Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rodhullandemu (de-adminship)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Remove = 37;  Keep = 7;  Neutral = 0 - 84% Result. Successful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu (de-adminship)

Vote

Rodhullandemu (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 00:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

After letting the desysop proposal run for over nearly two days, I've have gone through the on-wiki evidence and the statements from each user who participated in the discussion. Besides the argument of it being invalid because of a non-contributor starting the discussion, there wasn't much anyone could say to defend Rodhullandemu in regards to his incivility towards other users and how he handled the toolset while involved in disputes on this project. Based on that and "some" consensus to create the formal process (see policy linked), a community discussion needs to happen to determine whether or not Rodhullandemu can continue with their administrative duties. As established policy states (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship), if the majority is over 50%, this admin will be desysopped and will have to run another RfA with successful community consensus for restoration. If this request does get "unwanted attention", that is up to the closing bureaucrat(s) to decide how to proceed. Please be and remain civil throughout this discussion. Thank you. 1989 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Remove has not changed from pattern of bullying behaviour that led to deaminship on En.wiki. This type of behaviour in an admin is not compatible with a collaborative and egalitarian editing environment. Domments such as this are inexcusable, whatever the context or stressor. Casliber (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep De-sysop as punishment for issues from English WP in 2011, wow. --A.Savin 00:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A.Savin, there is plenty of reason for de-admin just in the past month from Commons. I have not investigated the enwp stuff, for me the behaviour demonstrated on Commons has been unacceptable. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really, "plenty of reason for de-admin just in the past month from Commons"? I must be blind, if I didn't see any, despite COM:ANU being on my watchlist. --A.Savin 13:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about these blocks? pandakekok9 07:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why are you showing these blocks. Even if they were abusive, there should have been an ANU discussion about that, at the time the blocks were imposed. --A.Savin 12:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the vast majority of posts on Motacilla's talk page have been civil, there were a few that weren't and the comments at the end about personal attacks with regard to bullying were a bit concerning but note that although the consensus Rodhullandemu obtained was probably weak no one opposed to it and Rodhullandemu followed process to the spirit and letter which is why Rodhullandemu though it was OK to block for violating that consensus. While I understand that, admins should not usually block anyone that there remotely involved with even if the other person is violating express consensus. It wouldn't have been difficult for Rodhullandemu to simply have taken it to ANU with a simile comment about editing against consensus and another admin would probably have agreed and blocked. As I said before Rodhullandemu's conduct is usually good but the INVOLVED and uncivil comments are a bit of a concern. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am all sweetness and light for those who will engage in our processes. I'm afraid somebody who appears unwilling or unable to do so, and will not take a hint is a doing a disservice to the community of which they are supposedly a member. I'll just point out that I did refrain from blocking Motacilla when on one occasion he had yet again ignored his colleagues' consensus, and reminded him instead. I'm not an ogre, I'm just an old, poorly man trying not to let retirement stultify his mind. DON't let it happen to anyone else here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed most of the time you were civil, indeed you asked Motacilla politely a number of times to follow consensus which many people here don't appear to have acknowledged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You A.Savin must not have missed the original post I made, complaining about his behaviour on Commonsː "I ask another admin to look at Rodhullandemu's insult and threat. Please see this post. He calls me a jerk then strikes it, deliberately leaving the insult visible. He also threatens to block me." Having now had the opportunity to read this, do you find it acceptable? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose/ Keep On procedural grounds. An enwiki admin whom I have never seen around starts a de-adminship proposal, notifies the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and some enwiki users come out of the woodwork to support it, some of them following a Wikipediocracy notice. Oh, come on; here is Commons, not English Wikipedia. Please do not import problems from other projects to Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the sudden opening of a desysop proposal by an enwiki admin who rarely edits on Commons is concerning, I don't see any violations on procedure. I hate to wikilawyer here, but there's nowhere on the procedure stating that those who had few contributions on Commons may not start a discussion on whether a RfDA can be started or not. pandakekok9 02:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments were made 24, 25, and 26 March. I can't believe that it took two months for the almost inactive OP to report them and start a de-adminship proposal for Rodhullandemu. A more plausible scenario would be that they have somehow been informed ("canvassed") that a complaint about Rodhullandemu is at Commons' AN now, and they took the opportunity. Sorry, but I think this is rigged and unhealthy, and can't support it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove I wasn't going to vote on this, but after the way he flipped out and bit my head off, and suggested I had no right to an opinion and was not a "real" contributor here in the previous conversation when I didn't even express an opinion I reviewed some of the other material here, on Commons and am convinced he is unsuited for adminship. (I was not an arb on en.wp in 2011 and had nothing to do with any of what went on then. The only thing I remember about it was being surprised he had been blocked, but now that I see how he's been acting here it makes a lot more sense.) I would urge fellow commenters here to put the interst of having responsible, civil admins ahead of the perceived "sticking it to en.wp" message. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove not because he was blocked on enwiki (which is... unfortunate but that is all I can say about it) - but because comments like [1] and [2] are ultimately unexcusable for any administrator (let alone editor) on Wikimedia projects. We must stand against all forms of harassment on Wikimedia projects, including from administrators. --Rschen7754 01:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I had waited for two days for an apology and a recognition of their mistakes (specifically their unacceptable behaviour that is unbecoming of an admin and involved blocks). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be willing to do so. If they ever decide to correct their wrongs and run for a RfA again (like after 6 months), I would happily support them again. I would like to thank them for years of good service. --pandakekok9 02:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove as the initial proposer; my rational can be seen there. To respond to the concerns that this is an enwiki blood grudge, or that these are en wiki issues being forced upon commons: Rodhullandemu is the one who imported enwiki issues onto commons. I only really looked into Rod's behavior here after comments he made on commons towards me and AntiCompositeNumber after I blocked a sock of his for evading his ban on enwiki. If he had ignored the block, and just gone about his business here, this discussion probably wouldn't of happened. Not that it shouldn't of, since the excessive, incredibly demeaning harassment against Motacilla was already enough for desysop. To address the concerns about me "canvassing": nothing of the like happened.
    Users at Wikipediocracy noted Rodhullandemu's harassment towards me before I even said anything there about it, and even then, I really just told them what I was thinking and asked for advice, since, contrary to what some might say, WPO can have some very helpful commentary. They may not show it, but a lot of them really care about wikimedia.
