Wikipedia Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Tznkai[edit]

Proposed principles

Administrator judgment

1a) Administrators are entrusted with certain technical tools which allow them to do a number of tasks. As a result, they are expected to have good judgment and sense beyond the expectations of non-administrator editors.

1b) In reviewing an administrator's judgment, their actions and words should be taken as a whole, sensitive to context and good faith assurances of behavior change, with an eye towards likely future performance.

1c) No one is perfect all the time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Looks reasonable. Durova⁴⁰³ 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A very minimalist lens to judge administrators by. It should go without saying that functionaries are held to an even higher standard. Also gets us past this "no abuse of the tools" nonsense. Part I of my attempt to frame the issue. --Tznkai (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logical points laid out with sound wording. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity

2a) Any action is justified, even if it is against established rules, policies guidelines norms and standards of judgment and good sense, if and only if there are no reasonable alternatives.

2b) It is the burden of the actor to prove that his or her actions are so compelled by necessity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The RfC on BLPs was redlinked until after this case opened. MZMcBride appears not to have attempted to raise awareness in any normal venue such as Signpost or offsite webzines, newspapers, or magazines. He does not run a blog dedicated to BLP issues. He left many stones unturned. Durova⁴⁰³ 15:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Borrowed from the common law analogues and IAR. Its important to note that this looks at a more objective standard. It is not the individual's subjective judgment about what is right and what is wrong, but it is in the universal judgment of reasonable persons that necessity is found. Mere differences of opinion do not make necessity. A related principle, that I did not write out as such is that of civil disobedience: if you make an action because you believe in it, but it is not necessary, you should still suffer the consequences. You'd be in good company. Part II of an attempt to frame the issue.--Tznkai (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence or lack of "reasonable alternatives" isn't black or white. It generally depends on how hard you're willing to look for them, and how well-developed your sense of perspective is. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use "reasonable" here to indicate the viewpoint of hypothetical right thinking people of ordinary composure, intelligence, sobriety, and sense. It is, like most things, a judgment call, not a test that can be boiled down to mathematical precision. --Tznkai (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the implications of this. Seems a bit too general and could be manipulated and/or misinterpreted. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse

3) Any action is excusable, even if it is against established rules, policies guidelines norms and standards of judgment and good sense, if reasonable persons with the same level of trust would have done the same thing in the same circumstances, and is not otherwise indicative of continuous poor judgment and sense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree: social science experiments require the informed consent of the subject(s). The subjects of these BLPs were neither informed of the experiment nor consented to it. That was fundamentally inexcusable. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Durova⁴⁰³ 15:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By different means we arrive at the same end. Keegan (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Borrowed from the common law and IAR. This is similar to necessity, but instead of approving of an action, it forgives that action. There are far worse things than offering forgiveness for those who have done something a bit boneheaded. Part III of an attempt to frame the issue.--Tznkai (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like these as a starting point, but i don't understand where this is going. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as my comment above, statements like these are generalistic and open to interpretation and manipulation, not really appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Durova[edit]

Proposed principles

Informed consent

1) Experiments upon Wikipedia's biographies of living people, if they are to happen, are expected to place with the informed consent of the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Overbroad. One idea that's been floated before is semi-protecting a large subset of BLPs, and then comparing vandalism rates on those articles against those of the general BLP population. It is not reasonable to expect that all subjects in the protected population would be contacted for their consent, especially when the de facto experiment of having a user-editable article about them in the first place is not subject to that consent. Steve Smith (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly isn't necessary for the scenario I outlined to hamstring our response to experiments involving a smaller number of articles; we can consider these things individually (or in smaller, more specific classes) on their merits. My concern was just that this principle does not appear to do so (hence "overbroad" rather than "bad"). Steve Smith (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Normal practice within the social sciences and implicit within WP:BLP and WP:VANDAL. Durova⁴⁰³ 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant difference between de facto experiments and deliberate ones. As you probably know, Steve, for years I have advocated a generous opt-out policy for BLPs. The common thread is a distaste for paternalism. Your comment about broad statistical analysis is well taken, though. Yet in order to leave the door open for that, is it necessary to hamstring our response when a small number of individual biographies get targeted? This situation has a distasteful similarity to the notorious Wikiversity "case studies" in ethics. I'm reaching for a way to curtail the notion that living human beings are appropriate subjects for dissection, which is counter to our basic notions of administrative trust and BLP. Durova⁴⁰³ 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Will chew on this and try to craft a modification. Durova⁴⁰³ 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Essentially I agree with the first comment in this subsection, by Steve Smith. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informed consent (2)

1a) Experiments that deliberately introduce misinformation into Wikipedia's biographies of living people, if they are to happen, are expected to take place with the informed consent of the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are to be no "experiments" that deliberately introduce misinformation into Wikipedia, period. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Newyorkbrad. The issue of informed consent of the subject is moot, the issue is the existence of the "experiment" itself. Risker (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground or science lab. Experiments that deliberately reduce an article's quality are inappropriate. Shell ^babelfish 22:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hoping this narrows it down sufficiently. Durova⁴⁰³ 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair and cogent responses. No objection here. Durova⁴⁰³ 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MZMcBride's comment, none of the NEWT experiment deliberately introduced misinformation into biographies of living people. The Antarctic moss species were unavailable for comment. ;) Durova⁴⁰³ 21:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what those involved in the WP:NEWT experiments would say about this. As far as I'm aware, some of those experiments included creating intentionally poor biographies of living people. Durova was a participant in these experiments, though her work seems to have largely been focused on Antarctic moss, not biographies. While I have never done this time of experimenting in the article namespace, it still raises a number of interesting questions about the legitimacy of such experiments. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman: "or rely upon the tools/trust granted to Admins" ← What? You're implying something that doesn't exist here either. Please don't do that. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Experiments generally that are article specific or designed to test things other than makeing individual articles better are a poor use of editor effort and time. The two most recent experiments I know of, this one and NEWT, were both terrible ideas. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably go further than that: "Experiments that deliberately introduce misinformation into Wikipedia's biographies of living people should not be conducted, particularly without the informed consent of the subject." Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEWT was an incredibly stupid idea that could have resulted in several desysoppings had the issue blown up while that project was ongoing. But creating bad articles that are factual about otherwise notable individuals is a few degrees removed from intentionally contributing to vandalism/insertion of misfacts. Agree with NYB---there is no excuse for intentionally inserting bad data. ~~Also, NEWT did not use or rely upon the tools/trust granted to Admins~~.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZM --- I am not overly familiar with the details of the case, but from what I've gathered, and correct me if I'm wrong, you gave information to a banned party that is not ~~normally~~ easily available to the average user. If this is the case, then that was an abuse of priviledged information. If my understanding is correct, there is a huge difference between creating sock accounts (which require no special authorizations/privilidges) and I still have concern about using one's access/trust from the community to breach the projects trust. NEWT was an incredibly stupid idea, but it did not require any additional tools/trust from the community to perform---a banned user could have participated without the aid of a trusted user. Again, if my interpretation is wrong, let me know and I will amend my statement. Aiding a banned user in breaching experiment is similarly bad judgment.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have modified my statement. According to MZM, the information he provided could have been obtained by Mr. Kohs on his own with a new account, but that it was easier for MZM to obtain it. The fact that MZM did so, shows a lack of judgement in my opinion, but is not as egregious as I initially thought. My initial understanding was that he used tools/access not available to the standard user to obtian a list that would be otherwise unobtainable and that would have been a gross abuse of trust not just judgment.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per NYB above. This type of "experimentation" is simply not sound judgment. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust

2) Individuals who hold positions of trust within Wikimedian projects may not abuse that position to disrupt the English Wikipedia. When they do so deliberately, and with a demonstrable intention of violating the local policies of the English Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia community and Arbitration Committee may take action locally to curtail the harmful effects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Worded to be broadly applicable. For example, if I were to abuse my Commons administrator tools to mass-undelete copyvio images for the stated purpose of introducing copyright violations on the English Wikipedia, the en:wiki Arbitration Committee would have no power to revoke my sysop rights on Commons but it could siteban me from en:wiki for copright violation. Durova⁴⁰³ 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's objection misreads the proposal. The English Wikipedia may certainly take local measures such as local blocks and bans, etc. to curb the damage of cross project abuse upon the this website. See, for example this example with this followup where an editor was sitebanned locally in part for cross project copyright violation. The individuals who hold special positions of trust should not be held less responsible than ordinary editors in that regard. In other words, it does not create a shield against responsibility to spread inappropriate conduct across multiple projects. Remedies can be enacted to curtail the local consequences at each of the projects that are impacted; each project including this one chooses its own response. Durova⁴⁰³ 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. The English Wikipedia has no control over Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Commons has no control over the English Wikipedia. Each site is sovereign and only the Board (or the Stewards) may institute blocks or bans that impact multiple projects. The sovereignty of the projects is paramount. Further, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has power only over the English Wikipedia. This is non-negotiable.

This proposal also suggests that there is any particular action in this case that the English Wikipedia could do to prevent disruption, yet there's been no evidence presented to suggest this. There have also been no remedies put forth that draw a reasonable conclusion between taking action and having a direct consequence. That is, there has been no evidence presented so far that suggests that whether or not I have local administrator rights would have any impact or bearing on any of the issues being discussed. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is an well-worded and relevant proposal. While the ArbCom has no authority on other projects, it is right and proper for it to take actions on other projects into consideration where those actions have a direct impact on the English Wikipedia. Such cases are fairly rare but Durova's hypothetical Commons Admin and MZMcBride's actions under review fit it nicely. While ArbCom has no authority over the (allegedly) abused permissions, it can take note of the abuse since it was directly related to en-wiki. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My views are mostly per Eluchil404 on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good proposal. Well-worded, highly relevant. Agree as per Eluchil404 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility

3) An individual who breaches trust and shares privileged information with someone who is not entitled to that information is responsible for the consequences of what that other person does with the information. If those consequences occur on the English Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia community and Arbitration Committee may take action locally to curtail the harmful effects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The usual precept, intermediate between Durova's and MZMcBride's views, is that an individual is responsible for the reasonably anticipated consequences of his or her actions (but not for all possible consequences). Here, given that the person conducting the "experiment" in question had solicited a list of unwatched BLPs for the stated purpose of introducing sneaky vandalism into them, it could reasonably be anticipated that when a list was provided, it would be used for this purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. With a nod to Tom Lehrer, intended to address reasoning that amounts to "Once the missiles go up who cares where they come down? That's not my department..." Durova⁴⁰³ 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privileged information is kept privileged for a reason. Suppose the public relations department of Widgets, Inc. was editing Wikipedia to whitewash the article about Widgets, Inc.. A journalist broke a story about the activity that caused a public embarrassment for the company. A Wikipedia functionary had assisted the journalist. The problem (or lack thereof) does not stem from the consequences or from their foreseeability, but it matters a great deal whether that functionary had breached checkuser confidentiality, or had only shared a link to the WikiScanner. Durova⁴⁰³ 22:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. We don't hold administrators responsible for the actions of those they unblock. We don't hold administrators responsible for the actions of other administrators, even if other administrators have encouraged a particular action (this came up frequently in the IRC cases). Users are responsible for their own actions. Period. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MZM, actually I would hold an admin responsible if they unblocked a vandal account that stated that they intended to continue vandalizing. And I would hold an admin accountable if they unblocked an user that was primarily adding copyright violations and the admin made no effort to understand the reason for the block, and made no effort to monitor the new contributions, and reblock if problems reoccur. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could possibly be worded a bit better, but overall, a sensible proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NYB. While we can't hold an individual responsible for unforseen actions of others, we can hold them responsible for actions that the user enabled. This is even supported by various laws in the US. Bartenders may be held culpable for letting drunk drivers drive home, gun sellers can be held culpable for selling guns to somebody who has indicated a desire to harm themselves or others, etc. If you knew that the intention of another person is to break the law and do nothing---yea, assist in breaking the law, then you are an accessory.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above comments in this section, by NYB and FloNight. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN

4) Although individual administrators may--under appropriate circumstances--end a community ban by unblocking a banned editor, they may not encourage or facilitate ban evasion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems clear. Steve Smith (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova⁴⁰³ 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Well they may, but at their own risk. I think it could be administrators are expected not to "encourage...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully appropriate wording. Seems to be simply restatement of existing policy. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VANDALISM

4) The fact that vandalism occurs on Wikipedia is not an excuse for administrators to foster it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Steve Smith (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova⁴⁰³ 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not only admins. Sole Soul (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Indeed. Fully applies to admins as well as other users. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A key point here is that there seems to have been an organized attempt to encourage subtle vandalism with plausible, but bogus, references. The vandalism pattern here was to insert references to people with the same name as the subject of the article. Cleaning out such vandalism is much harder than cleaning up after the usual dumb vandals. Bots do much of that job. With plausible but bogus references, someone has to check the original sources, and may have to cross-check with other sources to establish that the information is bogus. I did some of that work, as did a number of others. It's hard. ("No, wait, they probably weren't playing for a pro sports team when their bio at the venture capital company says they were an executive at a Swiss bank at the time." "No, if they were a Miss World contender in 2008, the reference in a 1956 book is probably to someone else." "This might be bogus, but we'll need translation from Norwegian to be sure".) We don't need editor time sinks like that. I'd like ArbCom to apply the large cluestick here. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

