AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases

The Committee opened no new cases during the week. Two cases are currently open.

During the week, another 20 kilobytes of content was submitted in on-wiki evidence. Several proposals were submitted in the workshop by several editors; drafter Elen of the Roads commented on some of the proposals, while drafter SirFozzie proposed a standard discretionary sanctions remedy as well as three standard principles.

During the week, another 5 kilobytes of content was submitted in on-wiki evidence. Several proposals were submitted in the workshop by several editors. Earlier today, David Fuchs and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry were assigned as drafters of the decision.

Two days ago, the Committee announced that it passed a motion: Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)'s administrator privileges are revoked and he may apply for adminship by the usual means to the community. As background, it noted that the "user has engaged in conduct unbecoming an administrator...." As with other announcements by the Committee, a link to discuss the announcement was provided which sparked discussion. Active arbitrators added that this action was taken in accordance with interim desysop procedures, and that Rodhullandemu may, if he desired, make a request for a public arbitration case or for Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) to intervene.

Seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Wikipedia:Audit Subcommittee (AUSC), the Committee made a call for applications last week.

What is AUSC?

AUSC is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee which should review and act upon concerns received by the community about CheckUser and Oversight activities. AUSC is made up of three arbitrators (who typically serve six-month terms) and three non-arbitrator members who are appointed for one-year terms. All AUSC members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight. Active and/or sitting AUSC members:

• are given CheckUser and Oversight permissions.
• will have access to several mailing lists as well as the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue.
• should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner.
• are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive.

Applications

Applicants must be at least 18 years old and willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. Applicants should self-nominate by email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org and will receive an application questionnaire which should be completed and returned to the same email address. This should include a nomination statement, to a maximum of 250 words. Applications will close on 7 March 2011.

Candidates

The Committee will have one week (after applications close) to review the applications, and notify the applicants who will be candidates going forward for community consultation. The candidate's nomination statement (which was submitted with the application) will be posted on a candidate subpage on-wiki.

In the following week, in addition to a few standard questions, the Community may pose additional questions which candidates will answer. While there will be no formal voting, comments will be invited publicly, or privately by email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org. Ideally, community members will outline in detail their rationale for supporting or opposing a candidate in either case.

Appointments

Should a sufficient number of suitably qualified candidates apply, the committee will appoint three primary non-arbitrator members along with a number of "standby members" (who would stand in, should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case). Successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving AUSC permissions.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

28 February 2011 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

Arbitration statistics

WikiProject report

Features and admins

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.

Desysop of Rodhullandemu This has generated much concern within the community, not least as to privacy issues; on the one hand, the Arbitration Committee claims that this should be dealt with "privately", but is not prepared to discuss with the editor involved why this should be so, since the online reasons for their decision are claimed to be available to any Wikipedia editor. Offline, as regards Wikipedia, there is a disjunction between private reasons for desysopping, and the public reasons given for that. The Arbitration Committee should decide whether it is prepared to depart from the principles of natural justice, and plough it's own, unaccountable, furrow, or realise that it is ultimately accountable to the community that elects it. On the latter point, it's irrelevant that an elected body can be thrown out when the next election occurs; this is not a parliamentary democracy. What matters more is that the ArbCom should be respectable as "fit for purpose", and this case shows that they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs)

I'll just add this: my desysop is NOT temporary when it is predicated upon conditions that may not be met, or even achievable. That's a deception that should be quashed from the start, and love me or hate me, I am at least entitled to due process. Rodhullandemu 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't "fair" and doesn't do "due process" (1) since it's a project, not a system of government. People feel like they get shafted all the time. Usually it's for the good of the project. Or so one hopes. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 - per se... sure, being fair and impartial and following norms and procedures is helpful to the project, since it helps keep volunteers involved, but it's not a hard and fast requirement.

Rod, are you now saying that you would prefer this to be dealt with by a public case? The problems are not going to go away, and either the committee deals with you privately or it does it publically. So far, you have been unwilling to accept what was presented privately, but unwilling to have a case in public either.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]