Statement by Durova[edit]

MZMcBride was formally admonished and then desysopped [resigned, see clarification below] in two prior arbitration cases. He regained admin ops from the community afterward. Recently he used his toolserver access to acquire a list of unwatched biographies of living persons and, by his own admission, gave an unspecified number of names from that list to a sitebanned user for "experimentation". The subjects of those biographies did not consent to the experiment. Yesterday that banned editor was caught using a compromised administrator account. To the extent that the banned user's experiment is known, it comes from the edit history of that account and other recently blocked socks.

This is a substantially greater breach of trust than the actions that caused Everyking's desysopping. Another name removed per correction. Alkivar was desysopped without possibility of regaining administratorship from the community, because he aided a banned editor's disruptive campaign.

A number of people have attempted to resolve this matter quietly. MZMcBride's responses range from unhelpful to defiant. "But please don't ever mistake that to mean that an honest or straight-forward response is what you'll always (or even sometimes!) get.  :-) Happy editing, Hipocrite."--MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[1] referring to User:Hipocrite This is similar enough to the problems that brought MZMcBride to arbitration twice before, that more community dispute resolution would be pointless. I ask the arbitrators, at minimum, to desysop him without the opportunity to regain the tools. In conjunction with this RFAR I have also requested the termination of his toolserver access through separate action. Durova⁴⁰¹ 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The banned user is already banned and requires no further decision. As stated above, the request for removal of toolserver access was a separate submission. Regarding the rest, the focus of this arbitration case is MZMcBride's judgment. There is no pressing need to expand its scope. And the use of legal terminology isn't necessary. Durova⁴⁰¹ 20:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, Steve Smith. Yes, I guess that's accurate. Note also that the admonishment from the Sarah Palin case specifically warned that involuntary desysopping would be the likely result if he resumed the behaviors that did arise in the second case. Alkivar had no prior dispute resolution other than one conduct RfC, so the analogy and the request still seem applicable. Durova⁴⁰¹ 21:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Keegan's comment, the main section header of WP:POINT states unequivocally: "State your point; do not prove it experimentally" and links to past arbitration decisions. MZMcBride did not breach trust out of desperation: various editors offered reasonable alternatives. He ignored all offers; no individual is entitled to coerce the community into action. Durova⁴⁰¹ 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup re: Keegan, the precedents named in this statement stretch back much farther than 18 months. No one is a greater critic of inappropriate extensions of ArbCom authority than myself, yet this is within their normal scope. You contend that he has not misused the tools: he has misused the tools repeatedly, as determined in the Sarah Palin case and in the prior MZMcBride arbitration. ArbCom traditionally desysops people for other actions such as disruptive sockpuppetry. The circumstances this time are similar--and to the extent things differ this is worse. Durova⁴⁰¹ 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wehwalt, I have no objection to waiting a reasonable time for MZMcBride to comment at RFAR. Here's hoping he does so with steps in a direction that deescalates the matter. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly sympathize with Newyorkbrad's and Cool Hand Luke's sentiments. Mine were the same last night and I was about to edit MZMcBride's user talk to thank him for handling this with dignity. Then someone leaked the admin channel IRC logs of what he had posted after the resignation. The leak was unsolicited, yet it changes the impression substantially. MZMcBride is an individual who has come to arbitration on average once every eight months over a year and a half for similar reasons, and his commentary amounts to battlefield mentality, tactical retreat. Durova⁴⁰³ 18:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (removable comment) DO you feel the need for some sort of editing restriction on MZMcBride? Jehochman ^Brrr 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look ahead four months. What do you think are the odds of high drama RFAs? Durova⁴⁰³ 19:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Jennavecia for the good faith error. My goal is to resolve this situation so that it stabilizes without discrediting the BLP movement. My offer to coauthor an article about BLPs for the mainstream press remains on the table; if MZMcBride isn't interested any other Wikipedian is welcome to take it up. Durova⁴⁰³ 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Harej[edit]

For one reason or another, this case interests me. If it were simply another case brought up against MZMcBride, I might not be so interested in commenting. But the premises brought up by Durova are particularly interesting. I have some comments on her affidavit.