4) The fact that biographies of living people at Wikipedia receive inappropriate edits is not an excuse for administrators to foster inappropriate edits there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably want to strike "for administrators"; not appropriate for anyone. Shell ^babelfish 22:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova⁴⁰³ 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who hold positions of trust are generally expected to uphold higher standards of conduct. An ordinary editor might not be aware of our standards regarding breaching experiments and may be forgiven a mistake in that regard, especially if the editor is inexperienced. Administrators should know and uphold those policies, especially where the circumstances are unambiguous. Durova⁴⁰³ 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do administrators have to do with this? Should non-administrators be fostering inappropriate edits to biographies of living people? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Good proposal. Per Shell - this type of behavior is not appropriate for anyone. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past arbitrations

5) The Arbitration Committee may weigh past arbitration decisions pertaining to a Wikipedian, as well as their frequency of recurrence, when deciding upon appropriate preventive remedies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Any prior relevant history of the parties or the dispute may be taken into consideration. Irrelevant matters will not be considered. What is or is not relevant in a given case is a matter of judgment and discretion based on the overall circumstances. In this case, I see prior interactions between Durova and Mr. K. as being without relevance, inasmuch as no findings or remedies are under consideration as against Durova relating to events from years ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This was challenged in MZMcBride's RFAR statement. Durova⁴⁰³ 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My past Arbitration case is fair game, but your past (extensive) interactions with Thekohser are not? What about past Requests for comment against the parties? This proposal seems more than a bit one-sided. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't understand MZMcB's objection. Durova's various arb hearing/and rfc stuff has nothing to do with this incident. That the banned user involved in your experiment and her have a long negative history isn't relevant. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of this proposal is appropriate. If accepted, the proposal would apply equally to all - as no specific users are named in it anyways. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR

6) In unusual situations Wikipedians occasionally invoke the ignore all rules policy. When this is justifiable a reasonable expectation is that they do so in a way that is minimally disruptive. In other words, ignore no more rules than necessary to achieve a legitimate goal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Compare the principle adopted in the Sarah Palin case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova⁴⁰³ 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:IAR is perhaps the most misunderstood -- if not misapplied -- principle. Ideally, it should only be invoked after the act in order to fend off Wikilawyering. More practically, it should not be invoked in one instance by a given party who then complains in another that it is being abused. In any case, it's not a defense for creating disruption -- unless that disruption is clearly less than what might have been created otherwise. -- llywrch (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how IAR would reasonably apply to this incident. This was a possible disruption to make a point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rocksanddirt - the behavior under scrutiny seems more relevant to WP:POINT than to WP:IAR. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Roger Davies[edit]

Proposed principles

Administrator conduct

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community; they are expected to lead by example and to follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this as administrators are not expected to be perfect though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with this trusted role and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: Of course---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Sound wording. Appropriate proposal under the circumstances. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return of access levels

2) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule. (RfAr:MZMcBride April 2009)

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: History repeating itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Obvious---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; As was done in the past with support from the Committee as to how this has been applied. Wording sounds good. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism

3) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: This seems to be a more succinctly worded proposal to a similarly agreeable one in another location on this page. This one is preferable. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption to prove a point

4) The point guideline says "if you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked".

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: See my comment below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Support this. Very good to have this here. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

5) Policy defines Vandalism as … " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It further states: "Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated".

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: This seems to be a Fof about policy; should be reworded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Statement of this is certainly appropriate under the circumstances. Though a reiteration, I see no reason why not to say it. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious accusations

6) Due to the risk of harming current or past contributors in real life, users must be careful when accusing other editors of potentially damaging behavior. For example, claims of stalking, sexual harassment, or racism could harm an editor's job prospects or personal life, especially when usernames are closely linked to an individual's real name. These types of comments are absolutely never acceptable without indisputable evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence" such as "diffs and links presented on wiki." In the context of Arbitration, such serious allegations should not be posted publicly in any case. Participates should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the [serious accusation] with...the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by arbitrators

Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ NCM. Too emotional? It's a straight paraphrase of policy. Roger Davies ^talk 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I will not be commenting on this principle or the related findings of fact and remedies. Should this principle and related findings of fact and remedies go forward to the proposed decision, I will recuse from voting or commenting on them there. Risker (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Too emotional; needs copyediting. But the general gist is fine. Ncmvocalist (talk)

@ Roger - Oh really? Doesn't policy more liberally suggest that with negative comments/claims about users, editors 'consider using off-wiki communication when discussing the issue with ArbCom'? That is, each user makes that choice. And that serious claims require serious evidence? Your paraphrasing says that negative comments about users are "absolutely never" ever ever ever ever ever acceptable without indisputable evidence and "should not be posted publicly in any case" in Arbitration. Even the concept of 'indisputable evidence' leaves open the same loophole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well: "some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." As for off-wiki communication, this sometimes isn't practicable on the site, but in the context of an arbitration case, ArbCom-l is always available. The committee should prefer that all such accusation be directed there rather than on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom are more than welcome to express "The Arbitration Committee always prefers that such commentary be made off-wiki, preferrably through arbcom-l, in the context of arbitration cases." What ArbCom cannot do is pretend that the rules (policy) says something else. Policy was made by the community, and that is what parties are obligated to follow; it is explicitly clear that editors need just consider using email, even in the context of arbitration. If ArbCom would like that to change that so that email is mandatory in the context of arbitration for such commentary, this is not the way to do it (as the new members who've joined ArbCom should know by now, let alone the proposer who's been here for over a year). In other words, this proposal is currently nothing more than a flawed & emotional dream. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not agreed. Allegations of wrong conduct on Wikipedia should be considered openly on the project. There need be no exceptions. — James F Kalmar 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ncmvocalist, this does seem a bit too emotional. And it also seems a bit contradictory, especially the last two sentences. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory remarks

7) Policy states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia….. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks".

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties: ~~What's the relevance to this case? I don't see it off-hand, but I'm probably simply missing something obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)~~ Never mind. I see it now (hadn't checked the updates to this page before I commented in this section). I think the issue here is that my username is in the page title and this doesn't appear to have to do with me.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: Would need copyediting, but even then, I don't think this should be included because it distracts from the solid points of this case. Enough politics. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Ncmvocalist is right - this just seems more like politics from the Arbitration Committee than anything else. Reflects poorly on the Committee. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Findings of fact

MZMcBride's editing history

1) MZMcBride has edited Wikipedia since May 2005. He has made more than 70,000 edits and has shown a high degree of dedication to the project. He has been an administrator for two periods – 13 May 2007 to 6 April 2009 and 4 Sep 2009 to 19 January 2010 – in both instances resigning the tools while arbitration proceedings were pending.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: Nothing wrong with this, though the second version is more appropriate. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's editing history (v2)

1.1) MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has edited Wikipedia since May 2005 and has made more than 70,000 edits. He has shown a high degree of dedication to the project as well as a commendable level of concern about the effects that biographies of living persons ("BLPs") on Wikipedia may have on their subjects. A) He has twice served as an administrator: from 13 May 2007 to 6 April 2009, and, following a new request for adminship, again from 4 September 2009 to 19 January 2010.

B) MZMcBride has twice resigned as an administrator: first, while he was the subject of the pending arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, and second, while the request for arbitration that led to this case was on the threshold of acceptance. C) He has twice been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for administrator actions: in October 2008 and in April 2009.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed (based on NYB's below). Roger Davies ^talk 12:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: An adequate summary and background. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background to this case

~~2) The key events in this case are as follows:~~

A) In February and March 2009, MZMcBride had pages in his userspace whose content was problematic. Most were deleted but one was transferred and soft redirected by MZMcBride to MediaWiki.org, without objection from MediaWiki sysadmins or developers. The Arbitration Committee still considered that page problematic and potentially harmful to Wikipedia and MZMcBride deleted it from MediaWiki.org on 5 April 2009 during his previous arbitration case. (Summarised from a Finding of Fact in RfAr:McBride.)

~~B) In December 2009, MZMcBride republished one of the problematic pages on Wikipedia Review.~~

C) In January 2010, MZMcBride was approached by a banned user to supply of a list of biographies of living people for the purpose of inserting vandalism to determine how quickly the material would be reverted.

~~D) It is not in dispute that MZMcBride duly supplied the banned user with a list of twenty articles.~~

~~E) Articles on the list were subsequently subtly vandalised, requiring the expenditure of editor time to correct the vandalism.~~ Replaced by 2.1. 2.2, 2.3 Roger Davies ^talk 12:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by arbitrators

Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZM. Re: (A) Entirely wrong? I'm happy to change the "the" to "one of the" and have done so this edit. Roger Davies ^talk 06:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZM. Re: (B) A message begging you to provide a list of articles looks like an approach to me but I'm happy to tweak the wording if you can come up with a better verb than "approached". Roger Davies ^talk 06:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZM re: 05:46. Yes, others have found it objectionable. Roger Davies ^talk 08:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZM re: 07:13. There is no finding of motive: it is purely descriptive. The "breaching experiment" involved deiberately inserting bogus material into BLPs. That is explicitly prohibited by longstanding policy with wide consensus and characterised by it as vandalism. Roger Davies ^talk 08:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "answered the call of" instead of "approached" since I don't believe MZM was asked directly. Shell ^babelfish 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

I wasn't approached by a banner user. I can't be held responsible for the vandalism done by other users. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction outside the English Wikipedia (finding B is irrelevant).

The facts here provided in part A are entirely wrong as well. Needs better research. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: Roger seems to be confused about the number and fate of the various subpages. As I recall, there were three in contention. So it's more of matter very ambiguous wording in part A that makes part B sufficiently wrong. As I said, Roger needs to do his homework here. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: It seems fairly irrelevant to me, yes. And yes, both parts A and B should be rewritten to be clearer, though discarding them entirely would be better. I find it curious that Roger hasn't involved himself in the Evidence phase at all, but now comes out with findings on his own. It seems out-of-process and inappropriate to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger: You say these are the key events to this case. Has anyone beside you found the re-posting of this "problematic page" objectionable or noteworthy? As far as I can remember from the past two months, you're the only one who has been interested in it or taken note of it. This entire case seems very weak and you seem to be scrounging for anything you can to try to admonish me. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger: How about "In January 2010, a banned user requested a list of unreferenced biographies of living people with 0 watchers for the purpose of conducting a "breaching experiment." The parts regarding motives are unsubstantiated (or downright refuted) by the facts and evidence of the case. And please note the question directly above at 05:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC). --MZMcBride (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger: It's not descriptive as it's still wrong. I wasn't approached. The banned user requested a list on a public board. And it still seems like I'm being held responsible for a banned user's vandalism. I didn't vandalize anything.

Who else has found the re-posting of the "problematic page" objectionable? This is why the Evidence phase is generally used—to gather diffs of such outrage. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flo: My point is that Roger skipped the entire Evidence phase. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: I thought it was fairly typical for Arbitrators to participate in Evidence pages. Or at least I thought it was established that doing so is appropriate (especially if nobody else has presented particular evidence). I'll defer to you on this, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

MZMcBride: care to elaborate (for example, the factual problems with A). Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So among other things, B should also be fixed to say you republished "a" page, although you argue that this is irrelevant in any case? Cool Hand Luke 05:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride—arbitrators read evidence pages, they don't "involve" themselves in them. If Roger had involved himself, I've no doubt you would find it to be evidence of prejudice. Cool Hand Luke 03:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the essence of the concerns at hand.

MZM, the point of adding a draft to the Workshop page first instead of going directly to the PD page is to give the parties and other interested users a chance to suggest alternative wording. There is nothing outside of the ordinary happening here as your comment implies. I think some small tweaks will get this proposal and the other proposed by Roger ready for the PD. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 10:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's role in an "experiment"

2.1) In January 2010, MZMcBride provided information, derived from special access to Wikimedia Foundation servers, to a banned user ("K."), knowing that K. intended to use the data to vandalize biographies of living people on the English Wikipedia. These are the circumstances:

(A) In a discussion on another website, MZMcBride announced that he had created a list of unwatched BLP articles. In the same discussion, K. stated that Wikipedia lacks the ability to sufficiently protect the accuracy and integrity of BLPs and, to demonstrate this, K. proposed a "breaching experiment".

(B) K. publicly asked MZMcBride to supply a list of unwatched BLPs for this "experiment". In response, MZMcBride publicly agreed to e-mail to K. a list and subsequently supplied a list of twenty articles.

(C) MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K. knowing that K. would use the articles for his "breaching experiment" involving BLPs. The context strongly suggests that K. would subtly vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information to then; monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted; and publicise the results. According to K., even as MZMcBride transmitted the list to him, MZMcBride expressed concern that it might be used in a "nefarious" fashion.

(D) MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K knowing that (i) Wikipedia biographies come high, if not highest, in search engine results for living people and (ii) the introduction of inaccurate information into these articles– even if done by K. inconspicuously and without malice – could have unpredictable real life consequences.

(E) MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K. despite knowing, or at least reasonably suspecting, that (i) K. intended to use it to edit the English Wikipedia through sockpuppets and that (ii) K. had been banned from this project and therefore was not authorised to edit English Wikipedia for any purpose at all.

(F) After MZMcBride e-mailed the list to K., K. under various usernames vandalised the BLP articles on it.

