TheCommittee 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 theworkshop by several editors; drafterElen of the Roads commented on some of the proposals, while drafterSirFozzie 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 theworkshop by several editors. Earlier today,David Fuchs andChase 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 bythe 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 sparkeddiscussion. Active arbitrators added that this action was taken in accordance withinterim desysop procedures, and that Rodhullandemu may, if he desired, make a request for a public arbitration case or forJimbo Wales (talk ·contribs) to intervene.
Seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to theWikipedia:Audit Subcommittee (AUSC), the Committee made acall for applications last week.
AUSC is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee which should review and act upon concerns received by the community aboutCheckUser andOversight 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:
Applicants must be at least 18 years old and willing to identify to theWikimedia Foundation. Applicants should self-nominate by email toarbcom-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.
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 toarbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org. Ideally, community members will outline in detail their rationale for supporting or opposing a candidate in either case.
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.
Desysop of RodhullandemuThis 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 ofnatural 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRodhullandemu (talk •contribs)
