them. Rod did eventually strike the worst comment at the request of Sir Fozzie, and I am on record as saying that if someone is trying to communicate a problem, I will not refuse to communicate just because they are impolite (I work in customer services, you get training on it), but even so.... However, like xeno, I don't think a block is necessary at the moment. I note that Rod has got back to checking his watchlist and reverting vandalism, so as long as he's being reasonable about that, I'd rather let him go on. If he starts on other editors, then some action would be necessary, but I'm hopeful that he realises that random rudeness was part of the problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very much against blocking Rod, just as I was against his previous block. It's surely quite understandable that he has some steam that needs to be let off. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe paternalistic or nannyish feelings were biasing me towards a forced time-out, which would be inappropriate.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am not yet so incompetent that I require a guardian ad litem, as it were. It's difficult enough with a mouse that persists in issuing multiple WM_CLICK events at random times, and I have no time to write a new mouse driver right now, and a keyboard that sticks on certain keys for no apparent reason. However, given the choice between a new keyboard and mouse, and eating, I prefer to eat right now to try and maintain the stamina necessary to see this thing through to its inevitable conclusion, however unpalatable that might be to the participants, including myself. As regards the case, I have refactored my evidence to move the emails to a separate subpage, and if anyone thinks I have misrepresented them, please feel free to add/remove/edit them, but not my commentary, please. I have also withdrawn my "Witchfinder" comment about Elen because, on reflection, it represents an injustice, and that is something up with which I will not put. Rodhullandemu 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring that remark. An online acquaintance used to recommend washing sticky keyboards in the glass cycle of a dishwasher (not that this is probably much help).Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't. I wouldn't recommend putting any semiconductor-based device into any such a hostile environment; it's likely to destroy it. In theory, computer peripherals are cheap now, but that's relative given one's income. A mouse replaces a packet of fags, and a keyboard replaces two packets, but addictions have to managed carefully, even if you're aware of them, and Crisis loans don't cover that sort of thing. Neither does Incapacity Benefit. I'd love to get back to the position where I had enough spare time to sell stuff on eBay, but the last six months or so have been so horrible that I no longer have the energy. But thanks for the intervention, it's obviously important, in wider terms. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could open the keyboard enclosure, remove the circuit board, and dishwash the mechanical parts before reassembling. I also just found this, this etc. Besides the possibility of damaging the keyboard, though, I'd also worry about the keyboard contaminating the dishwasher with electronic toxins like that could later get on dishes. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I often wash keyboards under running water (a result of the fact that I almost always eat lunch at my workstation). Most of the time it works, but they can take several days to dry completely. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

@Rod, RE: Mouse. Mice are CHEAP. You can get them at your local equivalent of the Dollar Tree. You can probably find a keyboard there too. Most don't need drivers and the ones that do come with them prepackaged. If the problem with your current mouse really is caused by the drivers you should be able to download new ones from the manufacture's website. However, chances are, this problem can easy be fixed by cleaning the mouse with rubbing alcohol. Regarding the keyboard, all of the advice is good. But sometimes turning the thing over and smacking it a few times works better. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We pros call it "percussive maintenance." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Peanut gallery, please knock it off. We're trying to give Rod the benefit of the doubt. If you're not a active party to the proceedings please consider not posting as it only further complicates the matter at hand. Hasteur (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I posted inappropriately. Thanks, Rod, for the refactoring.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rod, I'm sorry for the previous suggestion. It seems clear that, rather, a nonempty set of mathematicians should be restrained (perhaps as wards) from calling for themselves to be banned. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should be flattered here, but I'm quite heavily medicated right now and don't get the reference to mathematicians. I am sticking with simple and necessary BLP and gross vandalism stuff here for the present, although I don't rule out the occasional flash of brilliance between mundane moments. Meanwhile, given some breathing space, the latter might become once again the norm rather than the exception to my contributions here. That, it seems, is no longer up to me. Rodhullandemu 23:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Prosecutor, judge and jury?

• It's not the ArbCom's process; it's the community's process. Another example of the judges stepping into the arena. Rodhullandemu 05:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)