1. Which banned user received the list? Why isn't he or she listed as a complainant?
2. "The subjects of those biographies did not consent to the experiment." Subjects of Wikipedia articles don't consent to even be written about, so exactly how relevant is this point?
3. Which administrator's account was compromised? Why isn't he or she listed as a complainant?
4. I don't believe ArbCom has jurisdiction over the Toolserver, which is operated by Wikimedia Deutschland, but since I have yet to be licensed to practice law on Wikipedia, I will pass on writing a legal opinion on ArbCom and jurisdiction.

It is curious that McBride is the only named person in this case, other than the filing agent, even though the affidavit indicates that this is a conspiracy. Since Wikipedia shouldn't practice damnatio memoriae, let's shed some light on this alleged conspiracy. Apparently, more wrongdoing was done than by him.

As for McBride, being someone who is probably more willing to defend you than others, I have to say that in your near-obsession with keeping BLPs up to par, you misbehaving will not help you achieve your goals. Perhaps losing your privileges will do you good — it will restrict participation in the movement you support to people who are capable of not getting in trouble with the law so frequently.

After all, those trying to protect the articles on real people have policy on their side. There exists no reason to squander that. @harej 20:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended 20:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Keegan[edit]

I am extrordinarily curious as to what motion would be passed for this, without a case. MZMcBride be desysopped? He didn't misuse block/protect/delete nor close a discussion in an unbecoming fashion. He used toolserver to run a SQL query to produce unwatched BLPs. A banned editor asked for a few, he allegedly gave them to the banned editor. So what? I don't see anyone else here ask him to do this, and it's not "private" data. It's just not accessable for technical reasons. Back in the day, all admins could run SQL queries. Now we can't. Needless, needless drama. Let's actually go work on the BLPs now that Arbcom has the list. A list that should be public. BLPs have the right to know if their articles are not being watched. If he's abused the toolserver, take it to River and Wikimedia Deutschland. I smell vindictive action here, and this is the reason that I didn't run for the Arbitration committee even though I would have won a seat. I am disgusted by the notion of this case. Keegan (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I hope you understand that my ultimate defense is not that of MZMcBride (though I have no qualms admitting that he is my friend. With that I do chastise him when I disagree.) My point is that you are asking the arbitration committee to grossly overstep their bounds. I'm not sure at what point in the last eighteen months that ArbCom became (in the views of some) the lord judges almighty, but like the OTRS debate a few months ago: The English language Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee are not in control of the Wikimedia Foundation or other projects. In no way, shape, or form does it have (or should have) dictatorial powers over other projects. If they want to tell the Toolserver folks to remove his access, they (Toolserver admins) don't have to do it. If they want to desysop MZMcBride, that won't change access. Durova, you are choosing to fight a battle that is remarkably ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the internet, and running to a small group to demand a sea change is impossible. This is, and I mean this with great respect since anyone reading this obviously is a vested contributor the Wikipedia, a colossal waste of time. I expect that users over the age of 25 wouldn't go running for advocation when challenged on a talk page. Which you did. Check the time stamps. I enjoy your work, I just have no idea why you chose to pursue drama when easier alternatives/avenues are available. Keegan (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I'm also interested to know how you went from certifying an RfC that someone else would start, to implementing an Arbitration case. It doesn't seem that all avenues for a "content dispute" have been resolved. Again, I feel that you have been slighted and this is retaliatory. That is not a way to start arbitration. Ask my mom's eight divorce attorneys. Keegan (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the spirit of Tznkai's statement. Keegan (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai[edit]

Administrators are entrusted with certain technical tools, and the additional weight of words that come with those tools. The bully pulpit if you will. In order to justify their continued status as an administrator, administrators need to show they have the good judgment and sense demanded of an administrator. ArbCom is the only body on Wikipedia that can address these issues with any finality.

If the committee judges MZMcBride's actions as harmless, then so be it. I disagree, but that has a lot to with reasonable differences on appropriate strategy, who can be trusted, and the responsibility of administrators. If on the other hand the committee should find that MZMcBride's actions in this case were problematic, but aberrational and unlikely to be repeated, then I have no problem with that either - but it is still the committee's job to look.

