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

Ugh. While I've never met him, from the evidence I've seen so far, Rodhullandemu clearly deserves getting desysoped. On the other hand, Elen's assertion that ArbCom went nanny state on Rodhullandemu is also correct, and deserves condemnation. This is an ugly affair all around, but then again, most things involving ArbCom meet that description.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, whenever ArbCom decides to remove any kind of administrator privileges, be it admin, checkuser, oversight, or whatever, it's probably best that they don't publicly give a specific reason. They should just announce it with something like, "The Committee has removed user:so-and-so's administrative privileges.  The committee will have no further comment on the matter."  Then, the Committee members should studiously ignore all the resulting Henny Penny drama that results.  A desysopped editor is, usually, still allowed to participate in Wikipedia as an editor, which is supposed to be the default status for all of us.  If the committee would do this every time, eventually people would come to react with shrugs whenver it takes place, because it will no longer be a big deal. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)