    For en arbcom, I initially emailed Worm That Turned for advice on what I should do, he gave me some, I said I would do something, and I let Worm forward the email to arbcom because that something is something that it would be best for en arbcom to know about. I won't say publicly what that something is, but anyone here can feel free to email me asking me what "something" is, and I will gladly explain. Moneytrees (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove: Ultimately, the culture of this site has to come first. This is a Wiki, and a collaborative site can't work well when the people in power aren't behaving civilly towards each over. Our admins should be, essentially, leaders whose behaviour should be an example to all our users, and sadly this hasn’t been the case here. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 05:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove: I was going to stay out of this, because I am sensitive to the issue of en.wp people trying to tell Commons what to do. And I haven't done a lot here with only a few hundred contributions (though probably a lot more deleted ones, as I've nominated a lot of licensing violations over the years). But I do care about Commons, as it's a core part of the whole Wikimedia thing, and I think a desysop is warranted on Commons behaviour alone. Commons should not be administered by bullies (which it almost exclusively isn't). Also, having seen one particularly vulnerable contributor being bullied, I feel a moral obligation to try to stop it, regardless of which projects were the locations for the bullying. I'm sorry to have to say it (I've met Rodhullandemu, and in real life he seemed like a nice guy), but retaining Rodhullandemu as a Commons admin would be bad for Commons and bad for Wikimedia projects in general. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add that Rodhullandemu's responses in the COM/U thread played a part in persuading me to make my contribution here. Had he shown any self-reflection or any flexibility at all, I might well not be here now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Per my comment on the COM/U thread, but now also because of the behavior in that thread, including a threat. FWIW, Rodhullandemu has also evaded his blocks in other wikis editing logged-out as IP: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodhullandemu/Archive (although he could say it's joe-jobbing, it's highly unlikely someone else would keep adding almost every photo he uploads to Commons). That shows poor judgment. --Pudeo (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting at the possibility of joe-jobbing, the two threats from Rodhullandemu on my commons talk page were made in response to the blocks of those two IP addresses, within hours each time. WormTT · (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I'm sorry, but the enwiki block doesn't give me a reason to support this user as sysop. Further per Pudeo. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 07:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Comment changed by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA at 08:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Rodhullandemu has uses bullying techniques to get his own way, per the COM/U thread. He is uncivil and makes threats here on Commons. That behaviour alone is sufficient to remove his administrator rights. However, in addition, he is willing to make threats off-wiki - something that apparently cannot be dealt with on Commons, but only by Trust and Safety. If there is a Commons route to deal with it, please point me to it. Finally, when it comes to his en.wiki links, the English Wikipedia and Commons are sister projects, and fairly co-dependent. Commons hosts and curates the vast majority of En's free media, while En is where the highest views of the Commons images happen. We should respect each other and work together where possible, not treat each other like antagonists. Yet, Rodhullandemu uses Commons talk pages to make thinly veiled threats against those who would enforce his ban on En. That is a mis-use of Commons user talk pages. This isn't importing En problems to Commons, this is respecting the possibility that the reasons behind his ban on En are relevant here - his bullying actions, his threats against others, his incivility, his threats of self harm when held to account, they are all evident here on Commons. WormTT · (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove - as I have said previously, I do not doubt Rodhullandemu's dedication to Commons or to its work, but there is a difference between dedication and zealousy. He has harrassed users, for no reason beyond their having the temerity to disagree with him. His overall manner is of "my way or the highway" - that those with differing opinions are worthy of contempt and that he is under no obligation to try and convince them his way is correct. This is utterly disqualifying for an admin on Commons. I have no idea what happened on enwp, I have not read that link, my comments are based solely on his contributions to Commons. He does a lot of good here, but until he learns to treat others with respect he should not be trusted with admin rights. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove It was Rodhullandemu's rudeness and threats on Commons that prompted me to make the complaint that started this off. Quite sad really, and I am sorry for whatever he he going through. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove This person's conduct is not in line with the standards expected of admins. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep 2 days was not sufficient and there was no valid consensus for this desysop vote required per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. This preemptive desysop vote, which as a process is being abused by a peanut gallery from Wikipedia and only now has @Moneytrees: admitted came from an off-wiki trolling site, and was covertly manipulated by Arbcom in advance, needed far more discussion and would have better off been aborted for blatant gaming the system and canvassing. This oppose is procedural and @1989: has badly misjudged what is a Commons community consensus rather than a process forced on Commons by the English Wikipedia Arbcom who have their fingerprints all over this, and have evaded transparency for their involvement throughout. Arbcom should not be so inflated by their views of their authority that they act like an secret police that pursue "criminals" across Wikimedia projects, and as has been confirmed in this case, across the internet with the benefit of trolling abuse websites. Appalling behaviour, an appalling precedent, regardless of the validity of the evidence of Rodhullandemu's behaviour. This will leave a bad taste and a nasty smell every time we see Arbcom members pretending to be "spontaneously" involving themselves with Wikimedia Commons policies and cases. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fæ: So you're satisfied with the behaviour demonstrated by Rodhullandemu ? If I or another Commons administrator had filed the AN/U report what would you have said or done ? Nick (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"This oppose is procedural" was plain enough, and you personally know me well enough in addition to what you have read of my prior comments about this case to be assured that I would not be against a valid desysop vote that was not gamed, canvassed or demonstrably manipulated by shadowy figures off-wiki, some of whom we now know are Wikipedia Arbcom members acting like a secret police force. For onlookers, I am not a Nazi, nor a Communist, nor a MAGA hat wearer, and opposing this externally manipulated vote is not evidence of being a terrible person, nor that I believe for one second that unacceptable behaviour by an administrator should not be investigated or become grounds for a correctly formatted and properly considered desysop vote by the Wikimedia Commons community. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No wonder they call this the "post-truth" age. I shall be watching tonight's episode of The Simpsons on Channel 4, in which "Homer's love of sweets results in him being wrongly accused of sexual harassment by the family's babysitter and smeared by the media". Maybe I'll get some tips from it. Meanwhile I am glad to see Motacilla emerging from his talk page and actually talking to the community, and I wish he'd done that, or maybe just listed to the community, three years ago. I don't wish him any ill-will. As for Mr Sharp, I have bad days and very bad days. I am off now to examine my government food parcel, but I bet it doesn't have any pesto, quails' eggs or smoked salmon in it. Rod out. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict)  Keep I'm quite displeased with Rodhullandemu's behavior and he has been pretty busy digging his own virtual grave. But at Wikimedia Commons, we usually try to explore other options before desysopping someone when there are behavioral instead of a direct abuse of tools. This didn't happen, which is a lost change. Also, two days isn't even close to sufficient time to properly evaluate all the evidence. Most of the difflinks provided require quite a lot of context to determine if the comment is out or line or not. Therefor I cannot support a formal desysop at this point. This should have been handled by an experienced crat, not someone who had a huge share in creating the mother of all clusterfucks merely weeks ago. Worm That Turned: if there is off wiki behavior that is out of line, you can always contact the oversight team. They have the required experience and authority to deal with such cases. Natuur12 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral just noticed that Rodhullandemu opposed this request. While I stand by what I wrote, I cannot vote to keep a sysop that votes in their own desysop. Natuur12 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Rodhullandemu has bullied and terrified me for almost three years. His comment "Meanwhile I am glad to see Motacilla emerging from his talk page and actually talking to the community, and I wish he'd done that, or maybe just listed (sic) to the community, three years ago. I don't wish him any ill-will." is disingenuous. His aggression and bullying was what caused me to disengage from the Commons community; so much so that for about two years I was too scared to read my own talk page, still less answer messages. Rodhullandemu mentally crippled me.