(G) After questions were raised about the propriety of this "breaching experiment" and his role in it, MZMcBride continued for several days to defend his conduct and objected to any attempt to terminate the "experiment". MZMcBride ultimately posted a list of the unsourced BLPs he had identified to K. after an arbitrator requested on his talkpage that he do so, at which point various examples of vandalism were reverted.

(H) MZMcBride may have subjectively believed that allowing BLPs to be vandalized by K. in the "breaching experiment" would serve the greater good in drawing attention to the vulnerability of lightly watched, unsourced BLPs to vandalism, an issue about which MZMcBride had expressed very legitimate concerns in the past. Nonetheless, we have little difficulty in concluding that his conduct in this matter fell well short of the standards expected of an administrator.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. (Based on NYB's below). Roger Davies ^talk 12:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; MZMcBride - your cooperation in identifying and correcting any errors would be appreciated. Am I right in guessing that the inaccuracy in saying that you "e-mailed" K. the list is that you actually provided it to him by private message on WR? I certainly see how that error could bring this entire case crashing to the ground. Steve Smith (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information

As I pointed out below, parts of this are wrong. It may not be substantive to you, but you're laying out a timeline and evidence that are simply not supported by reality. I don't think it's very unreasonable to suggest that the same standard for Biographies of living people be applied to statements of fact regarding our editors. Do your homework. If you can't cite each and every point in this evidence presentation, remove it or generalize the statements to the point that they cannot be wrong. For example, I never e-mailed Mr. Kohs a copy of this list. I believe I noted that below explicitly. (Just checked. I definitely did point this out already.) Is this a Earth-stopping error? Of course not. But there is absolutely a duty to get the information correct or remove it entirely, as Jimmy (and many others have) noted. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment was about article space, not Wikipedia space or disciplinary procedures. I agree that accuracy is important, but I do not agree that minor or technical errors qualify as "misleading or false". — James F Kalmar 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: Well-worded statement. Points E, G, and H are especially crucial. Cirt (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's sockpuppetry posting

2.2) In December 2009, a contributor on another website asked for suggestions concerning techniques for sockpuppeting (i.e., posting from multiple accounts in violation of policy) on Wikipedia while avoiding detection through checkuser or otherwise. MZMcBride responded by publicly posting a list of techniques that could be misused for this improper purpose. The contents of his post were substantially identical to those of a page he had formerly created in his userspace but later deleted, providing the same information about how to sockpuppet. MZMcBride knew that his public posting of advice on how to sockpuppet while avoiding detection had previously been the subject of substantial adverse comment, including in his prior arbitration case, but did so anyway and has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for his action.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. (Based on NYB's below). Roger Davies ^talk 12:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties: Failed to offer any reasonable explanation? Has anyone asked me for an explanation? If so, when and where? Roger, I'm not sure why you seem flatly determined to lose as much respect as possible during this case.... --MZMcBride (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: Appropriate statement. A bit disturbing, and especially with regard to the last sentence. Good proposal. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride and Toolserver

2.3) MZMcBride was able to provide information about unwatched articles to K. because of his access to Wikimedia "toolserver" data. His access enabled him to generate, among other things, information on the number of users, if any, who have watchlisted each page on this or any project. Access to toolserver data is restricted to experienced and trusted users and is provided in the justified expectation that it will be used only for responsible purposes. Although the number of users watchlisting any page is generally public information, to avoid providing a path to vandalism of little-watched pages, data about pages with few or no watchers is available only to users with toolserver access. As long ago as September 2009, MZMcBride was aware of the concerns of the toolserver administrators that unwatched pages bypass MediaWiki's security. On 17 January 2010, the toolserver rules were explicitly changed to prohibit the release of unwatched article data.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. (Based on NYB's below). Roger Davies ^talk 12:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties
Comment by others: Good wording, and necessary in this case. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Question of due process: had arbitrators any communication with Toolserver users or admins which have contributed to the change in the rules ? Cenarium (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's judgment

3) In (i) republishing the problematic page and (ii) providing information to a banned user with the foreknowledge that it would likely to be used to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, MZMcBride has demonstrated judgment inconsistent with the minimal standards expected of administrators.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Knowingly furthering disruption on Wikipedia, even if those actions originate from elsewhere, is sanctionable by the community or ArbCom. Encouraging a banned user to disrupt Wikipedia by providing soft targets (regardless of whether or not this information could be obtained by other means) and taking no responsibility for this encouragement or cleaning up after that disruption (or even checking to see if it occurred) is far below the level of clue generally expected of an administrator. Shell ^babelfish 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Per Shell. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties: There is absolutely no evidence put forth that the list of pages provided to the banned user is or was any more dangerous or valuable than the information provided by the MediaWiki interface. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is apparently the sought after de-adminship finding. Roger, can you explain how posting content on the Wikipedia Review is within the Arbitration Committee's remit? Can you explain which page you're referring to? Can you point to where it was posted? Can you point to any evidence you've submitted on the Evidence page of this case regarding this? Can you describe what is particularly problematic in the referenced page? And can you draw a line between what you describe as less-than-desirable actions and de-adminship? Wouldn't something like this normally result in an admonishment, if anything? Again, I don't see how content published off-site can be used as a means to punish an editor. You seem to be setting a very bad precedent. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. ^ --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: I support this proposed Fof. While an admin has no obligation to report a banned users plans to add bogus information to articles (in this instance BLPs), admins do have an obligation not to assist them. This is something that directly effects the content of Wikipedia and is therefore directly applicable to a find of fact about whether an admin has the judgment to retain the tools. Given prior instances of poor judgment that resulted in finding in Arbitration cases, this incident can not be minimized. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 09:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Essentially agree with above comment in this section, by Shell. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's administrator status

4) MzMcBride resigned the tools on 19 Jan 2010, three days after the request to open this case was filed.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; @MZM, Fixed, thanks! Roger Davies ^talk 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties: "was on filed" --MZMcBride (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: Succinct, accurate, good statement. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's commentary

5) ~~The filing party in this case, Durova posted commentary on this case that was swiftly and correctly removed by an arbitrator and forwarded privately to the Arbitration Committee.~~ (Replaced by 5.1, Roger Davies ^talk 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; The commentary was unnecessary and had no bearing on the scope of this case; removing the information was proper. Serious claims require serious evidence which was not provided here; this was a case of an argument that got too heated. Shell ^babelfish 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

It was also posted under direct orders from the case clerk.[1] The clerk demanded evidence if the comments were to remain onsite; if the removal was correct then the clerk's instructions were wrong. I was rather surprised by the instructions, but the Committee can hardly fault me for obeying with them swiftly. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 05:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@FloNight: Ascribing a motive is precisely what I did not do. My evidence even closed with the words, "His motives are irrelevant." Durova⁴⁰⁵ 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You now have in my updated evidence an outline of how that portion was written under adverse conditions and severe time pressure. A fair arbitration would hardly judge that by the same standards as evidence written at leisure. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: Support the way that this incident was handled by the clerks and arbs. After several weeks of back and forth comments between herself and MZM and not coming to agreement, Durova ascribed a motive for the disagreement that was entirely unfounded and unsupported. Due to the nature of the alleged motive, it is appropriate for the comments to be moved off site.

IMO, this was a simply disagreement between two individuals and there is no reason to exaggerate the errors made by the other party by inserting gender bias into the discussion. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova is not impartial in this situation so it is perhaps understandable that she reads more into the comments of MZM and others. But ascribing motives and looking for hidden reasons behind comments when people disagree with her is precisely what was happening. That Durova did it unintentionally does not alter that it indeed did happen. IMO, bringing gender issues into this case was entirely unwarranted from the on site comments. So unless there is evidence that I'm unaware of that happened off site, then Durova's interpretation of the situation did not match my reading of the comments. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's commentaries

5.1) The filing party in this case, Durova has:

(i) posted commentary on this case that was swiftly and correctly removed by an arbitrator and forwarded privately to the Arbitration Committee, and

(ii) made derogatory remarks about another editor on her talk page, writing: If [name redacted] were trapped in a burning building with a malfunctioning phone that could only contact me, of course I would alert the fire department immediately. If our positions were reversed I would roast marshmallows and await my doom. My opinion of her integrity really is that dismal.

Comment by arbitrators

Proposed, to replace (5). Roger Davies ^talk 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded to include the specific derogatory remark.

@NCM I've clarified this: it has nothing to do with checks and balances or lowering the bar. The comment is a scathing ad hominem attack. Roger Davies ^talk 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

Comment by others: Please don't lower the standard of what constitutes a derogatory remark; it was strongly emotional, though that was predictable given Risker's last response which was an unhelpful way to respond in the circumstances. I'd be happy to consider these as lapses in judgement all around, some more strongly than others, but if the arbitrators genuinely cannot recognise the can of problems they are opening with the second part of this proposal, then there really isn't much hope. Even from a political perspective, this wouldn't be the way to respond to a concern that the checks and balances concerning arbitrators are unsatisfactory. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) @ Roger. Thank you for addressing my concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators are in an awkward position when they decide on personal attacks directed toward other arbitrators. This didn't need to be part of the case at all—this case was not taken to examine Durova's conduct, and I would not have guessed that she would push it in this direction. The intensity of her comments makes them hard to ignore. It's bad all around. Regrettably, this sort of finding is necessary. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioning whistleblowers is a bad idea unless you're dealing with a deliberate liar, which Durova isn't. Two and a half years ago I went to Durova because I feared harassment. She listened to me with an open mind and asked questions. If she had handled me the way this workshop is handling her, it is much less likely that I would have gone on to become a contributor of high quality content. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't habitual behavior for Durova. Now that it's withdrawn and apologized for, it may be best for both Risker and Durova if no more attention is drawn to it, per Streisand Effect. As for the first item, it's my understanding that Ryan had asked for onsite diffs, and then asked for email. Durova didn't see the second of his two requests: understandable mistake. If it's not understandable, I request that the Committee tell us editors their side of the story (we did vote for a more transparent committee, no?) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Getting you folks' side of the story will, at any rate, tell us where communication is going wrong.[reply]

Proposed Remedies

MZMcBride's administrator status

1) The Committee takes note that MZMcBride has resigned his administrator tools during the preliminary stages of this case, in controversial circumstances. He may regain the tools at any time via a Request for Adminship. Replaced by 1.1 (based by NYB's). Roger Davies ^talk 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Falls just short of self-evident, apparently. Steve Smith (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Would have thought this was obvious; one doesn't resign in the face of a case where removing the bit may be considered and then simply pick the bit back up later as if nothing happened. Shell ^babelfish 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties: What Nuke said below. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: You're drawing a line between adminship and Arbitration that simply doesn't exist. Are you suggesting that non-administrators can't be brought to Arbitration? Are you suggesting that any and all cases brought before Arbitration against an administrator can be dismissed by a resignation? That's rather silly, esp. as this case has nothing to do with administrator tools. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: What I have such difficulty understanding is why there's this dogma surrounding older case decisions. You said, "is most commonly invoked when a case has already been opened." [your emphasis] From my point of view, it seems like the Arbitration Committee is wholly reluctant to, if not downright obstinate about, changing to fit the circumstances. Which is fairly surprising given that all of this is made-up anyway. The proposals, findings, and remedies should match the specifics of the case. If re-use from prior cases is possible without issue, okay, copy and paste away. If not, adapt the findings and remedies accordingly. This isn't a court and there's no stare decisis for the Arbitration Committee to concern itself with. The entire dogmatic view of past remedies is simply mind-boggling. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: Which part of this case has to do with administrative conduct? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: Come again? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

I personally would prefer a standard "MZMcBride is desysopped" remedy be voted upon. Saying he resigned to avoid scrutiny is pretty silly in my opinion. MZM knew that the RfAr was going to open, and from reading his comments, he did it solely to lessen drama. Do we really want to discourage administrators trying to lessen drama-filled arbitration requests in future cases? NW (Talk) 21:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard remedy. We should not require editors to undergo RFAR if they are willing to relinquish their bit and make the case moot. Unless there's a consistent rule for handling these circumstances, every such voluntary break would require a case to evaluate whether or not they were hoping to avoid a case (which, by the way, MZMcBride was). Forcing all of these cases to completion is a waste of time and a source of unnecessary drama, which is why this rule exists. Cool Hand Luke 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this is a standard remedy. I'm questioning whether or not it is the appropriate standard remedy. I understand the value of having this particular rule, and I know that it has helped matters in the past. However, this particular was accepted, so all that about avoiding scrutiny and drama by having this rule doesn't really apply. And plus, does it really make a difference to you guys if you vote for his desysopping rather than a remedy that would discourage people from giving up their tools when they know that a case is going to be accepted? NW (Talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe this rule is most commonly invoked when a case has already been opened. In that context, it stops bickering about whether a user should be desysopped (a very weighty matter). Users might otherwise be tempted to vanish once they see a case is turning out badly for them. This rule provides a predictable result for that, which does in fact reduce drama. Cool Hand Luke 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has no stare decisis, but it can formulate its own processes and procedures. A lot of thought has been put into this rule, and it's one that should be consistently applied. We should allow admins an out if they want out of a case based on their alleged administrative misconduct. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's administrator status (v2)

1.1) As MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. MZMcBride is urged to allow at least 60 days to elapse before again requesting adminship through either path, to allow the drama associated with his actions in this matter to dissipate. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned.

