RationalWiki:Chicken coop/motion by human 2011 5 10

Motion to Dismiss and Statement of Defense

As a preliminary matter, I’d like to say that I’m deeply sorry things have come to such a head that there is such a sharp divide over whether people think I should even remain a bureaucrat on RW. I’m also sorry that this incident became a source of tremendously negative energy not just directed at me but other users. I sometimes feel hopeless too, particularly now. But we’ll baby step our way out of this or it will be oblivion.

In my defense, there are some very serious problems stemming from the lack of anything but the most ad hoc due process consideration. Putting something to a mob vote without any procedure to guide the process isn’t fair. Some well-considered due process is required here for this to be anything more than a public lynching. I have some suggestions, but this is going to require additional discussion as certain aspects of this trial will go absolutely nowhere but hell in a handbasket if responsible people aren’t charged with actually following rules and guidelines as they’re written, not as they wish them to be.


 * In the very first place, no clear charge was made, with appropriate context including a clear citation of whatever rule I was alleged to have broken, a clear citation of the procedure to be followed, and a clear citation of what the punishment if found “guilty” is supposed to be.


 * There is not and never has been a set procedure for what constitutes a sufficient consensus for decratting someone under any circumstances since nothing like this has happened before.  The Bureaucrat Guide says “majority” but it’s fundamentally unfair to convict a person for an alleged crime when the jury hasn’t been charged with the instruction that each member must vote yay or nay.  Neither a civil nor criminal jury may have a member who abstains from voting or it results in a hung jury and the matter is either dismissed as improvidently filed or retried.  With these abstentions destroying any majority vote I should be acquitted.


 * There is not and never has been any procedure for who can vote on a matter that I think everyone will agree is serious.  The “voting” is filled with sysops, obvious sockpuppets, and even people who signed up in the last three days.  As only a crat can make a crat it is unfair to permit a mob consisting of at least some complete strangers to my behavior and this dispute to pass judgment on me, particularly where an alleged “pattern of bad behavior” is raised as a reason to decrat me by quite a few voters (see below for citations).


 * Just as the jury wasn’t charged with an obligation to fish or cut bait by voting yay or nay, there wasn’t any charge to follow the law when voting.
 * Users noted that they were voting against me for various perceived slights against them that are unrelated to the conduct at issue in this case,  or because they think I’m a “dick”
 * Insults were freely included, along with references to previous cases which resulted in no sanctions.
 * Completely off-topic issues were presented as at least partial reasons for votes.
 * Some appeared to have no knowledge of the simple facts of the matter, which were not included in the “charges”.
 * People started commenting on others' votes with vague claims like “He has done this multiple times.” and “This is not the first time Human has done this.”  This theme was also vaguely alluded to in some votes - “Either this behaviour of randomly abusing your powers every so often stops or you lose those powers.  Since you're been given a ridiculous number of chances...”


 * Rampant electioneering in the polling place resulted in some people changing their votes after another editor argued with their previous choice. In the country in which I live, this is a Federal crime.  It is at the very least highly innappropriate.


 * It may very well be true that some view me in the negative light expressed in some votes and comments, and I’m sorry it’s the case and would like to remedy that because RW is a second home for me that I dearly love, but an alleged pattern of bad acts that themselves never resulted in any official sanction would never be admitted as evidence in a civil or criminal trial and it shouldn’t be considered here.  If you have specific complaints about my behavior violating a rule, you raise them in a timely manner.  Collecting grievances only to later unload on a user for unrelated conduct is unfair.


 * The rules don’t prohibit me unilaterally decratting Blue as charged unless the jury makes a determination of fact that I did it out of “spite or anger”, which I most certainly did not.  Some background is required:


 * This dispute began over my unilateral decision to crat User:Sterile and Blue’s unilateral decision to decrat him twice.


 * On May 5, 2011 I first exercised my authority under the Demotion Section of the Bureaucrat Guide to crat Sterile.  The Guide provides in relevant part: “It is generally recommended that you nominate candidates for bureaucrat at RationalWiki:Bureaucrat nominations, and let the mob decide, rather than demoting them without prior discussion. It is also a good idea to announce the nomination on the Saloon bar and/or the Intercom .”  By its express terms the rule is exhortatory and not mandatory, and thus permitted me to crat Sterile despite there being a discussion about the “nomination” I was actually unaware of.  I’m sorry about that. Had I been aware of the discussion, I most certainly would have simply gone there and expressed my extreme approval of the candidate. You may not like what I did.  I didn’t know it would be such a big deal since the rule expressly permits it.  User:Blue disagreed.