Rodhullandemu has borne me immense ill-will throughout, never shown contrition, and despite more than one polite request has never apologised for such attacks as [this one from October 2017]: "Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you. I'm prepared to let you have the clearly incorrect DEFAULTSORT templates, if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place."
Rodhullandemu's defenders show great interest in a turf war between Commons and English Wikipedia and very little interest in his persistently cruel misconduct toward me and his other victims, or the harm that misconduct has caused. Never mind how much trauma he has inflicted, so long as you can get him acquitted on a technicality.
Can you talk me through each of his abusive and terrifying attacks on me, and the trauma he inflicted, explaining how correct it is for an admin to call me "asinine", "utter fool" and throw the f-word at me, and all his other abuse? Tell me too how correct he was to block me three times for a dispute in which he was an involved party, and how correct it is that he now threatens to block me for life for truthfully describing his bullying as bullying.
I have no idea what Rodhullandemu did wrong on English Wikipedia. I am told it was nine years ago. I do know that for the last three years he has been vicious to me on Commons, causing me significant mental ill-health. No member of any Wiki project should be allowed to do that. And any member who does should not be an admin. Commons will not be a safe space unless Rodhullandemu is desysopped. Motacilla (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to blame you for anything. Why haven't you come forward sooner? Your comment does shock me and I want to understand why people don't come forward if they feel unsafe. That way, people can think of ways to make reporting bad behavior sooner. I'll would also like to advice you to contact Trust and Safety and explain what happened to them if you haven't already. If you don't wanna answer my question for any reason, that's perfectly fine. Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's common for people who feel bullied and unsafe to be afraid to come forward and speak. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natuur12: also look at how the discussion Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Complaint_about_Rodhullandemu began and how people responded, and how Fae is still responding now. And imagine that was you having to make that step. Being in the middle of a dispute like this is daunting to say the least. Casliber (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought about all that, but I rather ask than assume. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber's comment is approaching a political fake news campaign. The fact that myself and several other very long standing Commons contributors are deeply concerned in good faith that this vote has gradually appeared as evidence was forced out in the open, to have been manipulated off-wiki and gamed using Arbcom official communication processes has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Motacilla presenting their evidence.
Several times I have spelt out that the process objections are not objections to anyone presenting a desysop proposal that has not been gamed off-wiki and subject to effective vote rigging.
Objections to canvassing and gaming the system are very obviously not objections to whistle-blowing, or any barrier to presenting cases of harassment or bullying. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, no....no-one's manipulated evidence of Rodhullandemu's behaviour - I think people are reading his diffs and making their own minds up Casliber (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? Precisely nobody has made a claim that evidence has been manipulated. --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove He doesn't have any response to the people who have objections to his behavior; they are apparently not worth responding to. That's problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove 1989 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Antonsusi (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Just based on actions (if you're involved don't act as admin) and attacks here on commons. Should be blocked instead of being an admin. --Mirer (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove as per the repeated incivility as well as per the diffs provided at Commons:Administrators%27 noticeboard/User problems#Proposal: Desysop Rodhullandemu - Some of their comments there are appalling and are unbecoming of any admin, FWIW I do disagree with there being an EN notification inregards to this as It has nothing to do with EN (just like a de-adminship at EN would have nothing to do with Commons), Anyway their behaviour has been unacceptable and should not be tolerated here or anywhere else. –Davey2010Talk 11:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove incivility is bad enough, but when backed by admin tools becomes not just an enemy of collegiality but to both retention and recruitment. And without those two things, Commons—or any other WMF project—is nothing. Absolutey nothing. Keep this guy, keep drinving other guys away. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. This sysop's on-commons behavior has been unacceptable for a while (including pre-COVID). Imo, the diffs speak for themselves. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Sigh ... Whatever happened on en.wiki a decade ago is neither here nor there. We don't import old tired disputes from other projects. The exception I'm willing to make to that is active block evasion and harassing people on this project for block evasion elsewhere. That is not behavior becoming an administrator. I would say the same for an en.wiki administrator actively engaged in block evasion here. That, combined with the demonstrated egregious incivility in their role as an administrator on this project represents an egregious rejection of community norms.