Comment by arbitrators: Proposed. (Based on NYB's below). Roger Davies ^talk 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Will have my own proposal based on this, but restricting MZMcBride from using RfA to request Adminship. SirFozzie (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties
Comment by others: The proposed wording above, as based on the NYB model, seems appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride admonished

2) MZMcBride is admonished for failing to learn from the lessons of the past and ~~is urged to take a more collegiate approach in his future editing.~~ for creating avoidable drama.

Comment by arbitrators

Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "collegiate" read "collegial", I assume. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, collegiate is an exact synonym for collegial in this context. I'll probably recast it as I'm not particularly happy with that either, probably drawing from MZm's own proposal below about drama. Roger Davies ^talk 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, based on MZM's wording. Roger Davies ^talk 10:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties: Collegiate? You're going to have to explain how this word is appropriate in context. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others: [2] Note meaning 3. --JN 466 05:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; I'm not comfortable with an admonishment for "creating avoidable drama", when too many situations (and potentially nearly every case) could also call for the same measure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]; "failing to learn from the lessons of the past and for creating avoidable drama" = too vague and nonspecific. This does not really mean anything. Admonished for what? Why? How does this apply going forward and in what capacity? Cirt (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova cautioned

3) Durova is cautioned to be more circumspect in her commentaries on others.

Comment by arbitrators

Proposed. Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Durova. The original clerk note spoke directly and properly to the underlying principle. Roger Davies ^talk 06:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Durova: you've had an opportunity to present evidence by email but what you have provided is unpersuasive. The point here is that you should not have made the allegations in the first place unless you had very clear evidence indeed to support what you say.

I imagine that Risker might prefer to recuse on the aspects of this case in which she had direct involvement with you (ie Principle, FoF, Remedy) but see no conceivable reason for her to do so on the aspects which do not concern you. Roger Davies ^talk 06:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Durova. To clarify my earlier point, the clerk didn't invite you to make serious allegations, he conservatively redacted one you made and told you to substantiate it or have it removed.

There was indeed dialogue – somewhere between banter and bickering – between you and MZMcBride for some time before you made the accusation. None of that appears to unambiguously support the claims you made. The quantum leap here was to ascribe an improper motive to MZMcBride's disagreeing with you, articulate it in uncompromising terms, and to take it a wider forum. Policy is entirely clear that the onus is entirely on the person making a serious accusation to substantiate it and that unsubstantiated accusations are "absolutely never acceptable". Roger Davies ^talk 10:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback. I'm happy to hear more cases involving ad hominem attacks on character and I suspect the same is true of my colleagues. Such attacks have no place on Wikipedia: they are extremely difficult to effectively respond to, they poison the atmosphere, and they undermine the editor concerned. Roger Davies ^talk 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt, I'm puzzled. The issue here is not Durova calling for Risker's recusal (though in this context the suggestion that comments in an RfC and an RfAr demonstrate bias lacks any assumption of good faith) but the "marshmallow" remarks. On recusal, the test is probably not whether the arbitrator has interacted with the party but whether a reasonable presumption of bias or conflict of interest exists. In this instance, I see no evidence of bias and I'm left wondering to what, if anything, Risker's comments in an RfC and an RfAr two and a half years ago speak. It is to bias, then that bias is certainly not transparent in the comments themselves. What's more, if Durova believed Risker was biased, I'm wonder why Durova voted a year later for Risker in the 2008 ArbCom elections. Roger Davies ^talk 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's not so much that you shouldn't have responded to the clerk as it was completely inappropriate to begin with. The increasingly strident demands and rhetoric certainly haven't been helpful. Shell ^babelfish 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

See above. Roger Davies proposes to caution me for complying with orders from the case clerk. If the clerk's orders were mistaken then the Committee and clerks need to improve their internal communications. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 05:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original clerk note demanded evidence for an assertion I had not made; he did not cite WP:NPA and to the extent that the policy is applicable to his post it is based upon a misreading of my words. His instructions were very clear, though: either provide evidence or remove the statement. It was a binary choice. Now you would fault me for complying? Durova⁴⁰⁵ 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per this assurance from Risker following the removal my actions are not under scrutiny. She also promises "Should a case arise in which your actions are being scrutinised, I will certainly recuse," yet she remains on the active list of arbitrators. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is playing out as a textbook example of how organizations should not handle bias incidents. The arbitrators tolerated weeks of personal attacks against me, more than one of which specifically mentioned the bias incident, and which cast aspersions on my character and motives with no other visible basis for the bad faith assumptions. The accuser was not asked to substantiate his claims, not asked to remove them, nothing was refactored. Yet a series of very sharp official reactions have followed my civil response. The ground has shifted with every statement from the arbitrators and clerk. The posts I responded to were WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA violations. They were also consistent with a certain type of pattern which is itself an expression of bias. I never posted any assertion onsite that they actually were that type of bias. Twice I asked for clarification that could disprove the pattern, and when none was forthcoming I posted evidence at the clerk's insistence and stated that these behaviors were consistent with that definition. If that much is not only not allowable onsite, but deserving of sanction of any sort despite the extenuating circumstances, then your proposal creates a chilling effect. The assurances that the Committee cares about bias victims is lip service. You can hardly expect Wikipedians to refer bias incidient victims to the Committee for assistance after the precedent you are setting now. It's late evening in California; I'm going to bed. If you courtesy blank these proposals I promise to chalk this up as a mistake and not circulate it; none of us are perfect. I'll be willing to set this behind us if it is withdrawn. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 07:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. FloNight's opinion is based upon a misreading of my statement. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies's latest post wonders why I supported Risker in the election and later requested her recusal. That looks like an invitation for onsite explanation. In fall 2008 I had no reason to doubt her good faith and integrity. Shortly afterward other circumstances came to light. One of the reasons behind recusal as a concept is to minimize the chances of serious misunderstandings. I am sorry for my share of the recent misunderstanding and sorry for the overreaction that resulted. There is no need to apologize for requesting her recusal, though. Polite distance is the best solution here. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 00:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: I support the proposals in regard to Durova and I am tempted to ask that they go farther by banning Durova from participating in cases unless it is a matter that "directly" involves her. Durova's participation in the case has added extra drama and controversy and is making it more difficult to address the core issues in this case. I made a comment about the situation that was moved to the arb wiki. I continue to hold the view stated in the comment. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 09:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]; @ Roger. Is this proposal based solely on the couple of (isolated?) incidents that have been outlined in this case? Also, Durova seems to suggest above that negative comments/claims were made about her, but were not dealt with in the same fashion as the comment(s) she made about others - could you explain this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova appears to have thought on this quite a bit, and issued an apology. This does not appear to be necessary. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cirt, an apology has been issued and the comment courtesy blanked. Ugh, can you imagine the number of arbitration cases for insults (big and small) that hadn't been apologized for and blanked? :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think the language proposed here is carefully measured. This is an appropriate response. The calls to ban Durova from third-party arbitration seem especially misplaced in this case—I think it's very good that the case was brought. Durova just needs to be more careful. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time Durova has reflected on the nature of her actions and apologized for them. Therefore, this measure seems to be punitive rather than preventative - and thus unbecoming of the Arbitration Committee. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What measure? –xeno^talk 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The singling out in this manner. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that diff above. You called it an apology, but it's nothing of the sort. I recognize that Ryan misapprehended her words to mean something more than Durova intended, but Ryan was far from the only one who did. Durova explains that she didn't have time to make her true meaning clear, but at no point does she recognize that she should have been more cautious about posting such comments to begin with. Cool Hand Luke 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Check the diff again. Durova apologized no less than three times. Cirt (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She did not and does not apologize for the post, and she devotes several paragraphs to criticizing/blaming Ryan. At any rate, a caution is especially appropriate in this case because it's clearly much less than an admonishment, which is rightly proposed for MZMcBride. Cool Hand Luke 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite clearly an apology, "Risker's action was correct and I apologize for the reaction, which was fueled by a righteous anger that resulted from the misunderstanding." Durova correctly apologized for her tone, but had no need to apologize for requesting Risker's recusal. The background for this is that Durova was entirely right to request Risker's recusal. Risker (talk · contribs) had posted repeatedly to the Durova RfC [3] and the Durova arbitration [4] [5]. Risker had also tolerated her good friend Geogre (talk · contribs) socking extensively in those same two places, and had tried to make excuses for him until he actually was desysopped. That's a really obvious situation for recusal and Durova had already asked for Risker's recusal repeatedly. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I saw it. Durova completely misses one of the key problems. She had posted all of this before Risker, Roger, or Ryan became involved. She apparently sees nothing wrong with it. A formal caution is in order, and it is not punitive.

Perhaps you did not see that Risker has recused from this and the series of findings related to Durova? Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A partial recusal seems to cast a bit of impropriety, I have never heard of such a thing being done before. A full recusal would look best in the eyes of the community. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman did something similar in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision, and FayssalF did something similar in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision. NW (Talk) 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I strongly think that in the future there should only be full recusals. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins and would-be admins are often advised that they need to develop thick skins. Obviously that applies to Arbitrators as well. In this case, the issue seems to be an assertion that an ArbCom member lacks integrity. That's not something that any of want to hear said about ourselves, yet far worse things are routinely said about admins and regular editors. If the ArbCom is going to routinely admonish editors for comments of this type then I applaud that decision and could submit a dozen or more people who should be admonished for similar language. But unless questioning the integrity of Wikipedia editors is routinely considered unacceptable then singling out one editor is inconsistent. Will Beback talk 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: There are examples in the recent RFC/U for ChildofMidnight, and in any thread concerning Giano, that appear far worse than this. Will Beback talk 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger - Actually, Roger, this issue does have a great deal to do with Durova's request for Risker (talk · contribs) to recuse. Apparently Durova made that request multiple times before she finally lost patience. Considering how lenient the Arbitration Committee has been toward comments by MZMcBride about Durova, and that a portion of the Wikipedia community argues that "venting" on one's own user talk page shouldn't be actionable, this is looking like a double standard. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, unjustifiable inconsistency due to politics is nothing new with some ArbCom decisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly ridiculous. Basic notion that the ArbCom needs to get in its head: The appearance of a conflict of interest can be almost as bad as an actual conflict of interest. Durova's repeated requests for Risker to recuse were reasonable. Durova then concerning other issues provided evidence she was actively told to provide. The notion that any of this should somehow lead to a caution is frankly incredible. People have complained in the past that the ArbCom seems often to feel a need for to find fault with all sides(for lack of a better term) in any dispute whether or not that is justified. I must wonder if this proposal is a reflection of that tendency. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by MZMcBride[edit]

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

1) The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee only has the ability to regulate users on the English Wikipedia. Behavior and actions on other Wikimedia wikis, the Internet, or in real life are completely outside the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Arbitration Committee may not have the ability to regulate the toolserver, where you got this info.. but the activities in this case had a direct impact on the English Language Wikipedia. So if you're trying to claim that your actions should fall outside ArbCom's remit, I disagree. SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have, and should not have, any generalized mandate to enforce behavioral standards off-wiki, such as on other websites. However, we certainly do have the right and "jurisdiction" to take action in extraordinary circumstances where conduct off-wiki has a clear and foreseeable negative impact on the English Wikipedia encyclopedia or community. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Conduct outside Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Participation in other websites; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Off-wiki communication. While judgment and discretion are important in these types of cases, and we may often choose to let borderline situations pass to avoid any perception that we seek to restrict the candid offsite discussion of issues involving Wikipedia, MZMcBride's proposed language would prohibit this committee from redressing even the most brazen acts of off-wiki harassment, threats, or encouragement of vandalism and is patently misguided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely with Brad. MZMcBride, your interpretation of this does not seem substantiated by anything beyond assertion. Steve Smith (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "slippery slope" doesn't exist in this case - the actions offsite could have been reasonably expected to affect the English Wikipedia in a disruptive manner. Consider the difference between a post discussing Wikipedia policy and one that could reasonably be used to circumvent policy; one has the potential to affect Wikipedia in a positive manner, the other doesn't. Shell ^babelfish 22:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Common sense, really. Proposed. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, Luke, if someone calls you and threatens to break your legs, you would call the police, not file an Arbitration request on a silly website. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: I'm not generally a fan of slippery slope arguments, but the one to be made here is too clear. It's a very dangerous precedent for our editors to suggest that their off-site behavior be subject to on-site scrutiny. There must be a clear link between the off-site actions and the on-wiki behavior and there must be the possibility of a reasonable course of action to be taken to prevent the effect. (That is, attempting to ban the use of all mailing lists or private forums lacks any enforceability. It would be entirely unreasonable and foolish to suggest such a remedy.) There are likely some other criteria that need to be considered and the language may need tweaking, but the overall idea is strong. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie: The Toolserver, among the rest of the Internet (including IRC), are outside the scope of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. This needs to be made much clearer. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: It has nothing to do with what you deign to choose to scrutinize. The simple reality is that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has no control or remit over users' behavior off-site. In extraordinary circumstances, blocks or bans may be imposed if the user in question is creating a hostile editing environment, but this is by far the exception to the rule, not the general practice. This should be codified. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thank you for posting this one. It would be really nice if the committee would acknowledge this fact. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; dead wrong. You cannot, for example, permissibly call up a rival editor in "real life" and threaten to break their legs. The appropriate test is whether off-site activity has a negative impact on Wikipedia. Intimidating users to get them to quit = sanctionable. Blogging about how terrible the site is = not actionable. The question here is whether an admin's off-site conduct harmed Wikipedia (or whether the conduct was neutral or even beneficent). Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, MZMcBride, take that as some hyperbole. Do you argue that a user who, for example, called the employer of another editor in order to complain about their Wikipedia editing should be unmolested on this site as an editor and admin? Cool Hand Luke 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question, on the other hand, is not a slippery slope argument. My description captures scenarios that have actually occurred. You're not just rejecting a hypothetical; your proposal rejects decisions actually reached by both ArbCom and the community. When user's off-site conduct harms the encyclopedia, we can and should take steps to confine their role on this site—especially when they are supposed to be vanguards of our highest standards (that is, when they are administrators). Since your proposal is utterly at odds with both practice and common sense, you should rethink this principle and try again. Cool Hand Luke 04:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This restricted notin of jurisdiction doesn't fit with existing practice. To use just one of many examples, banning people for outing other editors even if it occurs off of the project is standard. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially agree with above comment in this section, by SirFozzie. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction (2)