 * On May 5 2011, about 40 minutes after I cratted Sterile, Blue unilaterally decratted him with a message referring to her preference that the matter be discussed.

“  The discussion quickly went downhill with me exercising what I believe to be my prerogative to remove inflammatory and unproductive posts from my page that I viewed as abusive.
 * I recratted him the following day, May 6 2011, consistent with my authority since it’s a no-brainer that a guy of his capacity who’s done so much for the wiki for so long would be a completely uncontroversial appointment.  Blue has even admitted as much.  Blue almost immediately posted on my user talk page saying “I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that you can unilaterally bureaucratize and debureaucratize whoever you want without warning. That's the RW history I'm familiar with.


 * On May 6 2011, about 25 minutes after my action, Blue again unilaterally decratted Sterile.


 * On May 7 2011, a full day later, I temporarily decratted her in response to what I viewed as her destructive behavior under the Promotion Section of the Bureaucrat Guide.  Unfortunately “destructive” isn’t defined and the only guidance in the Guide as to what it means is a non-exclusive list (“such as a deletion spree or blocking rampage”). Blue took me straight to the Coop before I myself could take inventory of the situation and raise the issue myself.


 * Executive summary: User:Blue twice unilaterally removed the crat rights of User:Sterile. I then removed Blue's crat rights for abuse, pending discussion, which never happened since within an hour the Chicken Coop vote was in full swing.  Blue's cratship was reinstated within an hour of my removal of it.


 * In order for the jury to convict me under the Promotion Section of the Bureaucrat Guide it must make a fact determination of my state of mind that I decratted Blue “out of spite or anger.”  Within the last several days I already explained that I temporarily decratted her to prevent her from warring over undoing something I had the right to do.  I view that as destructive behavior if for no other reason than that she herself had absolutely no authority to decrat Sterile according to the very same rule that’s been invoked against me because nobody can argue Sterile was engaged in “destructive” behavior.


 * I object to the time period for voting being unilaterally set by ListenerX at 72 hours – after voting had already begun.  The absence of any guidance on this point in community guidelines leaves the mob free to make any ad hoc decision that appears to gain consensus, yet the obvious effect of the extremely truncated voting period is to disenfranchise me from marshaling votes of other editors who don’t check in as often any more, just as many of you are marshaling votes against me among the noobs.  This website isn’t the same daily obsession for everyone who cares about it.
 * Finally, I object to this motion being decided by the same mob composed partly of (a) users who have essentially nullified their vote by indicating they are voting against me for conduct unrelated to the matter at hand, (b) users who may have signed up solely to cause trouble and pile on to an already inflamed situation, (c) users with personal interests the outcome here, and (d) users who openly attacked me on this page, indicating a total lack of dispassion required of a juror.  I don’t know what the process ought to be but the sham cobbled together here isn’t competent to decide this motion.

Musical interlude
Lastly, I would like to add, for your pleasure,

Make me a deal and make it straight All signed and sealed I'll take it To Robert E. Lee I'll show it I hope and pray he don't blow it 'cause We've been around a long time just tryin' to- tryin' to - Tryin' to make make the big time...

Take me on a roller coaster Take me for an airplane ride Take me for a six days wander but don't you Don't you throw away my pride aside besides What's real and make believe Baby Jane's in Acapulco We are flyin' down to Rio!

(everyone solos at the same time)

Throw me a line I'm sinking fast Clutching at straws can't make it Havana sound we're trying hard edge the hipster jiving Last picture show's down the drive-in You're so sheer you're so chic Teenage rebel of the week

Flavors of the mountain streamline Midnight blue casino floors Dance the cha-cha through til sunrise Open up exclusive doors oh wow! Just like flamingos look the same So me and you, just we two got to search for something new

(Featuring Brian Eno, the pop charts, and a bored dancer)

Far beyond the pale horizon Some place near the desert strand Where my Studebaker takes me That's where I'll make my stand but wait Can't you see that Holzer mane What's her name - Virginia Plain?

(Lyrics: Bryan Ferry. Stolen without permission for educational purposes)