Rodhullandemu, I'm sorry that you seem to be having personal problems. A lot of us are. I've...had my own fair share. But that's not a reason to disregard our institutions, and this institution is built on community and collaboration. Being able to engage with the community and collaborate is not a request; it is a requirement. If you need somebody to talk to, feel free to send me an email. I'll give you my phone number. But we have to persevere, and if we're too stressed to contribute without being a jerk, then we need to disengage until we can. GMGtalk 04:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per GMG above, also disappointed at the responses Rodhullandemu has given. You (Rodhullandemu) imported the English Wikipedia issues to Commons, which is not ok. Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove based on Motacilla's experience of negative interactions with him. While most of the issues raised here don't actually relate to the use of the admin tools, using them to block someone he's harrassing crosses the line. Perhaps removing the tools will also help with the general civility issues, but if not then further steps should be taken here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Regardless of what Rodhullandemu's has done outside Commons is unacceptable. The user's uncivil behaviour is unacceptable, not to say he is an admin. --A1Cafel (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep My only experience with User:Rodhullandemu that I can remember was last month when he spent a lot of time cleaning up a mess of vandalism directed at me. Our interaction was entirely cordial and appropriate. Glancing over his talk page, I see much of the same and nothing that would justify this action. Since I have voted here, I will not be the closing bureaucrat, but I hope that my colleague takes into account the lack of Commons experience in many of the remove voters. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jameslwoodward, yes, Rodhullandemu has been a very good contributor in terms of work done, and yes he is perfectly capable of being civil to people. But several people here have reported that he has been abusive in his actions - including using admin tools - towards them. Do you not see anything problematic in the diffs provided above? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck, we have all experienced extreme frustration with some editors -- who either just don't get it or are deliberately trying to either evade the rules or simply be irritating. I agree that R's reaction to that kind of problem editor in the diffs above is more extreme than mine would have been in the same circumstances, but I would certainly have been thinking along the same lines. The temptation to say "Grow up and fly right" is very strong at times. Also note that we have above half a dozen or so edits among more than half a million edits he has made on Commons -- in fact he has so many actions on Commons that the wmflabs tool refuses to count them all -- the first time I have seen that message. We have already removed the Admin flag from our top three contributors of all time. In the case of INC/DL that was, in my view, completely warranted, but Fastily and Jcb simply offended a few people and no one took into account the vast aount of work they did. Now we are headed toward doing the same thing a third time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment At last, a smidgeon of wisdom and proportionality. Both rare in Wiki projects, IME. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward, thankyou for the explanation. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward Please see this post which started the discussion. Rodhullandemu calls me a jerk then strikes it, deliberately leaving the insult visible. He also threatens to block me. Is that not an abuse of his role as an admin? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp. you don't show your history with R -- there obviously is some because his comment didn't come out of the blue. Without knowing your whole history with him, I can't comment except to say that I don't think "jerk" is very far out of line -- I don't think I would have said it, but there have been many moments when I would have liked to. The problem with this whole event is that it is completely disproportionate. We have half a dozen incidents in more than a half million edits here -- that's around one per hundred thousand. I have seriously offended at least one person per year -- I'm sorry for that, but it happens. If I had made as many edits as R, I probably would be facing a similar tribunal. Second, all of the offenses shown above are out of context -- we haven't been shown the history. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward Fastily didn't go through de-RfA. That we have removed the admin flag from two of our top contributors of all time through de-RfA is a good thing. It correctly sends the message to all of us that being exceptionally active, making tens of thousands of administrative actions and being an important part of the organisation of this project in no way provides a free pass to be abusive, to edit war, to sockpuppet or to do anything else which goes against our policies and guidelines. We've always been reasonable in the de-RfAs and AN/U discussions we have, we've never penalised someone for making too many errors with their deletions, blocking too many users or protecting the wrong pages. These issues may have precipitated something more, but every de-RfA discussion in recent years has come about because the administrator in question refuses to behave in an acceptable manner. Jcb edit warring with Yann. INeverCry being abusive, resigning during a discussion and returning every five minutes (with Daphne being a sock of INeverCry). A good thing about this de-RfA is that we now have very firm consensus about where the line in the sand is when it comes to appropriate and inappropriate comments, something all of us (not just administrators) can take on board and when making comments, can decide whether or behaviour strays over that line. Nick (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"very firm consensus", no this is a very poor example of a vote as it has been verifiably canvassed off-wiki, attracting many votes that have distorted the community consensus. The outcome may be no different if the canvassing had never occurred, but it is obviously not a "firm" consensus that could ever be reused as a non-controversial exemplar to change local community guidelines or norms.
It does set a nasty playbook for how Wikimedia Commons administrators or any other role that requires voting, can be manipulated off-wiki by whipping up a mob on an abusive forum that (apparently) several Arbcom members take their world view from. The fact is that if you can get ten or more votes from folks through undeclared off-project canvassing, then it's pretty easy to overwhelm and make meaningless any Wikimedia Commons consensus building votes. Perhaps when this vote is over, we should consider anti-canvassing policy so that Bureaucrats have the authority by default to close down and nullify any vote where any evidence of undeclared canvassing is discovered. --Fæ (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making your canvassing accusations, Fae, but you're totally ignoring the responses from two en.wiki Arbs here explaining specifically what happened (and repeatedly showing your personal animosity towards en.wiki ArbCom), and you have not shown any canvassing proof at all. To you, it seems that anyone associated with ArbCom is just scum, and that that justifies your treating them as such. I'm not a great fan of ArbCom, but there are some good people on it, and the ones who have commented here have only the best interests of the whole movement at heart. But your approach to them seems to be to keep throwing shit and hoping some will stick. And you are totally ignoring the actual evidence that's actually been presented of bad admin behaviour here. Come on, Fae, I've got a lot of respect for you, and I know you've suffered unfair treatment yourself in the past. But you really shouldn't be using this to continue your fight with en.wiki in general and en.wiki ArbCom specifically. Oh, and sure, develop a process to discount canvassed votes if that's what Commons wants - but you have to be able to show the canvassed ones with some actual evidence, not just throw your vindictive accusations at everyone. Do you have a mirror? Take a look in it and see how you're coming across here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and ten or more votes can overwhelm things here? I currently count 33 votes for Remove, including a lot from Commons regulars, against just 7 to Keep. That is *not* an overwhelming by those you consider unworthy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment before I go out for some exercise... If you don't want large numbers of people to come here in response to chronic bullying by a Commons admin, don't allow it to happen in the first place. If you want to pretend this place is your own closed shop, keep your shop in order. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this canvassing that you speak of repetitively ? Are there any diffs that you can link us to ? And do you not agree there's consensus amongst the frequent/regular Commons contributors, and Commons administrators, that Rodhullandemu's comments aren't acceptable. If I strip out 15 or 20 comments from infrequent Commons contributors, I believe there's still very solid consensus his comments aren't acceptable, indeed, even those disagreeing with the idea of removing Rodhullandemu's administrator rights have largely agreed their comments are not acceptable, including you, Fae. I also note, doing a quick straw poll, much like the one Boing has done, I still find there's something in the region of 65/35 support for the removal of Rodhullandemu's administrator rights if we focus solely on Commons regulars. And it moves closer to 90% in support if you strip out those comments which don't focus on Rodhullandemu, but on procedural aspects, canvassing etc (though of course all of those opposing removal on the procedural basis may not object to Rodhullandemu's behaviour and would oppose the motion on that basis also). Nick (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about these blocks? pandakekok9 11:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really not sure why do you pandakekok9 keep asking this question (after the same "What do you think about these blocks" addressed to me). Yes, admins sometimes have to block users, sometimes even prolific ones, there is nothing special about it solely. To review a block, it is not enough to know about it, you have to know the entire history. I don't know it; do you? But anyway, just in case it was an abusive block as stated by the user affected -- I still miss the ANU discussion, because, as we all hopefully know, abusive blocks are to be reported at ANU, and it should be done timely, not months or years after. So, where is/are the AN(U) discussion(s) about that, with a consensus by several fellow Commoners that the block was inappropriate? Or is it just the way it seems -- desysop as revenge for several blocks, because, "I was blocked by this admin, so I feel harassed by him and sick"? For my part, I also had been inappropriately blocked in a couple of Wikipedia language versions in the past (and one time even here on Commons, though it is fortunately hidden from my log, as it was a real obvious bad-faith action...), and I also would love to see that admins pay for that inappropriate "power gaming" -- but it's obviously not possible and probably for a good reason, so why on Earth should it be any different here on Commons. And remember, before you compare to Jcb, for example. Jcb was a real obvious case, he had been reported at AN(U) almost every week for years, and there really were serious issues again and again, nowhere near this one. --A.Savin 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why you can't see my point. Do you think that blocking a user you are in dispute with is appropriate? Is blocking while involved a common thing now? (The third question is a legit question btw, I had been inactive here for 3 years) pandakekok9 02:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if user A had blocked user B three times in total, it is then obvious that user A did it because he is in dispute with user B? OK, got it. --A.Savin 13:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's ignoring reality. How many people who, if they got an unfair traffic ticket, would run down to their local police station to complain? How many would expect that that would just garner them a regular string of traffic tickets? And I don't live in a particularly corrupt nation. Going "why didn't they report an admin to the admins" is asking users to stick their heads out, and many aren't going to be willing to do that.