1b) The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee only has the ability to regulate users on the English Wikipedia. In extraordinary circumstances, when it is clear that a user's off-site behavior will have a direct negative impact on the English Wikipedia and its editing environment, the Arbitration Committee may take steps to prevent such a negative impact provided there is a reasonable assurance that such actions will be enforceable and effective. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, behavior and actions on other Wikimedia wikis, the Internet, or in real life are completely outside the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Closer, but not quite. "there is a reasonable assurance that such actions will be enforceable and effective" - the community and the committee have banned editors from Wikipedia in many cases not because this could stop or control their disruptive offsite behavior (i.e. stalking, outing etc.) but because those actions are incompatible with editing here. Shell ^babelfish 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed, with tweaks from Cool Hand Luke's comments above. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: Down here, dear. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: Yeah, I know it's a radical concept to suggest that people engage in behavior that they believe will be reasonably effective. This is Wikipedia, after all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This statement is closer to actual practice, and it carves a clear argument in your case. The apparent argument is that the question of your adminship is at right angles to whether you can distribute unwatched pages as vandalism targets offsite (hence removing the admin bit is ineffective for preventing such offsite activity). In contrast, users who intimidate rival edit warriors offsite should be banned because banning them effectively removes them from their objective. Effective prevention deters editors from destructive offsite behavior.

I think this is logically consistent, but I wonder whether desysopping for offsite behavior could be justified as a sort of "conduct unbecoming" remedy. Hypothetically, admins might be sanctioned even if they did not misuse their admin rights. Maybe it's sensible to look at conduct unbecoming wherever it might occur. Cool Hand Luke 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this is also clearly wrong. If ArbCom actions were limited to effective responses, we would never "ban" anyone. We have imperfect tools at our disposal. Our focus is sharply focused on improving Wikipedia, but considering off-site activity is sometimes necessary. Cool Hand Luke 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a user used an off-site tool to hurt Wikipedia. That user can still use that tool even if blocked on-site. However, there is a possibility the user would be deterred if they know that on-enwiki sanctioning is an option. Sole Soul (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above comment in this section, by Shell. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

1) The role of the Arbitration Committee is to resolve user disputes and administer advanced user rights.

Comment by Arbitrators:

KnightLago's actions were not under the umbrella of the Arbitration Committee, but the actions of any concerned editor. Shell ^babelfish 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZM: Then I believe you have grossly misunderstood. Reverting vandalism is everyone's problem, not limited to nor a function of ArbCom. None of KnightLago's proper reverts referenced the ArbCom or suggested that his reversions had any more weight than those of a normal editor. Shell ^babelfish 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Needs clarification due to the "KnightLago incident." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell: Whoa, there. I believe KnightLago and Coren have both been saying all along that KnightLago was acting as an Arbitrator. (And, indeed, he got the list of approximately 8,000 articles as an Arbitrator, not as a concerned editor.) This needs some clarification. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Shell: I don't think this (being that the "actions were not under the umbrella of the Arbitration Committee") has been made clear at all. From the moment that the alt account had been "found out", so to speak, the general sentiment that it was some sort of ArbCom approved activity. I can look for diffs if you want, but I just wanted to leave a quick note; somebody else might be able to substantiate this with diffs while I sleep. Killiondude (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, perhaps I should have continued reading this page too see more discussion about this specific topic. My apologies. Killiondude (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too short. Something like this should go into a bit more depth and detail, taking into account WP:ARBCOM and WP:AP. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts

1) From WP:SCRUTINY: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree with the policy in general, but oppose you trying to frame ArbCom for stopping the behavior which you caused by handing a banned user articles that were unwatched and unsourced. SirFozzie (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct but irrelevant. KnightLago did not create the account to avoid scrutiny and even acknowledged the account; one would expect "avoid scrutiny" would mean the account was being used for something nefarious rather than trying to prevent/fix sneaky vandalism. I suppose we can be upset that he didn't try to take credit for his work :-) Sad that you'd go after the only person who tried to help clean up your mess. Shell ^babelfish 23:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZM: Alternate or return accounts are routinely made known to ArbCom rather than being acknowledge publicly. Again, you miss the point that there was no lack of scrutiny nor inappropriate behavior that would violate the sock policy. Shell ^babelfish 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Needs clarification due to the "KnightLago incident." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie: It's not about framing. This is the principles section. Given the specifics of what happened here, this principle needs to be re-affirmed in this case. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell: No, he absolutely did not acknowledge the account publicly until over a week later. This principle is relevant to the overall case. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

SirFozzie makes a good point, above. (Though it does appear to be a restatement of WP:SCRUTINY). Cirt (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

"Number of watchers" is a useless metric

1) Based on the extensive commentary on-wiki and the commentary by a lead MediaWiki developer, it has become clear that the "number of watchers" metric is effectively useless.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This may be so, but I don't see why we should make a decision about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZMcBride: If your point is that you helped to enable a particularly useless experiment in vandalizing BLPs, I don't see how that helps you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what's the point? That the experiment was somehow less disruptive? Shell ^babelfish 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZM: I think you've misunderstood again, the crux is this case furthering the vandalism/disruption of Wikipedia. Whether the pages had 0 or millions of watchers matters very little in the grand scheme of things, the intent remains the same. What you or the banned user might have "intended" to test is really beside the point. Shell ^babelfish 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZM: It may have mattered to the point you thought you were making, but we're not concerned with that, rather with the disruption your point making caused. Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Most of the technically-minded users I've discussed this with agree. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: The entire crux of this case is a list of pages with 0 watchers. This is completely relevant to the case. Perhaps the most central point. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell: The central and most fundamental point of this disputed experiment is that these particular pages had 0 watchers. I don't see any principles, findings, or remedies on this page that could be more relevant than this one to the case. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, your assertion that "whether the pages had 0 or millions of watchers matters very little in the grand scheme of things" is completely wrong. It is one of the very few points that mattered at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I disagree with Mzm on the point that the zero watchers is relevant. The issue is providing information to a banned user that a reasonable person would assume would be used as an experiment in vandalism. What should be done about that? what if an adminstrator provided information to 'grawp' and his /b/tard minions about circumventing the things done to contral that vadalism? all of it is or was generally reverted and oversighted or revision deleted with in minutes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least this is disputable. Plus, this raise the question that this experiment was partly done to prove this point. Sole Soul (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly seems to be disputed and not really appropriate. Both on issues of accuracy and relevancy. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resignations and retirements

2) Administrators serve in a voluntary capacity and may resign their bits at any time, for any reason. Doing so to avoid scrutiny is unacceptable. However, if there are no indications or evidence provided that a resignation was done to avoid scrutiny (a lack of retirement being a key indicator here), the Arbitration Committee must hold a proper vote to determine whether the administrator left under controversial circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The current practice by ArbCom sends the wrong message. Sole Soul (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, when a case is filed/opened and the response by a given party is to resign, then it is by definition resigning under a cloud. Take this case as an example. MZM resigned in response to this case (or at least that's what the timing suggests.) Because of his resignation, 2 members of ArbCOM voted not to accept the case because following through with the case was moot and noted that his resignation was "under a cloud." At least two others ArbCOM members made similar comments proposing this be handled via motion instead of a full case. When his resignation failed to forstall a full case, MZM then requested his bit back. This combined with his actions during his first ArbCOM case (resigning and starting an RFA DURING an open case) shows a history of trying to game the system. If a person wishes to temporarily give up the bit during a case as a sign of good will that is fine, if it is so declared, but that is not what happened here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as excellently-put by Balloonman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KnightLago's behavior

3) On January 13, 2010, KnightLago created a secret alternate account for the purposes of reverting subtle vandalism. He did so on his own, without the consent of the Arbitration Committee. He did not disclose the owner of the account publicly. ~~He later~~ Thirteen hours later, he told the Arbitration Committee about the existence of the account and no Arbitrators objected. KnightLago felt his involvement in the ~~experiment~~affair did not constitute enough to warrant recusal from this case. The identity of the account was made public on January 21, 2010.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You are fundamentally incorrect here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "experiment" that was started in this instance placed everyone who knew of it in a difficult position. We (arbitrators as well as everyone else who read the Wikipedia Review thread in question) were aware that BLP articles were being vandalized. Our options were to do nothing, to repair the vandalism, or to put an end to the experiment. Ultimately, when I returned from a trip, I sent an e-mail requesting the list of unwatched BLP articles that MZMcBride had sent to the banned user, which was met with the objection that I was seeking to disrupt the experiment! Per a request from MZMcBride, I then re-posted my request to his talkpage, whereupon he posted the list and the remaining vandalism to the articles was reverted. In retrospect, despite my travel, I should have posted that request sooner. But in the interim, I see no conceivable objection to quietly reverting the BLP vandalism rather than leaving it in place. The purported "experiment" in vandalizing BLPs was not something that was entitled to any respect or deference, and I find no basis for criticizing KnightLago, much less for proposing findings about him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could do without the flowerly language, in addition, "secret alternate account" is materially incorrect. This reads more like opinion than a finding of fact. Shell ^babelfish 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Experiment"? There was no "experiment". There was a known vandal planning semi-publicly to cause damage to the project. Causing damage to the encyclopedia for the sake of making some deluded "point" (which everyone already understands to boot) is nothing but trivial, childish vandalism of a completely inexcusable sort. That the vandal calls it an "experiment" does not make it any more justifiable or any less destructive, or make any editor quietly reverting it any less proper. — Coren ^(talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Relevant to this case as KnightLago deliberately inserted himself into the disputed "experiment." Submitted without a remedy. May need some tweaking and further links. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie: Which parts are incorrect? This is based on conversation here. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: This is the findings section, not the remedies section. Unless there are objections to the findings themselves, I don't see a reason to omit this information. KnightLago (secretly) involved himself in the experiment. This is without a doubt relevant to the overall case. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: Adjusted. Basing this on your word, as I can't know the exact timeline of events. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren: Adjusted: experiment → affair. Feel free to tweak the wording if "affair" causes similar distress to you. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: I don't see how it could not be part of this case. At least one of the central issues to this case was this "breaching experiment/incident/affair/whatever". KnightLago directly inserted himself into that. I think that, in and of itself, warrants a finding. I don't think there's any particular remedy that needs to accompany this, but a finding is relevant and warranted given KnightLago's actions. Another possibility would be to merge it into the "Background of this case" section above, though I'm not sure how popular of an idea that would be. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Among other problems with your pet diversion, "He later..." should be revised to "Thirteen hours later, he..." Cool Hand Luke 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Factually correct as far as I can tell. The issue is whether this is even within the scope of the case, much less whether it rises to the level of an ArbCom finding. Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KnightLago directly inserted himself...to revert vandalism! If your role in this affair was reverting vandalism, I feel confident in predicting that there would be no finding, even if you had used—omigosh—an undisclosed sock for a few hours. Generally, ArbCom does not sanction users for beneficent behavior.