If however, the committee believes that there was in fact harm done by MZMcBride and that this is indicative of his way of thinking - the actions of a true believer - then I implore the committee to take on some sort of corrective action. We cannot allow solving BLP problem to become carte-blanche for otherwise controversial actions - if for no other reason than the BLP problem is one in part made of issues involving judgment, the weight of words and implied authority. If MzMcbride's actions demonstrate a genuine problem with his judgment, then that should be the end of the conversation. If his actions happen to bring some sort of additional help to the BLP problem, then I thank him for it - but no true believer should shy from the costs of his actions.

There are a lot of moral hazards on Wikipedia, and a lot of people with genuine and differing beliefs that they take very seriously. BLPs have gotten much of the internal attention, but there are many more. A simple example is the recent Haitian earthquake. Many editors want to link to sites that give aid and I have supported that position on simple IAR reasoning. Many disagree. I could run roughshod over community norms and enforce my position, and claim the moral high ground, but I do not. Countless editors make the same choice moment to moment with little difficulty. copy edits done to try to make my prose less dense.

As an addendum, the committee should probably indicate whether or not MZMcBride is going to be examined in the committee's role in controlling admin behavior, or as an inter editor dispute between Durova and MZMcBride. If the later, the standard "actions of all parties to be examined" disclaimer should probably be offered up by someone.--Tznkai (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have reached the archetypal argument between a sulking teenager and his/her uptight parental figure. I will let yo udecide who is who.--Tznkai (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BirgitteSB[edit]

I largely agree with Tznkai (although the third paragraph lost me a bit, maybe there is a missing word or phrase). To examine this point from a slightly different angle. The minimal requirement we have of editors is the that edit in good faith towards our policies and other editors. We do not remove editing privileges merely editing poorly but for bad faith. However adminship requires an additional level competence that we don't require of general editors. If someone seems to have regular failures of judgment it becomes an issue of competence rather than abuse. It seems evident that the recent actions were undertaken in good faith. However it is reasonable to ask Arcom to examine if these actions, as part of a historical pattern of controversy, to determine if they believe that MZMcBride has strong enough judgment to be a competent admin. This is not an accusation of abuse, or intentions to damage Wikipedia. And I don't think anyone can be confident what the determination will be at this point. But the actions together with the history do seem questionable enough to make it worth asking the question and finding out.--BirgitteSB 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Durova: Arbcom does not need to expend their capital on the futility of attempting to prevent drama at potential future RFA's. One more editor with good intentions and questionable judgment is no great risk to the project and doesn't necessitate Arbcom's intervention. It doesn't matter why he resigned tools, or what he hopes the resignation or the lack of a full case might mean in the future. Given that you found his judgment to be so weak in regard to his earlier actions, you should not be overly alarmed by what he might judge his more recent actions to result in. The resignation removes the issue of the questionable competence of an admin. If the question comes up at RFA in the future so be it. It is not a concern of Arbcom. In my first comment I offered an argument as to why your filing of this could be seen reasonable and how such a filing need not rely on actual abuse of admin privileges. I do not find either these things to hold true of the continued promotion of this case after resignation.--BirgitteSB 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZM's recent replies do not concern me, because the question does not depend on his judgment. I think he is mistaken to equate the RFA required standard with a definitive outcome that would impossible to determine in every single resignation that occurred before the voting stage, but so what? So long the people who hold this mistaken interpretation are not b'crats, it has no importance. Solely because people wish to continue to fight is not a good reason for an Arbcom case. I don't see any other reason being offered here. Let's not reward those with a willingness to continue fighting by awarding such people a platform.--BirgitteSB 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt[edit]

This case seems alarming, but as has been pointed out, a number of pieces of information have not been mentioned. Presumably, they are floating around the Arbcom mailing list, however, it is equally important that the community see justice done. Provisionally, I suggest ArbCom not resolve this case unless as much information as possible is provided to the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental comment: Is ArbCom that eager to start off the new year that it takes this case, with the seal put on it in less than 24 hours, without even hearing from the subject of the proceeding? I have no idea what MZMcBride has to say for himself. More to the point, neither do you.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe[edit]