You admit it, basically, that you weren't able to hold admins responsible. I see that as a big fault.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per Jeff G., Nick, and Serial Number 54129 in the COM:AN/U discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per nom and many remove !votes above. Such incivility is unbecoming, especially for an Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Comments like Special:Diff/406736412 and Special:Diff/407258171 are not acceptable anywhere. Two months ago, I considered bringing up the issue on AN/U and starting this process. I didn't find a long-term pattern of incivility and harassment on Commons at the time, and I was willing to assume good faith, chalk their comments up to COVID-19-related stress, and move on. Now, it has become clear that Rodhullandemu has not only made uncivil comments to other editors on Commons, but that they have misused administrator tools as well. A one-off incident I was willing to ignore, but this goes beond that and I can ignore it no longer. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to add that I think Rodhullandemu generally behaves and uses administrator tools appropriately, and that the vast majority of their contributions to Commons are valued. I sincerely hope that they continue to contribute to Commons and would consider supporting a return to adminship after sufficient time has passed without further incident. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Commons users must be nice with each other. This applies especially for admins. Rodhullandemu has repeatedly said mean things to others. And he has not apologized. He has made a lot of good work as an user and as an administrator, but in my opinion he is not suitable for admin anymore. He said himself: "I face death in the face directly" and for some people this weakens their bond with reality. Most people can face death worthily, but there are apparently exceptions. Taivo (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Nice one from the Admin that declined Motacilla's unblock request with the words "Rodhullandemu is a good admin". And one incident since is enough to make you change your mind? WOW! As for death, I didn't know you'd read my medical records, and I'd like to know how you got hold of them? Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: If I'm being totally honest, I can forgive almost any oversight, so long as the person, admin or no, is willing to take community feedback on board and adjust the rudder accordingly. You seem to be doubling down on the aggressiveness, and that...that seems to be doing a disservice to the community, because we need active admins now more than ever.
Please take me at face value when I say that I will flip my stance in a heartbeat if I saw...some indication that you were taking this feedback seriously. I genuinely hope I can have the opportunity to do so. GMGtalk 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: thanks, but I think "feedback" is an inappropriate word for most of the above. I won't say how I read it. I'm used to people sticking the knife in. I'm not used to them twisting it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is how you feel, then I thank you for your service. You have been an asset to this project for many years, and I wish you the best. If I can do anything to help you, on wiki or off, feel free to contact me, on wiki or off. GMGtalk 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Civility is one of the five pillars. Any user who is routinely uncivil, and when called on it, justifies it, rather than apologizing and trying to change their ways, should be ultimately removed from the project; they certainly shouldn't be an admin. There's a long, long pattern to this. Even if the user was fully civil, the threats of self-harm alone are enough to question whether adminship should be removed. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Five Pillars are of Wikpedia, not of Commons, and not of WMF. That's another example of woolly thinking. "Routinely"? Another unjustified error. Diffs? If the Crats are going to ignore any !vote for unsupported allegations, this should be the example. But, sadly, there are many others. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I merely quoted from COM:CIVILITY. If you don't think you need to be civil, because that's only an essay, you should be banned, not just desysopped! Numerous recent diffs were provided in Moneytree's proposal last week - it's disengenous to pretend that diffs don't exist.. Nfitz (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that you care about civility when you just became incivil 3 hours after Rod responded to your vote. Shouldn't you check yourself before telling people to act in a civil way? ;) Note that some of the diffs provided by the initial proposer aren't even personal attacks or threats. What do you expect anyway from a proposer who is importing a grudge from enwiki on the admin being desysopped. I only voted for removal anyway due to the involved blocks, telling a user that he is losing their fucking temper, and the battleground mentality that they are exhibiting, all falling below the standard of a Commons admin. pandakekok9 08:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've said nothing uncivil here - please provide a diff. I'm not sure the relevance of some of the previously provided diffs not being for civility - many were. And I'm not sure about the need for you to comment at all, given you essentially agree with me. Nfitz (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • @Mattbuck: I get wanting to separate off the sprawling thread below, but what I wrote didn't include anything about arbcom or canvassing, even if responses to it did. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: apologies, I meant it in general terms. No problem with the section being renamed to something more appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. It's more that I'd make the cut with the comment starting "@Worm That Turned: In your own responses to questions of transparency...", which wasn't actually a response to that thread but starting (or resuming) a separate thread with someone who just happened to reply there. Not a big deal, I guess, except that cordoned off sections with topics dealing with tangents tend to be skipped by many of those who aren't already invested. I'll leave it at that. Feel free to remove this (and the above) comment if the section is removed or reworked. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments relating to enwp ArbCom and canvassing

  • Is Commons really this petty, to ignore an admin being nasty and misusing his position just because "the wrong people" complained about it? It shouldn't matter who started the discussion, what matters is whether or not Rodhullandemu is behaving the way the Commons community wants and expects admins to behave. It's funny/sad how many times some of the "power users" here insinuate that if Commons isn't your home wiki you have no right to an opinion. That isn't supposed to be how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to use legal terms, but excuse me that English is not my first language and I find it hard to express myself without these jargon. Due process and procedural law are really important, and play even a greater role about sense of fairness and justice than the final result. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfDA is not a trial. We had done some de-adminship requests where the admin in question is absent (like the High Contrast and INC cases). We judge them based on their actions and behaviour. Rod had been given a chance to apologize and recognize their on-wiki mistakes, and they ignored it pretty much. I think "due process" had been followed here. pandakekok9 02:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Due process says that when Commons users (who may also be EnWP users) present a complaint about on-wiki activity, it gets responded to. If there are irrelevancies involved, they may be stricken from the record, but due process is almost exactly the opposite of what you're arguing for. If you want to argue procedural law, where is it recorded, what rule was broken?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are my concerns:
  1. It doesn't matter who started to import problems from elsewhere to Commons: Rodhullandemu or others. Nobody should continue it now. Even if we assume that Rodhullandemu was the person who started the whole issue, it doesn't mean that enwiki admins and arbs are allowed to reply in kind. They can inform the Commons community and let them deal with the offending party. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. So, I don't accept the arguments that when he is the one bringing enwiki issues to Commons, they become Commons issues or for crying out loud Rod was the one who imported enwp disputes here, not the other way around.