If you think this was a failure to recuse, you could lay out a principle along those lines. As-is, this finding is irrelevant. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shell, this does indeed seem to read more like opinion than a finding of fact. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MZMcBride admonished

1) For creating drama that could have been largely avoided, MZMcBride is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would welcome a commitment to the avoidance of similar future drama. This is not at all the first time that something like this has happened. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should certainly be incorporated into any admonishment. Steve Smith (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I believe Roger has taken this idea on board above to combine the two. Would be nice if this was actually followed this time; as NYB mentions, this isn't the first time we've been here. Shell ^babelfish 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with this and with NYB. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay in principle, but this seems way too vague and nonspecific to really mean anything at all. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's administrator status (2)

2) The Arbitration Committee takes note that MZMcBride has resigned his administrator tools during the acceptance phase of this case. He may regain the tools at any time via a Request for adminship or by request at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZMcBride: Further elaboration in the proposal in my section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not acceptable. To allow someone under this much of a cloud to treat his admin bit like a pawn in a game of chess would set a very bad example going forward. SirFozzie (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a radical departure from the Committee's normal practice, and I don't see the argument for such a departure in this case. Steve Smith (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, admin's can't give up the tools to avoid a possible finding removing them and then ask for them back when the heat is off. Shell ^babelfish 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Adapted wording from above. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: Care to elaborate? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ks0stm: Your recollection is wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke: Good grief. Let's not delusion ourselves for a moment that the existence of "controversy" in any Wikipedia situation is in and of itself something to concern ourselves with. People will insert controversy into any and everything. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Since it was resigned, this means RfA is the only option, as I recall. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride: I was assuming that an arbitration case counted as controversial circumstances, but yes, there are other options in non-controversial circumstances. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, and others that your decision to return the tools was under a cloud and so you need to go to RFA for community reconfirmation. That "you" did not see that you were under a cloud is irrelevant except to support the idea that you need to stay separated from the tools because you do not have a clear understanding of the inappropriateness of your actions. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everyone who has commented to date except MZMcBride. The whole point of the PhilWelch principle is to avoid gaming behavior by requiring a community reconfirmation. These were controversial circumstances to bureaucrats, RFAR participants, and everyone... except you. The rule is not the problem. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some users are more dramatic than others, MZMcBride. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. You could have make an argument that you resigned temporarily as an act of good faith towards the process here and ask ArbCOM to make a ruling on the subject. This is more of the gaming that you tried at your first ArbCOM case.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Essentially agree with above comments by FloNight (talk · contribs) and Balloonman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by KnightLago[edit]

Proposed principles

Return of administrator permission in general

1) Users who give up their administrator permission may have it restored upon request, provided they did not relinquish it under controversial circumstances (under a cloud). Users who give up their permission under a cloud must either go through a Request for adminship, or apply to the Committee to regain them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Simplification of Return of access levels from MZMcBride (April 2009) with application directly to the administrator permission. KnightLago (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee has also re-granted adminship without an RFA to administrators who resigned under controversial circumstances (as recently as this month, actually). Steve Smith (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct. I was thinking outside of our actions, but I see how this could cause a problem. So I changed it to add the Committee option. Any other possible scenarios I am missing? KnightLago (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is plainly wrong. RFA is not, and never has been, the sole venue for re-adminnings following a resignation, cloudy or not. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Can you elaborate on the type of cloud we're talking about? Is this left solely to a bureaucrat or ... - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See next proposal...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZM, the proposal lists the only two avenues that I've ever heard of for somebody who resigned under a cloud... there is of course, Divine Intervention but for people who resign under a cloud, knight is right.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Succinct and nothing wrong with the wording, but I think others on the page have also proposed this with slightly better wording. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return of administrator permission while action pending

2) Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, left to the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending is deemed to have left under controversial circumstances, unless the Arbitration Committee determines otherwise, requiring a new Request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. KnightLago (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided on this principle, but the answer to MZMcBride's first question is that whether a resignation was controversial or not has nothing to do with whether the resignator (for want of a ~~better~~ real word) is acting in good faith. Steve Smith (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key point here is to prevent an editor giving up the tools to avoid the possibility of losing them and then getting them back with no reconfirmation - if the case bears out the fact that the editor didn't do anything to warrant removal of the tools, the Committee can indicate that they can request the tools back at any time; both guilty parties and innocent ones can be handled appropriately. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

KnightLago: How does "deemed to have left under controversial circumstances" align with our policy on assuming good faith and the general presumption of innocence until proven guilty? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KnightLago. ^ --MZMcBride (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight: Your comments are too flattering, really. So much for respecting living people.... --MZMcBride (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MZM is incompetent to hold the tools because either he is clueless as the inappropriateness of his actions in relation to the banned user and resigned misunderstanding that it was under a cloud, OR he is gaming the system by giving them up prior to being desysopped and refusing to acknowledge this now, OR he is being difficult to make a point now. None of these scenarios shows the judgment needed to retain the admin tools. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also include Request for Comment and ANI report to the list. But yes, an ongoing ArbCOM case is a blatant and obvious sign that the person resigned under a cloud... a case could also be made if the person resigned upon the threat of an RfC/ArbCOM case.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially agree with above comment in this section, by Shell. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by NuclearWarfare[edit]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MZMcBride and Adminship

1) MZMcBride resigned his administrator tools while the request to open the case was still pending. He has indicated, however, that he wishes to retain the ability to ask for the tools back at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. However, the Arbitration Committee requests that he go through the standard process or appeal to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to regain his administrator access.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's a FoF above directly addressing his fitness to be an administrator. Roger Davies ^talk 04:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this intended to be functionally different from Roger's first proposed remedy? Also, Lara, they're a hockey team from Toronto. Steve Smith (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't actually agree with this, but I would rather the committee vote on this than "Look, he was trying to avoid scrutiny, so we're not even going to vote on whether or not we would have desysopped him." The wording isn't exactly very good, so feel free to improve it. NW (Talk) 04:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: Removed the phrase "feels that his actions betrayed the community's trust in him and" per your comment. NW (Talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reword it to say, "for obscure and capricious reasons, the arbitration committee requests whimsically that he go through the standard process..." That seems to be the gist of your proposal. The Arbitration committee does not make hypothetical remedies to address hypothetical circumstances. This is a pretty standard setup; he retired the bit in controversial circumstances and should go through RFA to demonstrate he has the community's trust. If you still want to read tea leafs, look at the FOF Rogers highlights. Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. The reason I proposed this was that so the Arbitration Committee could not just wimp out and say "Sorry, you resigned at that one particular point in time, that's it", but would actually have to make a conscious decision to desysop him. It is much different to allow the rules and the system to deny someone access to something than to yourself forbid access. The Committee should at least show that it is willing to desysop him if they feel he should no longer have the tools. NW (Talk) 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a fairly commonsense proposal. He resigned before the case was opened, specifying that he didn't want it to be considered under a cloud. For that reason, it should be treated as though he still has the ability to regain the tools at any time. Just vote on whether or not to desysop him. Why does this have to be such a pointless painful issue? Just do it. Damn. One vote either way.

That said, what are leafs? Are they something deers, mooses, and geeses eat? Lara 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I'm wrong; NYB has proposed a remedy that MZMcBride's adminship was indeed in jeopardy of a "significant sanction." Cool Hand Luke 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a definitive finding on exactly what we would have done (I suspect we would have been divided on exactly how severe to be). But it's a finding that this was not a mere "I don't need this aggravation" or "I'm busy now" resignation that should allow the editor to return as soon as he's ready to resume the tools. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this seems relatively sound. Sort of similar to "MZMcBride's administrator status (v2)" proposed by Roger above. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Fritzpoll[edit]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Durova and arbitration

1) Durova is prohibited from participating in arbitration cases in which she is not an originating party. This includes participation in case subpages and filing requests for arbitration, except where she is either a) a named party or b) requesting arbitration for a dispute in which she is directly involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The intention is that Durova back away from cases where she is not involved in any way - others can take up the reins in cases like this, but the unsubstantiated allegations and the apparently tenuous connections made during the course of this case make me feel that her participation in these circumstances is causing more problems than it is solving. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is generally sound advice for Durova, but it strikes me as fairly harsh for somebody against whom there isn't even a related finding of fact. We could post a finding of fact, but I have a hard time imagining one that's both accurate and strong enough to warrant this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Would this case have even been brought if this remedy were in place? I don't think she did anything wrong in bringing the case; it was probably a good thing. The only problem is excessively personalizing issues. Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz, although I've just started looking at this case, could you point to particular diffs/links that, in your opinion, would warrant this proposal? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate. Overly harsh and completely unnecessary. This does not appear to be supported by any evidence whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP protection

2) Due to the nature of the vandalism performed as part of the "breaching experiment", the Community is urged to explore the implementation of specific technical measures to protect the biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. I think it important that the underlying cause of the dispute (easily-vandalised BLPs) be resolved - this is distinct from the existing RfC on BLP matters, because it pertains to vandalism of poorly-patrolled articles, regardless of sources. MZMcBride and Kohs' methods are not to be lauded in this case, but that does not detract from the fact that the problem exists. It is not within our scope to specify a given technical implementation, but we can at least inform the community that Something(tm) needs to be done. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To NuclearWarfare: I feared as much - is there a better remedy along these lines that you would suggest? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the spirit of this, but I oppose any finding that propagates the fiction that The Community possesses any mechanism by which decision-making is possible. Steve Smith (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Lamentably correct. Yet nothing stronger would probably get through - chalk this one up to mindless optimism. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I found Steve's comment amusing. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke: It's political theater, you see. Much easier to say something (especially something this bland and uncontroversial) than actually do something to address the problem itself. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Pointless, IMO. Pass it if you wish, but it is not going to make any impact at all unless you specify what technical measures you want to have. The community is already talking about BLP reform, so this remedy really doesn't accomplish anything at all. NW (Talk) 17:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find Steve's comment amusing and correct. Cool Hand Luke 01:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh ditto. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe the community is that bad to the extent that any decision-making is not possible, then I don't know why you are blaming MZMcBride for seeking the solution from the WR community. MZMcBride is only wrong if he had another better (or less evil) option. Sole Soul (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't "seeking a solution from the WR community." We do not have a problem with the WR community; many of the arbitrators are members there. That said, a solution to the BLP problem does not consist of feeding unwatched pages to a banned user so that he can sock against his ban and insert vandalism as an "experiment." We are very lenient and even approving of admins who take desperate measures to confront the BLP problem (see ArbCom's recent motion). Cool Hand Luke 15:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "a solution to the BLP problem does not consist of feeding unwatched pages to a banned user so that he can sock against his ban and insert vandalism as an "experiment."

But I only agree because I have confidence in the community in providing a better option. MZMcBride said in the WR forum "This site seems to be the easiest way to get biographies looked at and checked." Sole Soul (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review might in fact be the best way to get biographies looked at. But feeding unwatched pages to a banned editor is not the same as participating on WR to "get biographies looked at and checked." MZMcBride did the former. If he had done the latter, there would be no case. Cool Hand Luke 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WR is "better" in this regard largely because someone from there can violate a Wikipedia policy without being accountable. Sole Soul (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, but isn't flagged revisions going to be rolled out, um, at some point in the relatively near future, eventually, hopefully? Cirt (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Newyorkbrad[edit]

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

MZMcBride

1) MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has edited Wikipedia since May 2005 and has made more than 70,000 edits. He has shown a high degree of dedication to the project as well as a commendable level of concern with the effects that biographies of living persons on Wikipedia may have on their subjects. He has served as an administrator for two periods, from 13 May 2007 to 6 April 2009, and following a new request for adminship, again from 4 September 2009 to 19 January 2010. MZMcBride has twice resigned as an administrator—in the first instance, while he was the subject of the pending arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, and in the second instance, while the request for arbitration that led to this case was on the threshold of acceptance. He has twice previously been admonished by this committee for administrator actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on Roger Davies' proposed finding #1, copyedited and with some detail added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sounds good. Could also cite the cases regarding the prior admonishments. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's role in an "experiment"

2) In January 2010, MZMcBride provided specific information derived from special access to Wikimedia Foundation data to another individual ("K."), knowing that K. intended to use the information to vandalize biographical articles ("BLPs") on the English Wikipedia, under the following circumstances:

(A) In a discussion on another website (which has often contained valid and useful commentary on issues relating to Wikipedia BLPs), K. stated that he wished to demonstrate that Wikipedia lacks the ability to sufficiently protect the accuracy and integrity of BLPs. To make this showing, K. stated that he wished to conduct a "breaching experiment" in which he would subtly vandalize little-watched BLPs by introducing false, misleading, and inaccurately sourced information into the articles, monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted, and publicize the results.

(B) MZMcBride, as an experienced and trusted user, has been allowed access to Wikimedia "toolserver" data which include, among other things, data on the number of users, if any, who have watchlisted each page on this or any project. Toolserver access is granted by a separate process from adminship on a particular project, but there is a justified expectation that it will be used only for responsible purposes. Although the number of users watchlisting any page is generally public information, to avoid providing a path to vandalism of little-watched pages, where fewer than a threshold number of users have watchlisted a particular page the specific number (such as, none at all) is available only to users with toolserver access.

(C) In response to K.'s request, MZMcBride publicly agreed to e-mail to K. a list of some BLP articles that, according to the toolserver data, were not currently watchlisted by any editor. MZMcBride thereafter e-mailed to K. a list of twenty such articles.

(D) MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K. despite knowing that K. had stated that he intended to use the list in connection with a "breaching experiment" involving BLPs. In context, this strongly suggested that K. intended to use the list in order to identify unwatched BLPs that he could ~~subtly~~ vandalize by introducing false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information into the articles. K. soon added that he planned to allow such misinformation to remain in the articles for up to several months. According to K., even as MZMcBride transmitted the list to him, he expressed concern that it might be used in a "nefarious" fashion.

(E) MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K. despite knowing that for many if not most living persons having English Wikipedia BLPs, our BLP article is one of the highest, if not the very highest, search engine results on a search relating to that person, so that the introduction of inaccurate information into the BLP, even if done by K. inconspicuously and without any malicious intent whatsoever toward any of the BLP subjects, could potentially have an unpredictable effect on the well-being of that person.

(F) MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K. despite knowing, or at least reasonably suspecting, that K. intended to use it in conjunction with planned editing of the English Wikipedia through sockpuppets, although K. had been banned from this project and therefore was not authorized to edit English Wikipedia for any purpose at all.

(G) After MZMcBride e-mailed the list to K., K. proceeded under a series of usernames to vandalize several of the BLP articles on the list by inserting into them false and misleading information cited to nonexistent or inaccurately cited sources. MZMcBride did not himself vandalize or otherwise edit any of the articles.