I think this case needs to be accepted. I note that although MZM claims not to have the time to respond here [2], he has apparently found time for a fairly lengthy attack on the motivations of Durova in filing this case [3]. I think the behaviour alleged by Durova called for a measured response free from aggressive rhetoric. The discussion on User talk:MZMcBride makes for unpalatable reading.
One of the issues I had with MZM prior to his desysopping was the highly defensive stance he would take to criticism and blanket refusals to accept that he might have erred. I was persuaded not to oppose his recent RfA by those who indicated that this attitude had changed. From his talkpage, it would appear that it has not. I note in particular: "It's a poisoning of the well, and I'm not willing to drink.", "But please don't ever mistake that to mean that an honest or straight-forward response is what you'll always (or even sometimes!) get. :-)", " maybe it's one of those other logic fallacies you've fallen prey to.", and "If there's smoke in the air, it came off your broomstick when flew in here demanding answers".
I see two issues here, (1) the sharing of the information in the first place and (2) an administrator who still gives the impression that he thinks his judgment trumps everyone else's. Perhaps my view is coloured by past scuffles with MZM, but I think there's enough here that ArbCom need to determine this matter. WJBscribe (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post acceptance follow up. Obviously I would recuse from any bureaucrat discussion were MZM to ask for his admin rights to be restored. That said, even had a case not been opened, anyone would have to be living in cloud cuckoo land to think the tools would be returned by a crat in these circumstances. WJBscribe (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton[edit]

I'd far rather have a thoughtful, well-considered and detailed statement from MZMcBride than a rushed one. Give him time to comment, please. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sole Soul[edit]

• MZMcBride did everything in the open, so there is no need to question his intention. MZMcBride position stems from extreme lack of believe in security through obscurity.
• I don't see any abuse of administration tools by MZMcBride.

Sole Soul (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride[edit]

Apologies for the delay in posting this statement. Holiday weekend travel and some other issues collided, making it impossible to write anything of value until now.

I believe this case should not be accepted for a number of reasons:

• Unclear scope: this is very similar to the issue that was encountered in the last case filing; some Arbitrators and others have certain ideas about what this case should involve while others are completely in the dark;
• No attempt at prior dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is the preferred venue here; trying to claim that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war is prior dispute resolution is insane;
• Nothing to arbitrate: there has been no evidence presented here that administrator tools have been misused or abused; there has been no evidence presented here that there is anything that the Arbitrators could reasonably act on;
• The central powder keg in this "incident" has been defused by this post an hour or so ago.

I understand Newyorkbrad's concerns regarding information being posted on-wiki and elsewhere that can cause harm. I've been working on a project called climax in which these same issues will likely arise. Have you ever wondered how many biographies are viewed fewer than 100 times a month but contain no references? Apparently nobody has ever collected this information into a single database. It will soon be possible to find every high-risk biography or every biography containing an unusually high number of "bad words" or every biography that hasn't been edited in two years. There are conversations that should be had about what data should and should not be released, but I don't believe an Arbitration case is the appropriate venue.

I've donated a substantial amount of time, energy, and resources into Wikimedia wikis, with a special emphasis during the past year on the BLP problem. I've been demonized and caricatured on my talk page over the past few days, which has expectedly been met with sometimes hostile replies.

I do not believe that accepting a case will lead to any party or any issue being satisfied. I anticipate follow-up questions and comments to this statement, so I will wait for them before posting further. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: No. There's absolutely nothing to say that this case would have resulted in a de-adminning. Attempting to impose one without a case is inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: No, there's a very sharp distinction between resigning admin and retiring from Wikipedia. I'm not leaving the project, I've merely taken a break from adminship. I've been here for a long time for a long time. Please don't lecture me on our practices and procedures. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote this practice and procedure, it's been reaffirmed by this Committee several times, and it is exactly as I said it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newyorkbrad, you've now barred new parties being added to the case, which appears to be an unprecedented move. It would seem that you're simply making up the rules as you go along. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Risker: No. There's absolutely nothing to say that this case would have resulted in a de-adminning. Attempting to impose one without a case is inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coren: And re-added. I'd suggest extreme caution here, Coren. This is very hot fire that's being played with. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coren: When was "Trulyequal1" appointed or elected to the Arbitration Committee? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coren: Does the Arbitration Committee have any other undisclosed role accounts acting "under the aegis of the Committee"? I don't believe this has ever been established as appropriate or acceptable behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 4:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Statement by Nagle[edit]

There was definitely some subtle vandalism going on regarding the biography articles listed by McBride.