  2. I object to this closure. I don't believe there was a consensus to go to the second phase. I do think that Commons policy (Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of abuse of power) and especially the phrase "some consensus" is problematic and should be fixed as soon as possible, but we should act according to the current policy now. I suggest a Commons 'crat close that discussion again.
  3. The whole process smacks of canvassing. This is an example for a normal Commons desysop request: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4). I know most of the participants and see their names on a regular basis here at Commons. They usually write short simple English sentences. Here, I do not see the familiar names. Instead, I see many unknown names who write long English sentences full of rhetoric. After about 30 hours, I still don't see enough familiar names. Commons is a server project by nature. It's like a juncture; there are many pedestrians, but "few" care about it (few in proportion to its users who may not consider it their home project). Commons could be easily swayed by other projects such as enwiki or dewiki (which have a more dedicated and robust community; just see how many times they comment at this very page). Commons standards may be different from those big projects, but users of those projects may judge based on their own "superior" standards.
4nn1l2 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Due process says that it doesn't matter what enwiki admins and arbs are doing on a de-adminship of Rodhullandemu. It seems to me that Rodhullandemu tends to abuse some of the less-frequent users of Commons, so naturally their names would show up; it's not a poll of the familiar names of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • uggggggghhhhhhhhhh. The Commons-enwp fighting is really awful.
enwiki folk: when was the last time a group of editors from, say, ruwiki or wikivoyage, was able to pop into enwiki and initiate an arbcom case (the only equivalent of this process) or even sanctions at ANI without being told "this isn't ruwiki"? If there's an example, I haven't seen it; but I've sen an awful lot of the other. There's so much anti-Commons bile even among enwiki admins that it's hard to blame some a small number of people from this community being cynical. I feel like I see fairly regularly Wikipedians rant about how awful Commons is because, basically, the Wikipedian doesn't know about copyright. I mean people even use the "keep local" templates out of spite for Commons. All of this is to say: stop being surprised that there exist a small number of Commons users who object to people who learned about this elsewhere influencing process here.
commons folk: For crying out loud Rod was the one who imported enwp disputes here, not the other way around. He's also well known to enwiki, and it's absurd to say that someone's record of holding admin tools on one Wikimedia project is irrelevant to the same person's use of those tools on another project. It's also not appropriate to say that just because someone has a few hundred edits here and more elsewhere, that they're incapable of having good judgment here.... when the subject is someone that person actually knows really well. It's relevant. I do not need to strain to believe that the enwp folks are here not in order to futz with commons or act on personal grudges but because they worry that Rod's adminship is a detriment to the commons community. Being primarily active on enwp doesn't make them wrong about that. If you think Rod isn't fit to hold the tools but vote to keep anyway, you're causing harm to the community in the future in order to make a political point. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rhododendrites, that was very well said. I am aware that there is a history of animosity between the projects, but as I tried to point out in my vote above - it is unfounded. Both projects need each other. There is a large overlap between edits and editors, we need to stop the infighting. WormTT · (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say something similar (to WTT). What you say, Rhododendrites, is a very good summary of the approach taken by a minority at en.wiki and a minority at Commons. I'm quite sure that the majority of contributors see the two projects as essential parts of the same body. It's such a shame that those who would sow divisions from both sides tend to be among the loudest and the most outspoken. We could be using cases like this to help build bridges rather than burn the ones we have left. I'm sad. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: In your own responses to questions of transparency, it became clear that there was an email to the Arbcom system. It remains unclear if this was before or after your separate discussions with Moneytrees who despite hardly editing Commons before, created the original desysop proposal on this project. You failed to make that clear when you first commented on this case, and it appeared that your comments were made to look spontaneous and you were uninvolved, rather than after undeclared discussions (which remain unpublished). Could you now confirm the following:
  1. How many Arbcom members have been involved or discussed bringing this case to Commons?
  2. You were consulted by Moneytrees, to what extent did you coach Moneytrees and how many Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons participants have you now discussed this Commons desysop with off-project/off-wiki?
  3. Considering at least one Arbcom member has confirmed that they came to this case only after following off-wiki discussions about this desysop, to what extent have those off-wiki discussions prompted Arbcom member's involvement here?
  4. Do you think is appropriate or good governance for Wikimedia Commons governance processes to be directed by Arbcom members covertly this way, or do you think it would be ethical if Arbcom members were to agree to act openly and transparently, possibly always in consultation with Wikimedia Commons Bureaucrats rather than by-passing their elected authority and trust of the Wikimedia Commons community?
Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: Moneytrees contacted me personally in relation to this edit in March due to the fact that I had received two similar messages from Rodhullandemu. He asked if he should consider a desysop on Commons. I responded that I was not an active member of commons, so couldn't tell him much on that front, but that I advised against it. I did not discuss the matter further with him, there was certainly no coaching. Further, there was no discussion of arbitrators bringing a desysop case on the Arbcom list. I haven't been following the off-wiki discussions on other websites, I'm afraid, but there has been no mention of those discussions on the Arbcom list. There was no collusion off-wiki that I am aware of prior to the start of this request, and nothing more than the notification after.
I'll do my best to answer your final "Have you stopped beating your wife" question - Arbcom has not acted covertly. We were notified by Moneytrees, I assume because he is an Arbcom clerk and he was being harassed on Commons due to enforcing an Arbcom block. That notification was absolutely understandable.
I have never stated that I was not involved in this, nor does would it be reasonable for someone to assume that I'm not. The diffs provided at the outset included a link to my talk page and the text referenced me by name. I have blocked 2 IP address that lead to Rodhullandemu leaving threatening emails on my talk page, and attempt to send more threatening messages to me off-wiki. I have made it clear that I have struggled to find where to ask for review of those actions - as there does not appear to be an equivalent of Arbcom (though I have now seen a response to that, thanks to Natuur12).
Now, can I ask you a question in response? At what point were you planning on disclosing your personal animosity towards Arbcom, and especially to me in particular. You've made a number of accusations about me on En, and while I deny the substance of them, I do my best to keep out of your way for both our sakes. I know you have been harassed in the past and have definitely been sympathetic to your situation, even if you feel I am not. I am, however, astounded that you would not extend me the same courtesy. I told you that I had been harassed, off-wiki, and you told me to mellow out. I asked how to handle it on commons, and you told me I should be blocked. To me, it looks like you are too busy trying to score points against Arbcom, and missing the actual issue of an admin who is bringing Commons into disrepute. WormTT · (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These replies do not answer the questions, nor does your statement appear to match how anyone would read what Moneytrees themselves wrote on this page.
The comment making it appear that I threatened you with the words that you "should be blocked" is factually false, as anyone can check by examining my response to your badgering for replies yesterday. Please avoid using political spin or distortion rather than sticking to honestly presented facts.
Commons Bureaucrats are trusted and elected on this project for a well understood trusted role, which includes administering sysop rights. It seems astonishing that anyone needs to explain this to a member of Wikipedia's Arbcom. As you continue to claim to not know how governance on this project works, or presumably how the WMF T&S team works, or how you can handle harassment cases, despite being an expert in harassment, please email a Bureaucrat like @Krd: or the Oversighters list who can advise you in confidence without continuing to making apparently pointy unproven and emotive allegations about off-wiki harassment permanently in public.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to be accurate with my response, but if it helps - a less accurate but roughly correct response is, 1) Zero, 2)I didn't and none, 3) none that I know of, 4) I do not recognise the question phrased in this manner.
You told me that my comments were in "direct contravention of [Blocking policy]". That looks to me as telling me I should be blocked, but if you didn't mean that, ok. I do see you neglect to answer my question though.
I also appreciate your suggestion of the Bureaucrats. That role does not match the En one (I am a 'crat there), so I didn't consider it. I am presently looking into composing something for the oversighters, however I do think this is an area that need clarity in Commons policy. WormTT · (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ridiculous to suggest that arbcom have "covertly manipulated" this situation. Yes, we got a notification that this was going on. It was also discussed on an offsite forum that I do participate in. I also happen to have Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems on my watchlist, which I check regularly. Despite what Rod and Fae would suggest, many people consider themselves community members here even if it isn't where they make most of their edits. Are opinions of Commons' users less valid if they found out "the wrong way" about a discussion? There was no canvassing, no invitation or even suggestion that we should comment here, and there certainly wasn't any "covert manipulation". Baseless accusations like this should not be allowed to derail the conversation away from the real issue, which is Rodhullandemus behavior as a Commons admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's at least three Arbcom members that have been lobbying these Commons votes? @Beeblebrox: Could you confirm precisely how many Arbcom members and any functionaries have been taking part in these discussions both on-wiki and secretly off-wiki, because not one has been upfront when first giving (apparently spontaneous or individual and independent) opinions that they came here with the conflict of interest of having access to confidential emails about this Commons desysop case through the official Wikipedia Arbcom system before it was even proposed on-wiki. It seems increasingly rediculous that Arbcom seems unable to appreciate how this looks like a power grab to dictate how Commons governance should work under their covert direction, or at least this behaviour looks like a self-appointed and unaccountable police force treading on the toes of those with actual elected and trusted Wikimedia Commons roles.
This is canvassing. This is gaming the system. It is a blatant misuse of the confidential Arbcom system of communicating about Wikipedia cases to manipulate Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me a question, then go on to reach a conclusion before I even the opportunity to respond, so it seems the point of this whole question is just for you to tout your own opinions, and not to solicit a clearer picture of the facts. What's abundantly clear from your remarks, here and in many previous discussions, is that you don't like the en.wp arbcom, and don't think people who don't have a million Commons edits are not "real" members of the community,and you will use whatever tool you can, be it procedural roadblocks, illogical arguments, or outright lies to try and marginalize anyone you have decided is one of "the bad people." You manage to be an even worse problem than Rod without even having the sysop flag.