(H) For several days after questions were raised about the propriety of this "breaching experiment" and his role in it, MZMcBride continued to defend his conduct and objected to any attempt to terminate the "experiment." MZMcBride ultimately posted a list of the unsourced BLPs he had identified to K. after an arbitrator requested on his talkpage that he do so, at which point several instances of vandalism to the articles were reverted.

(I) MZMcBride may have subjectively believed that allowing BLPs to be vandalized by K. in the "breaching experiment" would serve the greater good in drawing attention to the vulnerability of lightly watched, unsourced BLPs to vandalism, an issue about which MZMcBride had expressed very legitimate concerns in the past. Nonetheless, we have little difficulty in concluding that his conduct in this matter fell well short of the standards expected of an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Lots of detail for the full context; possibly too much, but offered for consideration. Not sure whether this is best as one finding with subparagraphs or as a series of findings 2-10 for separate voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(To MBisanz) Given that the banned user cannot participate on-wiki in this process, I think some degree of circumspection is appropriate if this individual is mentioned in the formal decision. (I used "K." simply because I got tired of typing "the banned user" multiple times.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(To MZMcBride) The Wikipedia Review thread reflects the following:

You posted on Wikipedia Review that "8,062 non-redirects in the article namespace use "Template:BLP unsourced" and are completely unwatched (0 watchers)."
K. responded, "Mr. McBride, you know... this really and truly calls for a breaching experiment. Please, I beg of you, provide me privately with a random selection of just 10 of these 8,062 time bombs."
You then responded 31 minutes later, "I just sent Mr. Kohs this list privately. I'm inclined to also post a list here. This site seems to be the easiest way to get biographies looked at and checked.... Feel free to post your results publicly, Mr. [K]."
K. then posted, "My actions will take place over the next 4 or 5 days. My results will be announced at the end of March 2010. McBride has some concerns about the potentially 'nefarious' aspects of what I intend to do, but it is my hope that Wikipedia's problems can be fully exposed, even to the point of silliness, without unduly harming the reputation or well-being of any of these BLP subjects.... I'm certain this experiment will bear rich fruit and laughter one day."

I believe this provides ample evidence for inferring (1) and (2) per your queries below, but would welcome your countersuggestion as to what exactly you thought K was going to do with the information you provided to him. Having said that, I can see an argument, on rereading, for some slight rewording, which I will turn to with fresh eyes in the morning.

I remain of the view that your point (3) is not relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of AGF, I've made some changes (new substantive language above in italics; deletions in strikeout; minor gramattical or conforming changes not marked) to address (1) and (2). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Quibble: The list was not e-mailed. It was sent via private message on the Wikipedia Review site itself.

Objection 1: "MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K. despite knowing that K. had stated that he intended to use the list in order to identify unwatched BLPs that he would subtly vandalize by introducing false, misleading, and inaccurately sourced information into the articles and allowing the such misinformation to remain in the articles for up to several months." ← Is there any evidence for this claim?

Objection 2: "MZMcBride e-mailed this list to K. despite knowing that K. intended to use it in conjunction with planned editing of the English Wikipedia through sockpuppets" ← Is there any evidence for this claim?

Objection 3: This timeline of events leaves out KnightLago's involvement. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and Newyorkbrad: Doesn't Mr. K. often simply point out errors and inaccuracies in Wikipedia's articles? I seem to recall several such posts. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that he could have taken the list provided, followed my instructions to do nothing nefarious with it, and simply watched the articles' progressions over the course of a few months, including responses to drive-by vandalism, number of page views, accuracy of the current content, and any changes (good or bad) to the pages by editors. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would that have constituted a "breaching experiment"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride. ^ Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of our article on the subject doesn't suggest that such an experiment would necessarily require active involvement, but could allow for passive observation. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Considering we know who "K" is and we even have a userpage and a sockpuppet category that can be linked to, I cannot figure out why the proposals are being unnecessarily vague. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"K" complains when his name is invoked by strangers and/or pseudonyms who attack him. I tend to respect his apparent wishes on this matter. Cool Hand Luke 01:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least link the "K" to his account. In a couple years if people are looking at this as part of an unblock/RFA discussion, they will have know idea who this mysterious Mr. K is. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, you apparently knew that the accounts were going to be used in a breaching experiment. What alternative interpretation could you have? Cool Hand Luke 01:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor quibble, re the end of part B: if fewer than 30 people are watching a page, it is true that most people cannot access the exact number of watchers. To access this information, one must either have toolserver access *or* be on this list; see User:MZMcBride/watcher. The comma after the words "such as, none at all ..." should also be removed. Graham87 14:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"possibly too much" detail? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to detail, in this particularly case I think the level of detail given in the statement proposed by NYB is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's posting regarding sockpuppetry

3) In December 2009, a contributor on another website asked for suggestions concerning techniques for sockpuppeting (i.e., posting from multiple accounts in violation of policy) on Wikipedia while avoiding detection through checkuser or otherwise. MZMcBride responded by publicly posting a list of techniques that could be misused for this improper purpose. The contents of his post were substantially identical to those of a page he had formerly created in his userspace ~~thereafter moved to mediawiki.org Meta-wiki, and ultimately~~ but later deleted, providing the same information about how to sockpuppet. MZMcBride knew that his public posting of advice on how to sockpuppet while avoiding detection had previously been the subject of substantial adverse comment, including in his prior arbitration case, but did so anyway and has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for his action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZMcBride: If there are corrections to be made then please identify them and they will be addressed. No, I am not going to post links to a guide on how to sockpuppet effectively. I anticipate your response that the information is hardly secret from those who would use it, but I still see no reason to publicize it further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the correction that I believe MZMcBride was seeking. To say the least, it doesn't affect the gravamen of the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bleah. Fixed. Sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If you all (Arbitrators) bothered to look for diffs and other links substantiating the claims you make, you'd quickly realize that you were wrong and we would have far less confusion here. Where does Meta-wiki come into any of this? Can this finding be updated with links, please? Otherwise this simply seems like unsourced speculation. This is the standard we hold our articles to; there's no reason to make an exception here. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: I go through this process all the time. I think one thing, go to find proof to substantiate the claim, and then realize I'm mistaken about one aspect or another. As far as I remember, Meta-wiki was never involved in any of this. If there's some sort of evidence to suggest that it was, please post it. Otherwise, please adjust the proposal accordingly. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: Good grief. The "Going rogue" page was the one you're thinking of that was moved to mediawiki.org. Not the "Socking" one. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Some people will know about the existence of the post from this case. Sole Soul (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defer to the similar version based on this by Roger, above. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional finding

4) There is no reason to believe that the 2006 incident in which K. engaged in certain inappropriate off-wiki conduct toward Durova (talk · contribs), the filing party in the case, played any role in MZMcBride's decision to engage in the actions summarized above.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZMcBride: I think this is the gravamen of Durova's "gender bias" allegations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Huh? Where did this come from? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From the summary of the situation, this statement does not appear to be necessary or appropriate. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MZMcBride's adminship

1) Because MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. MZMcBride is urged to allow at least 60 days to elapse before again requesting adminship through either path, to allow the drama associated with his actions in this matter to dissipate. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. More expansive language than usual to eliminate any doubt as to the basis for our decision. The inclusion and length of the 60-day period are subject to discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer this wording as a combination of those above; clears up the point that the case would have likely led to removal of the tools. Shell ^babelfish 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with sentences one and three to clarify the points made. I have some reservations still about the need for a "cooling off" period. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The 60-day bit is unnecessary. The voters are RFA are more than capable of rejecting premature requests. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with MZMcBride above that the second sentence is unnecessary. While filing an immediate RfA would likely generate more "drama" than necessary, I don't see any issues that would preclude the ordinary formation of consensus more than any other contentious RfA. I wouldn't recommend it, but if he want's an immediate appeal I don't see a particular reason to deny the community jurisdiction. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in agreement, the 60 days is completely unnecessary and arbitrary (although... this is the arbitration committee... I kill myself) (X! · talk) · @255 · 05:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me argue the other side. While perhaps the second sentence is not strictly necessary, with the current wording "urged" (rather than an outright prohibition) it actually seems quite helpful. MZM's premature RFA after his previous resignation and RFAR experience, coupled with his attempt at WP:BN during this RFAR to have his most recent resignation labelled noncontroversial and his bit reinstated by a bureaucrat, suggest that his perception of how we treat the admin bit are out of kilter with that of the community. A lot of arbitration remedies essentially use a blunt instrument to force a change in behavior (and prevent disruption) that in other cases would not need explicit encouragement. Whether or not 60 days needs to be specified - and whether it is the right timeframe - I don't know, but an "urging" along these lines might be just the right tone. Martinp (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested wording by NYB certainly seems reasonable, and appropriate under the circumstances. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom should not involve itself with community adminship processes such as RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride urged

2) MZMcBride is urged in the strongest terms to seek guidance from other experienced users regarding how his undoubted dedication to and knowledge of Wikipedia can be best used to benefit the encyclopedia, the community, and BLP subjects while minimizing misjudgments such as those described in this and our prior decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of support the spirit of this - MZM has considerable clue over some things, but this gets muddled up with instances of poor judgement. Regardless of his sysop status, I hope he'll carry on with the technical sides of his work Fritzpoll (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good idea and moving in the right direction. Certainly is more specific than some of the other "admonishments" against MZMcBride on this page that are too vague and nonspecific to really do anything. Cirt (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued attention to BLP issues urged

3) The community is urged to continue to give priority attention to ways in which the quality and accuracy of biographies of living persons on Wikipedia can be improved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZMcBride: Not all, nor none, but the ones the arbitrators think are relevant. This is our job, to decide what is relevant and useful and what is not in the decision that we issue over our names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably as ineffectual as my proposal above Fritzpoll (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't see how you can criticize my tangential proposals above and then make one of your own. All or none, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rocksanddirt: Who's getting banned? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is no all or none, except with users who are getting banned. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be true. ArbCom will often ban (usually topic ban) many editors on both sides of a messy edit war issue. One of the reasons we do this is to sort of over-deter nationalistic edit wars and the like. We don't want to rule on content issues, so it's really not good for us to consider arguments like, "yeah, I was an edit warrior, but unlike the warriors on the other side, I was right!'" In those cases we're much more likely to ban the whole lot on both "sides." Cool Hand Luke 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable statement. Certainly nothing wrong with having the Arbitration Committee say this. :) Cirt (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Steve Smith[edit]

Proposed principles

Community self-government, to a point

1) Editorial and policy decisions on Wikipedia are made by the Wikipedia community through consensus, subject to any framework set down by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; long-standing practice. Steve Smith (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride: your proposals are in the workshop. Please confine your discussion of them to the appropriate sections, and leaves sections about other proposals to discussion about those. Steve Smith (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride: I think you know the answer to that - you're COATRACKing your comments on these proposals to continue banging the drum on the Trulyequal1 thing. I'm not going to harp on this; I've made a reasonable request, and I hope you'll abide by it. As for the leafs, see our article on the subject. Steve Smith (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sequence would appear sufficient to justify the accompanying remedy. @MZM: I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to - if it is KL's operation of an alternate account to negate the effects of the breaching experiment, then I think the problem is simply that we don't see how it is particularly relevant and your explanations are not clearing that up for us. As to the political theatre comment, well, they may accomplish very little or they may accomplish something. They're the best Arbcom can do in the context of resolving this underlying source of the dispute, which is what Arbitration is for. I agree with comments made elsewhere that the best arbitrators can do in terms of this issue is to get their hands dirty on the problem itself outside the confines of these subpages, but whilst we're here, we may as well do what little we can do. It is certainly not to your detriment that we do so. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Again, I don't really mind principles and findings that are tangential to the case, as long as there is equal treatment here. I proposed some findings and principles above that are far more related to this specific case and certain Arbitrators were hesitant, if not obstinate, to them as they were not directly related to the background of this case. I don't have an issue with some of these side issues being discussed (God forbid something useful emerge from this case, for various definitions of useful), but if you're going to insert some of this, I can't see how you (the Arbitration Committee) can fairly reject other parts that are arguably more related to this case. I'd also like to point out again that these principles and findings are largely political theater inasmuch as they actually accomplish very little. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't related to KL's behavior, at least not directly. The sections above about ArbCom's jurisidiction and the role of alternate accounts and the value of the number of page watchers are more closely related to this specific dispute than the principles put forward by Steve Smith. That was my point. My principles were criticized as being too tangential to the actual case, while these principles are further removed from the specifics of this case. And, there isn't much to suggest that these principles regarding biographies of living people serve anything beyond political ego-stroking. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict!) Steve: Which part of my comments here aren't addressing the nature and appropriateness of the proposals you are making? (And is there some sort of in-joke regarding leaves / leafs?) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: lolcoatracks and lolcanada. Can that be a proposal? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

For the benefit of Lara, I think Steve means "leaf" rather than "leaves." Cool Hand Luke 04:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Succinct wording, seems appropriate and to the point. Though no objections to the current wording, it could use some more expansion and detail. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I see where you're going. This is absolutely tangential to the case and it would be aberrant to include it by any judiciary standard. Cenarium (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP among Wikipedia's most important policies

2) Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons is widely recognized, by both the editing community and outside parties, as one of Wikipedia's most important policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; this seems to be well understood. Steve Smith (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

See comment above regarding tangential principles and findings. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Seems to be worded succinctly and appropriately. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above (and below). Cenarium (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