• Ron Hunt (footballer) - see this edit. The edit inserts the claim that Ron Hunt, a football (soccer) player from London, later became an officer of New Leaf Venture Partners. There's a vague citation which mentions a Ron Hunt. Checking the New Leaf Venture Partners web site for their officer bios [4], we find that their Ron Hunt has an MBA from Wharton and came from Coopers and Lybrand (accountants) and the venture capital arm of Credit Suisse. Said edit was later reverted by the original editor, Orderly Conductor (talk · contribs), an account currently blocked as a sock of Thekohser (talk · contribs).
• Petter Schjerven - see this edit. This is by "Orderly Conductor" again, and adds a reference in Norwegian. Someone who reads Norwegian will have to validate that one. Said edit was reverted by "Orderly Conductor" after 2 days.
• Eileen_MacDonagh - see this edit by Byzantium Loved Prague (talk · contribs). That user is now blocked as a sock. This added a claim that the artist had won an award when graduating from USC in 1963. Other sources indicate the artist was born in 1956.[5] Another editor caught the error and reverted.

Remaining to be checked: Omid_Khouraj, Surapong_Kongthep, Tanakorn_Santanaprasit, Lydia_R._Diamond, Omar_Pene, D._W._Rutledge, Jasmin_Stavros, Piotr_Libera, Connor_Byrne, Tony_Bellus, Ced_Gee, Daniel_McConnell, Sylviane_Agacinski, Jaime_Zea.

I have no idea whether McBride was involved in this, encouraged it, or what, but someone now has to dig through every article in McBride's list, and every article edited by related editors, for subtle vandalism. So this should go to evidence phase. Bleah. --John Nagle (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• András Fejér - see this edit by banned sock Byzantium Loved Prague (talk · contribs). Here, the same editor seems to have inserted a valid piece of information, adding "Notably, he studied Bartok’s music with the violinist Zoltan Szekely", which is confirmed by this New York Times reference. [6] Unless there are two notable Hungarian violinists named András Fejér, it's a good cite. But the reference is mislinked; instead of having a link to the article, it just has a Wikilink to the New York Times. It's been removed from the article, then the remove reverted, by well-established editors who are clearly working to check the validity of the item.

• Patrick_McDonnell_(actor) - see this edit by Bluefish live peacefully (talk · contribs). "Prior to his work in the dramatic arts, McDonnell was an assistant city attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin." (Unlikely, since McDonnell's career has been in Ireland.) This was removed by Trulyequal (talk · contribs). That account was blocked for sockpuppetry after six days of editing, but Trulyequal (talk · contribs) removed the notice that their account was a sockpuppet.[7].

• Anne Katrin Walter - see this edit, inserting bogus info (2008 Miss World contestant cited with book published in 1939) by Big Lovin' Pineapple (talk · contribs). Account blocked as sockpuppet, bogus info reverted.

So far, most of the damage from this exercise in vandalism seems to have been cleaned up, but it's eaten the time of at least half a dozen good editors to do it. We don't need this. I'm going to stop now, but someone else should work down the remainder of the list and check the references. --John Nagle (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DuncanHill[edit]

I can understand someone generating a list of unwatched BLPs and posting it to the BLP noticeboard to ask for help against vandalism.

I can understand someone generating a list of unwatched BLPs and positng it to AN to ask for help against vandalism.

I can understand someone generating a list of unwatched BLPs and sending it to Mike Godwin, as they could be a legal liability to Wikipedia in the event of vandalism.