But whatever, I'll play your little game as I have nothing to hide. I found out about this discussion from Wikipediocracy, which has had an active thread on Rodhull for quite some time, mostly chronicling the numerous times he has socked on en.wp in a fairly obvious fashion. I checked the thread to see if there was another sock/ip that needed blocking, and instead found they were discussing the then-just-opened previous discussion here. Discussing it, not asking anyone to jump in and take sides. But, as I mentioned above, I could just as easily have come across it by checking my watchlist and seeing the ongoing conversation here. Canvassing is when you ask people to participate in a discussion and back you up. Nobody did that, anywhere. Arbcom isn't even talking about this. We have quite enough to do without trying to meddle in Commons affairs as a group, each of us that is here is here on our own, as individual Commons users. It's disgusting but not at all surprising that you are trying to discredit us with your unfounded conspiracy theories. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I care little for what is or what isn't discussed by en-wiki Arbcom. It's a bit ironic that Rodhullandemu's bad behavior is being discussed at Wikipediocracy while Wikipediocracy's harassement-level is over 9000. As long as people gather at sites where you can post the most ridiculous libel without consequences it's not strange that people get a bit uneasy when such off wiki ventures are getting them self involved in community decision making. It makes me a bit uneasy when a CU actually uses a forum where the most disgusting libel is posted about fellow community members (including myself) to find IP's to block and actively participates as a member there. I find it hard to separate the two. Community members complain about Rodhullandemu's misbehavior and yet they facilitate the harassment of so many editors by actively participating at sites where severe harassment of active editors and admins is all so common. This comment will likely put a target on my back, but there will always be animosity between the projects if sites like Wikipediocracy exist.Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you confirm precisely how many Arbcom members and any functionaries have been taking part in these discussions both on-wiki and secretly off-wiki? Please include folks like yourself that came here and formed your opinions about the people on this project through your participation on the website you mention you are part of, along with as Natuur12 puts it, the severe harassment that routinely gets published there along with disturbing homophobic and transphobic personal abuse targeting Wikimedians, which readers seem to find funny or must find acceptable because they continue to go back to enjoy reading it. --Fæ (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, will you please stop? I understand you have some grudge with Arbcom, and that you resent that users who mostly use enwp have made their voices heard here. But this vote was created by a Commons admin, and after a discussion where there was a general air of concern over Rodhullandemu's actions. Please address the question at hand - do the actions of Rodhullandemu merit de-adminship. Your actions, demanding to know how someone came to find this, seem to be wikilawyering at best, and frankly tendentious. They are most certainly tiresome. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just read the dead cat tangents speculating what is in my head, rather than the facts of how the case has been manipulated and the absence of transparency.
In no way do I "resent" users making their voices heard. It is alarming if votes on this project are overwhelmed by an influx of the magnitude larger active community on Wikipedia being canvassed, and this is directly relevant to the vote process on this page, and the role of a Commons Bureaucrat that will need to close it. --Fæ (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering, Fæ, here at Commons do we have an equivalent to the en.wiki "Assume Good Faith" thing? Oh, never mind, no need to answer - I've just found it at COM:AGF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watching Fae try to play the victim and the Grand High Inquisitor simultaneously is making my head hurt. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"play the victim", classic gaslighting and a deliberate tangent for this vote, while claiming everyone else is at fault for creating tangents.
You appear to be confusing me with one of your fellow Arbcom members that has made precisely allegations of being the victim of the subject of this desysop vote. Using gaslighting and sarcasm at the expense of others, rather than using plain English to answer questions about how Arbcom members and friends have descended on Commons en-mass, undermines the case Arbcom might make about anti-bullying. --Fæ (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must confess to being utterly befuddled by the canvassing issues being complained about by several people. I don't think anybody has actually asked the most important question here - what does the English Wikipedia gain from removing Rodhullandemu from administrating on Commons ? Rod has a solid track record when it comes to their logged actions, excellent understanding of copyright legislation, derivative works, freedom of panorama and related issues. I've thought about this, indeed, I've held off voting so far because I'm obviously in both camps and really wanted to consider the idea of canvassing, but no matter how much I try and work this out, I can't see what benefit English Wikipedia gains from a malicious prosecution.
    I'd also add, I believe that the users who have arrived and who could (somewhat tenuously, in my belief) have been canvassed are primarily experienced users with significant tenure, and who I don't consider to be open to playing 'rent-a-mob' who are happy to go around involving themselves in things without fully digesting the evidence presented before making comments or votes. Nick (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well rem acu tetigisti. What concern should it be of theirs? You point out my admin record apart from the current difficulties. I stand by that, and my record of uploads of better, or missing images, than we had before. That's free work which has value, but I seem not to be getting any credit for that. All I seem to be getting is long-standing abuse from ArbCom and their associates, and I reiterate, it's based on the lies of a convicted criminal and Yorkshire Ripper conspiracy theorist, all because I refused to co-write his nonsense book, because it was utter shite even based on a synopsis and chapter list, and I could not put my name to fantasies unless it was dtsated to be a work of fiction. I didn't expect a joe-job attack on Usenet (in 1999!), nor did I expect that gullible fools would take those posts seriously in 2011, when the only location for those posts was Google Groups, which had "From:" headers, which are easily forged, but not "Path:" headers, which aren't. I have some sympathy for the newer members of ArbCom because they've been painted into a corner by those who were Arbs in 2011 who let Roger Davies think he'd found gold, whereas it was actually iron pyrites, and all the mistakes that they could possibly have made since then, they have made. One of the problems of being unaccountable is that you get complacent, perhaps arrogant, and once the mind is poisoned, it closes itself to any suggestion that you make have made a mistake. Perhaps time for some inward reflection? Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps time for some inward reflection? " is easily the most ironic thing I've seen someone say in at least a month. Maybe, just maybe, it might behoove you to discuss the issues brought up here about your actions here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rodhullandemu: I'm only speaking for myself here, but I want to address you directly rather than just talking about you. I don't know if you remember that Liverpool meeting all those years ago, but I enjoyed the evening spent in your company and it pains me to be in opposition to you here. You ask "What concern should it be of theirs?" By that I assume you mean those of us commenting here who are predominantly en.wiki contributors, and I'll tell you why it is of concern to me. Though some seek to erect barriers between the two projects, I see Commons as a core part of what we do and as a jewel in the Wikimedia project's crown. It's essential to what we do in the various Wikipedia languages, and I value it greatly (I've even contributed a small number of photos to it, though not remotely close to your enormous contribution). I think I have every right to be concerned when I see troubles here, and every right to express my concerns, even if I'm not on the list of people Fæ considers worthy of a voice. I also feel the same about everyone else who has commented here, as I know they're people who care deeply about the project and have only its success at heart. You talk about credit for your image contributions, and I'm happy to acknowledge that - your contributions to documenting the small part of the world in which we both live is astonishing, and whatever happens here you will always have my gratitude for it. But it does not excuse poor admin behaviour. And, though I feel a little uncomfortable saying it to you directly (as someone I've met in real life, which does seem to make a difference), some of your admin conduct here on Commons has been appalling. And that is the only reason I oppose your continuation as an admin here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give over. Good faith genuine concerns about the evidence presented of off-wiki or off-project canvassing and gaming the system is clearly not "I'm not on the list of people Fæ considers worthy of a voice". Rodhullandemu should lose the mop based on facts and evidence of their unacceptable behaviour on Commons, not because Arbcom and a Wikipedia stalwart peanut gallery forced it to happen by overwhelming this project's much smaller community. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Rodhullandemu should lose the mop based on facts and evidence of their unacceptable behaviour on Commons", I'm glad you finally agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That was, is, and remains my only argument as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rodhullandemu_(de-adminship)&oldid=422468385"