BLP problem persists

1) In the three and a half years since the creation of Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons, Wikipedia's coverage of living persons has never substantially complied with that policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. I deliberately do not include a reason, because why the community has failed to widely apply BLP is secondary at this point. My view is that the Wikipedia community is structurally incapable of even moderately controversial high-profile decisions, but I am not seeking to impose that explanation on this case. Steve Smith (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sole Soul: I agree that that's the problem. Steve Smith (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is structural, and suggests to me that this kind of case will arise again and again as a result. Given that part of arbcom's remit is to end disputes, we must tackle the root cause to the best of our ability Fritzpoll (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

See comment above regarding tangential principles and findings. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence to support the claim that "Wikipedia's coverage of living persons has never substantially complied with that policy." It may be true, but there's a responsibility to at least make an attempt to support the finding with evidence. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The reason is that one of our core principals is consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith: Consensus is a problem in the sense that a democracy in a country is a problem (ironically, had wikipedia been a democracy this problem would have been already solved,) it is a slow and frustrating process. Sole Soul (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride has a good point, in a comment above in this section. It would be helpful to have some specific evidence to back this up, as opposed to just making up random claims. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again extremely tangential to the case, and no supporting evidence. Aberrant from any judiciary standard. Cenarium (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

WMF entreated

1) The Wikimedia Foundation is urged to impose a framework on Wikipedia to increase compliance with WP:BLP, even absent community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. I was not going to propose this, but as two of my colleagues have above proposed a remedy urging the community to get its shit together on BLP, I'm proposing this as a more effective version of those. When we've hit the point that progress on the BLP issue is possible only when administrators go rogue and hope to be subsequently granted amnesty by ArbCom, it's time to call in outside help. I would hope and expect that the WMF would involve the community in its decision process and would take the extensive comments at the current RFC under advisement, but at this point minimizing community resistance needs to take a backseat to effectiveness. As a final note, I'd like to pre-emptively remind commenters that speculation as to the precise effects of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by people with no formal expertise is likely to be Highly Unproductive. Steve Smith (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amenable to splitting it. It seems that the root cause of this whole case is a stagnant BLP situation, so it seemed to fit here, but it's also a larger issue than this case (obviously), so a stand alone motion would be fine. Steve Smith (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to endorse this if it ends up on the PD, but I have no frame of reference for how effective this might be. How for example, do we go about getting them to do it? Is Arbcom going to send them an e-mail? These points don't necessarily have to be addressed by the substance of the motion, but I think a little more detail, at least here, will be effective in convincing people that it is a worthwhile remedy Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@cubelurker: Community discussion is ongoing on a very narrow subset of BLPs. Jimmy may be involved as an individual editor in the community discussion about these BLPs, but seems unlikely to be acting in a Foundation capacity. From what I understand of Steve's motivation here, which I would agree with, this is about tackling the wider BLP issues, which are sadly not limited to unreferenced material Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It is telling the WMF that there is some structural problem, that we continue to identify, that prevents the community from reaching a decision about the BLP problem. Given that BLP is partly driven by the WMF, the hope is that this will prompt some office action to lend us a hand. In the best case, this will end the bickering and the perception that any "breaching experiments" are required. In the worst case, we waste 20 minutes drafting a letter and nothing happens. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

See comment above regarding tangential principles and findings. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What's clearly been needed here is a formal letter. That will solve the BLP problem. Glad we've figured that out! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what it will take to convince the members of the Arbitration Committee (arguably some of the most diehard of the Kool-Aid drinkers) that the Wikimedia Foundation plainly does not give a shit about this issue. I would think that at this point, it would be obvious enough by their actions, but perhaps they need to draft a formal letter? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Should have been on the BLP case, which was unfortunately not opened. Cool Hand Luke 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can we split this from the case and pass a motion separately? I would like to support it. In fact, I think it would be much more powerful if we crafted a motion that could pass unanimously on its own. I think it would send a more powerful message than some random remedy is some RFAR. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: I think it would be fine to have a remedy about the BLP issue, perhaps along the lines of what NYB and Fritzpoll have suggested, but I think that our first-ever message to WMF should be outside of the context of a case (and certainly outside the context of this case). I think we should work up a broader statement and deliver it to them with 17 signatures, if possible. I would like it to be the sort of thing where we could issue a press release. Really.

I think this remedy is like tacking a note onto this case that says "oh yeah, WMF, you should do something about it." That may be true, but I don't think this is the best presentation. Cool Hand Luke 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that proposals like this are well meaning, but at least in this case not needed. Clearly discussions about BLPs are ongoing within the community, within admin noticeboards, Mr. Wales has been involved, and that means the foundation is aware. I'm just not seeing where a finding in an arbcom motion does anything that's not already being done.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzpoll What material effect do you believe such a finding to have. I see it as a hollow "ArbCom thinks theres a problem with BLP's".--Cube lurker (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzpoll This is exactly what I said. If arbcom wants to send a memo, go ahead and draft one and get everyone to sign it. Tacking it on as a finding/remedy seems pointless to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage members of ArbCom to let the Foundation know your concerns about the Community's inability to implement changes to policies and processes that would address English Wikipedia's handling of content about living people. This can be done as individuals or as a group, or both :-).

The Foundation recently created the Living People task force on the Strategic Planning wiki.

Living People task force

The task force's mission is to work with the global community to identify problems and then to make recommendations. Everyone is invited to add ideas. A statement from the Committee (if passed on this case or as a stand alone motion) would be added to the documentation section of the task force during the fact gathering stage so I don't think that it would be a hollow remedy. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 10:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@CHL, I agree with making it a stand alone motion because I think that it could be expanded to more fully speak to the issues that ArbCom sees with BLP violations and the obstacles that currently exist that keep the Community from addressing them. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an alleged inability, but not a real one. Your task force would gain from a greater diversity of views; from what I've seen it's not particularly productive. This is appalling to see you take such firm positions, while it's evident that the community can make considerable progress in the area, you should read Risker's closure of the BLP RFC. It's not by backroom dealings or attempts to bypass consensus that you're going to help on the BLP issue (cf Carcharoth's comments on the BLP motion for example). You need to open up to the community, instead of antagonizing it. That's this kind of attitudes which prevented lots of progress. Cenarium (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very complex issue. I would change "urged to impose" to "urged to discuss", and also encourage Arbitrators to voice their own individual opinions about this to WMF, regardless of the outcome of this particular case. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed remedy, besides being tangential to the point of living on another planet entirely, would clearly see ArbCom go beyond its power, that's ultra vires, which you should now be familiar with. You may now just realize that you can't solve the BLP problem on your own, but antagonizing the community by trying to impose your views, and when they are rejected, trying to bypass the community by appealing to the WMF for imposing them is the worst you could possibly do. Cenarium (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Coren[edit]

Proposed remedies

Toolserver access

1) The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee will make a formal request to the toolserver administrators that the propriety of MZMcBride's continued access to the toolservers be reexamined in light of the findings of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Strictly speaking, we have absolutely no direct jurisdiction or authority over the toolservers or their administration (which are, as far as I know, an organ of WM Deutschland). They do, however, provide privileged access to much of the database underlying this project (and, indeed, that of all other Wikimedia projects) and it is our duty to make certain that they are kept informed of what we feel is serious misuse and made aware of our misgivings about continued access. — Coren ^(talk) 00:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have no problem with this. MZMcBride's use of toolserver materials gave him the information to pass on to the banned user, so, it would behoove us to make this request. Please note, we are not requiring the Toolserver administrators to take any particular actions here, just that we have found this behavior to be sub-optimal, and that we would request the toolserver admins to look at it and decide if they wish to handle it on their side. SirFozzie (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have grave misgivings about this kind of remedy - my first thought was pretty much identical to what Luke has written below. I'm pretty sure my nose would be put out of joint if someone from another website wandered over and told me to do something like this. So consider my response a dose of Luke with a hint of MZM here Fritzpoll (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

For the past few weeks, my user page has sarcastically read "Wikipedia is the Internet." I suppose the real (rather dark) humor is that some users here honestly believe that. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Toolserver," not "toolservers." More information about it is available here: tswiki:FAQ. If, y'know, you want to bother researching before making proposals (banish the thought). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Uh, we seem to strain our relationships to other projects when we make requests of them. I hope the arbitrators check to insure that this won't be seen as ugly en.wp imperialism. I favor diplomacy, and we are already perceived as the United States of Wikimedia. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could probably be reworded to clarify that it is a) a request, not a command, b) non-binding, and c) assert that it is entirely optional. (X! · talk) · @252 · 05:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Committee finds that the data were used abusively, then this remedy is highly appropriate. Relevant information from the Toolserver administration pages (e.g. here) indicates that policy violations do justify removal of access, at the discretion of the German Wikimedia "management". Since the alleged abuse of Toolserver access damaged the English Wikipedia property, the Committee is fully within its rights to request a review of access from said management. — James F Kalmar 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to reflect the sensibilities mentioned above, Coren's version could be reworded that the AC on conclusion of the case will notify the "Toolserver management" (whatever that is) of the case and of its conclusions, highlighting (if indeed that is the case) their concerns. Since the spectre of access abuse has been raised, for better or worse, to the extent there is any potential merit in the allegation I would expect that the people in charge would appreciate being informed and can make their own decision, with the benefit of any of its conclusions the AC would care to share. Martinp (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above comment by James F Kalmar (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal illustrates the limits of ArbCom's power here. Taking away his bit eliminates access to Special:Unwatchedpages, which is still down and therefore useless. But unless ArbCom can get his toolserver access removed as well, he could still pass on those lists of unwatched pages. What ArbCom can do will not be effective, while what is effective it cannot do. So ArbCom says a lot of nice things about the most active administrator in file deletions and then cements his ineffective de-sysoping. If the goal is to send a message, I think just banning him for three months and then letting him have his bit back would be better for the encyclopedia. Of course now that he's resigned it, who knows whether giving it back is politically possible.--Chaser (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this statement. Cenarium (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:SirFozzie[edit]

Proposed findings of fact

MZMcBride history/background

1) MZMcBride has had numerous findings against him in previous Arbitration Committee cases for not following Wikipedia's policies with regards to consensus, community norms, and the taking of controversial unilateral actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting up the history here. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MZMcBride admonished (1)

2) In September 2008, in The Sarah Palin Protection Wheel War case, MZMcBride was admonished for taking unilateral actions and disregarding community norms. He was told that further actions of that nature would be cause for removing his administrator bit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Part of the history. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MZMcBride admonished and resigned "under a cloud"

In April 2009, MZMcBride was again admonished for unilateral actions and ignoring community norms during the First MZMcBride arbitration request. He chose to resign his administrator status before the arbitration formally closed. The Committee accepted this resignation "under a cloud", meaning that MZMcBride would need to stand through a fresh Requests for adminship request if he wanted to regain the tools. He immediately attempted a fresh RfA, which was withdrawn days later under a status that would not have passed, although a subsequent RFA in September 2009 did pass.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Part of the history. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MZMcBride's administrator status (SF)

1) The Arbitration Committee deems MZMcBride's resignation to be "under a cloud", and as such, considering the history, requires MZMcBride to get the Arbitration Committee's permission to file a fresh Request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Necessary here. The only reason he hasn't been formally de-adminned twice is that if he sees the ArbCom is going to probably rule against him, he resigns and attempts to claim it was of his own volition. His actions during this case, where he resigned "as a show of good faith", and then tried to get it back via a request at the WP:BN when it became clear that the ArbCom was going to tag it again under a cloud (meaning no easy request to get it back), shows that he treats the bit as a pawn in a game of his own choosing. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think it's funny that you say I'm using my adminship as a pawn in a game when you're clearly participating in a game of petty politics here, SirFozzie. You try to present a case where the Community is so upset with my actions (from the God-awful Sarah Palin case and my first case), but I see that you fail to note the actual history of me passing RFA with over 200 support votes. You've made absolutely no case that such an unusual restriction here is necessary or does anything more than serve to piss legitimate editors off. My reading of this proposal is that you have no confidence in the Community's ability to decide who should be an administrator, or that you're concerned that the Community would once again rebuke the Arbitration Committee. Is that about right? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Tznkai[edit]

Proposed principles

Administrator judgment

Necessity

Excuse

Proposals by Durova[edit]

Proposed principles

Informed consent

Informed consent (2)

Trust

Responsibility

WP:BAN

WP:VANDALISM

WP:BLP

Past arbitrations

WP:IAR

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by Roger Davies[edit]

Proposed principles

Administrator conduct

Return of access levels

Recidivism

Disruption to prove a point

Vandalism

Serious accusations

Derogatory remarks

Proposed Findings of fact

MZMcBride's editing history

MZMcBride's editing history (v2)

Background to this case

MZMcBride's role in an "experiment"

MZMcBride's sockpuppetry posting

MZMcBride and Toolserver

MZMcBride's judgment

MZMcBride's administrator status

Durova's commentary

Durova's commentaries

Proposed Remedies

MZMcBride's administrator status

MZMcBride's administrator status (v2)

MZMcBride admonished

Durova cautioned

Proposals by MZMcBride[edit]

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction (2)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

Alternate accounts

Proposed findings of fact

"Number of watchers" is a useless metric

Resignations and retirements

KnightLago's behavior

Proposed remedies

MZMcBride admonished

MZMcBride's administrator status (2)

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by KnightLago[edit]

Proposed principles

Return of administrator permission in general