I can't understand someone generating a list of unwatched BLPs and sending it to a banned editor.DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that if Arbcom would be unwise to decide "oh well, he's resigned the tools, let's just leave it at that". A fuller account of who did, or knew, what would be beneficial and may help avoid future performances. DuncanHill (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have asked at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard for clarification of whether or not resigning the admin tools in this case would prevent 'crat re-adminning. Initial responses suggest that they wouldn't decide if it did or didn't until the editor in question asks for the tools back.

• • This diff [8] makes a bold and disturbing claim which needs investigation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466[edit]

I propose extending MZMcBride the assumption of good faith a little longer. Judging by User:MZMcBride/climax, he clearly has put some thought and effort into addressing BLP problems, and I think we can discount the possibility that his actions here could in any way be construed as "vandalism for lulz". They are more reminiscent of WP:NEWT, which was also started with the best intentions, yet eventually proved controversial. We are an open collaborative environment without a central decision-making authority. Sometimes editors will come up with a research idea and go ahead and implement it. We have to think about what kind of an environment we want to create. We could ask people to first gain approval for research projects (from Wikimedia, from arbcom, etc.) on a non-public mailing list; that is the centralised bureaucratic approach. We could let people muddle through on their own and throw the book at them when it turns out we don't like what they did; that creates a chilling effect. There is no easy solution here, but I think it unlikely that MZMcBride's actions were the result of a lack of care about WP:BLP.

Having said that, what was the idea here? Was it to insert relatively "harmless" false information, such as is present in thousands of BLPs, and see if anyone would notice? And why a banned user? Was it because he is a friend and it was his idea? And, as a separate issue, what about the socking guide? Isn't that likely to aggravate socking problems here? --JN466 14:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cool Hand Luke[edit]

MZMcBride has resigned his bit.[9] Under these circumstances, he would have to re-apply at RFA. I think this is the right result. The path of least drama is rejecting this case as moot; anything more accomplishes little at a very high cost. Cool Hand Luke 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the behavior by a particular Arbitrator here makes this case impossible to decline. His behavior, including voting to accept this case while also actively and secretly using a "good hand" account, is beyond the pale. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I assumed that you "do not believe that accepting a case will lead to any party or any issue being satisfied." That was your position only 18 hours ago. Perhaps you should update your section? Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the views are directly contradictory. Should this case be accepted? No. Wikipedia would likely be much better off if this entire case were thrown out and forgotten about altogether. Must it be accepted given the recent circumstances and actions that have come to light? Yes, I think so. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jehochman[edit]

What more needs to be investigated subsequent to the resignation? Ibid. Does somebody think User:MZMcBride needs editing restrictions? If nobody is asking for that, there is nothing left to decide. We do not hold cases to publicly humiliate people. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cube lurker[edit]

My one concern is that droping this request without a full case may enable the mistake of last September to be repeated more easily. It may be true that a full case is not needed with the tools being resigned. However some sort of official fact finding/report may be of value to the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent replies by MZMcBride to NYB and Risker demonstrate a need for this case to be accepted.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the now revealed sock, this is just so typicaly arbcomish. If arbcom needed a role account to watchlist these articles and were upfront about it, I for one would have applauded their diligence. Instead they try to do it in secret and get caught, opening the dramagates. It's almost funny. Is there a place to suggest that once, just once Arbcom learn from their past mistakes. Secret never stays secret. Secret never works as intended.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jennavecia/Lara[edit]

It would be nice if the committee could pull itself together and take part in some basic communication on its private mailing list. Considering the GodKing and various members of his court, both past and present, have been aware of sofixit.org since October 2009 and apparently, from my view, were comfortable enough with its purpose to let it go, if for no other reason than because it's out of Wikipedia's purview, it seems increasingly ridiculous that Roger Davies is being left to flap in the wind with his clueless comments. Between the group of you, not one could muster up the GAF to drop him a name of who to ask questions of to ease his aching mind?

More than a dozen editors/admins outed in the past month or so (including two children, as some here like to call them) as the BLP problem continues to spiral out. You guys keep them priorities set; it's working well so far. And for the sake of clarity, Durova, I resigned. Lara 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Prodego (et al.)[edit]

It is fairly obvious (to me) that MZMcBride followed the common path of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. But what I am more interested in is the role of Trulyequal1 (talk · contribs). Why was this account created? Who operated it? Why did the operator of this account not use their own account - as does everyone else? Coren's comment below ("that account was created by and is under control of an arbitrator for the simple task of reverting the anticipated vandalism to BLPs. This was done with the knowledge and assent of the committee.") seems to imply that without "the knowledge and assent of the committee" the action would not have been appropriate. While the sock policy doesn't say it would be inappropriate in any case, I can't see it being seen so innocently had it not been arbcom pulling the strings. Arbcom does not have the ability to 'approve' of something that would otherwise be in violation of policies, community consensus, etc, and certainly not the ability to 'pre-approve' such actions. What was the intention of this account.

Please reply here, thanks. Prodego ^talk 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Prodego has invited comments here, and I don't have much else to say about the present case - I would just like to second his request. The connection between the Trulyequal1 account and its owner should be disclosed; there doesn't appear to be any compelling reason outlined at WP:SOCK to allow it to remain sekrit. –xeno^talk 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying here as requested). No, you're correct that the actions of the account would not have otherwise been outside policy. The reason it was stated explicitly that this was ArbCom action is to explain why it was removed from the list of parties and has no bearing on recusal from any arbitrator as MZMcBride seems to imply it would.

Had the account been operated by any other editor not otherwise under sanction, I'd also be hard pressed to justify its inclusion as a party given that the only edits it ever did was revert vandalism, but that determination would have likely been made during the case if we didn't know. — Coren ^(talk) 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the reply Coren, the real gist of what I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to me to create an SPA to revert vandalism. Why not simply use your own account? Prodego ^talk 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Oh, the short of it: We knew that some BLPs off a list provided by MZMcBride to a banned user were likely going to be vandalized; given that it was fairly certain that socks would be used for this, we wanted to have a way of spotting and reverting the vandalism that wouldn't announce that ArbCom was onto the vandal before we got the socks (lest they simply become sleepers). That, and adding 8000 pages to a "real" account's watchlist would have likely made it nigh unusable. — Coren ^(talk) 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why add 8000 pages to your watchlist? See below. Cool Hand Luke 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to imagine it has to do with maintaining a separate watch list of a huge number of BLPs and making it easier for the committee to coordinate dealing with a difficult problem involving the real lives of real persons. Using an arbitrator's pseudonym would raise the profile of an edit considerably, as well as invite additional retaliation from vandals.--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an individual I respond: The account exists so that it could hold the unwatched, unreferenced BLPs in its watchlist without clogging the watchlist of the arbitrator who created it. This watchlist was used to identify edits involved in the deliberate vandalism/breaching experiment. It was intended to prevent vandalism, and it did succeed in cleaning some of it up. Since these articles tend to be low-traffic, a single alternate watchlist can monitor it reasonably well. I think it would be a great thing if MZMcBride could pass lists of poorly-watched articles to admins willing to do this sort of thing. That was the intention of the useless page special:unwatched, after all. As for the arbitrator who operates it, I am Spartacus. Cool Hand Luke 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So arbitrators have free reign to operate undisclosed socks contrary to policy? –xeno^talk 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, they'd have to disclose it to the Comm.... wait.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the catch 22. –xeno^talk 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less snarky, directly quoted from the relevant section:

Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Note that email is generally not considered a secure way of communication. Concerned editors may wish to log into Wikipedia's secure server then email the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights through a secure connection to Wikipedia's computers.

--Tznkai (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I mentioned above Xeno, it isn't against the sock policy to user multiple accounts as long as you don't do bad things. Since reverting vandalism is a good thing, this is an acceptable use of a sock. I'm not sure it would be seen that way in all cases, but from a policy point of view, it should be fine. The 'disclosure to the committee' is more of a request for help, if there were to be issues. My question was why. There a better ways to watch articles than the watchlist feature, but few are easier (I might have suggested Related Changes though, which would have allowed multiple people to view the 'watchlist'. My one suggestion would be that if you do create an alternate account, use ((User Alternate Acct)). Makes things easier. Prodego ^talk 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tznkai, but I'm still not buying it. Reverting vandalism on low-profile BLPs is not a valid reason to keep the link undisclosed (in my humble opinion). The (apparent) resistance to disclose the owner at this point is quite confusing and does muddy the waters quite a bit. –xeno^talk 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think our sock policy is a mess, and I tend to agree with MBisanz about labeling the account at least generically, but it's hard to see how this would rise to the level of an Arbitration case, or even an SPI. Cool Hand Luke 21:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Disclosure the Committee, for as long as I can remember, is a form of disclosure for those who do not trust the general public. The number of plausible legitimate reasons for a secret alternate account is infinite (although infinitely smaller than the number of illegitimate reasons). Disclosure to the committee ensures that there is someone (many someones), not coincidentally the only body that controls checkusers, admin oversight, and all other disputes, who will have the information at their fingertips if there is a problem. Public disclosure has never been, nor should be, required. --Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that while I do not personally agree with it, the current sock policy requires disclosure to the crats of undisclosed socks of people seeking positions of trust. I think it should be lodged with the arbs, but I didn't write the policy. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its messy because it isn't enforced as written, I'd just suggest that as good practice, one should tag their alternate accounts. Prodego ^talk 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I contest that this account (as of today) has a legitimate reason for remaining undisclosed (perhaps during the "chase" when the cat was still in the bag). I also don't think that arbitrators whispering to eachother about their secret accounts and that making it "okay" is something the community-at-large will be comfortable with. Especially when those same accounts are involving themselves in matters that are before (or likely will come before) the committee. The community wants more transparency, not less. Respecfully, –xeno^talk 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the account as a separate watchlist is one thing. But this account was used to do actual reversions and edits. It was also left completely undisclosed to the public that it was a role account. I realize that our socking policy is ambiguous at times, but this seems to be pretty clearly in violation of the spirit and the letter. The bigger issue here, however, is that the Arbitrator in control of the account not only failed to disclose that it was a role account, but also voted to accept this case rather than recuse. Coren is stating, after the fact, that this was a Committee action. That's not my understanding here. That is, people were surprised and weren't too pleased to hear what had happened here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules. Sole Soul (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Xeno: I imagine the committee is concerned about someone smelling blood in the water. We certainly have evidence that users on and of wiki will carry grudges until doomsday. More to the point though, the policy, and our norms, and common sense suggest that the reasoning for private disclosure can remain in the mind of the one doing the disclosure. Its really not our place to insist that they have a good reason by our personal standards to safeguard their privacy, its merely our place to ensure that any potential for abuse is guarded against.--Tznkai (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a list including several functionaries at Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks who have already declared that they are willing to bear such a burden. MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side note. Can we take this to a talk page?--Tznkai (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced, but I don't really have a desire to continue this elsewhere (part of the reason I am squatting in Prodego's section, really)... Potential arbiters were well-warned that sitting on the committee would draw upon them great scrutiny. This account has muddied the waters greatly, disclosing the link to its owner would do a lot to clear that up. Feel free to visit my talk page if you think you can dissuade me from my opinion. –xeno^talk 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MBisanz[edit]

It would be hypocritical of me to have maintained longterm opposition to socking to not comment here. MZM may have done something wrong and has turned in his bits. But, there are enough functionaries listed on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks that I cannot see why an arb was required to create an undeclared sock to revert vandalism and avoid being targeted by a banned user. Even a declaration that "this is a sock of an arbitrator created to avoid harassment" would be better than a totally undeclared account. It is even more unacceptable in light of the community's recent modification of the sockpuppetry policy to proscribe the operation of undisclosed alternate by those seeking positions of trust. MBisanz ^talk 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr.Z-man[edit]

Does the arbitrator(s) who operate this account intend to monitor its watchlist indefinitely, or remove the articles from it once they're satisfied that the experiment is over? If not, then this will only serve to exacerbate the problem with determining the monitoring status of poorly-watched BLPs. Mr.Z-man 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]