Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Administrator conduct[edit]

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.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Specifically on the second part of the principle. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shell babelfish 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (Added punctuation.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Return of access levels[edit]

2) Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later request the return of those permissions may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up permissions 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)

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the common practice Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shell babelfish 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would be tempted to extend this to "dispute resolution" in general. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I have changed the word "privileges" to "permissions" in line with our usual terminology; no other changes were made. Risker (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It should be pointed out that Arbcom can and has limited return of permissions to arbcom only. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Some concern about practices in this area was raised by community members when The Rambling Man returned to activity last summer. At that time, it was suggested that the presumptions in this area might be changed. We adopted a motion at the time welcoming any community discussion regarding this issue, but no RfC was ever opened, which suggests that our current practice is probably about right, or at least that no one has been able to formulate and get consensus for different rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Recidivism[edit]

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.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Big problem here. As I posted on the workshop, Recidivism is a problem here. Continued improper conduct. SirFozzie (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is true Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Core issue. Shell babelfish 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In the prior arbitration, user judgment was considered to be a key issue. Risker (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. True, but I'm not sure of the relevance here; is there an allegation that MZMcBride has repeated behaviour for which he was previously sanctioned? Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor judgement, mostly Fritzpoll (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption to prove a point[edit]

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".

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shell babelfish 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Vandalism[edit]

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". Editors who facilitate vandalism may be sanctioned even if they do not directly engage in acts of vandalism.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'll support with my underlined addition, which I don't think is controversial - if it is, then any arbitrator who has voted may revert me, but I do feel this is a critical connection to make in order to improve the relevancy of this finding to the case Fritzpoll (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Including Fritzpoll's addition. Shell babelfish 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. With the addition of the underlined words, but the underlining should not be included in the final decision. To Risker's point, I believe the words "may be" address her concern; it emphasizes that this is a matter of discretion, which certainly would not be triggered in the example she cites. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
This particular definition does not seem relevant to this case. I shall mull further on this one, but whilst vandalism was facilitated (the crux of the problem) none of the parties actually vandalised anything. I think an alternate wording highlighting specifically that facilitation cannot be tolerated would be preferable Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Too broad to support as a principle. There needs to be some reason to believe that the "facilitator" was aware that there was a likelihood of vandalism. In this particular case, there is such reason, but as a general principle I find it too easy to be used to attach blame where individuals may be assuming good faith, such as unblocking editors with a history of vandalism. Risker (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious accusations[edit]

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. Participants should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the [serious accusation] with the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think my workshop proposals on this matter were excessively harsh with hindisght, but I think a rememdy in this area is important, and so I will support the principles and FoFs that justify the remedy Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think, as a whole, evidence in Arbitration cases often crosses this line and too much mud slinging goes on. I would support this as higher standard for evidence presented during cases. In this case, however, the incident of most concern was dealt with properly and I don't think it requires singling out further. Shell babelfish 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:


Abstain:
  1. I do think that some of the comments made during the course of the case did not rise to the standards we expect here. However, the comments were dealt with appropriately, and I do not think this requires a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not really relevant here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not relevant here. KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not relevant to the core issues. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per other abstainers, but the principle is certainly true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse:
  1. Recusing on this question in this case only. Risker (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory remarks[edit]

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".

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment to 6) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Don't see the relevance to this case. Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not relevant; again if there was something more general about expectations for behavior on case pages, I could support. Shell babelfish 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not relevant here. KnightLago (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Same as above. There were inappropriate comments and submissions, but not to the point of requiring a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really relevant here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    KnightLago (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per omnes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Recuse:
  1. Recusing on this question in this case only. Risker (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

MZMcBride's editing history[edit]

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, on 19 Jan 2010 three days after the request to open this case was filed and while it 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.
Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think it needs to be clear at both times, the resignation occurred when he was likely to be de-sysoped if the case had gone through to conclusion without his resignations. SirFozzie (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Echo SirFozzie's point. Shell babelfish 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While it is true that a desysop was a foreseeable consequence of both cases, administrators would be well advised in general to consider that a resignation during dispute resolution (even if in its initial stages) is necessarily under controversial circumstances. While this may be a wise move in order to reduce drama, it should not be viewed as a method to avoid dispute resolution and return under the radar after it peters out. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Although I think that desysopping in the prior case was less likely than others believe. Risker (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MZMcBride's role in an "experiment"[edit]

2) 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 for a list of unwatched BLPs for this "experiment". In response, MZMcBride publicly agreed to give a list to K. and subsequently supplied a list of twenty articles.
(C) MZMcBride gave 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 handed over the list to him, MZMcBride expressed concern that it might be used in a "nefarious" fashion.
(D) MZMcBride gave 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 gave 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 the English Wikipedia for any purpose at all.
(F) After MZMcBride gave 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.
Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed fully. SirFozzie (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have carefully reviewed the WR thread in question as well as the relevant on-wiki pages, and I consider this to be substantially accurate. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shell babelfish 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In fact, his fretting about the "experiment" being disrupted or fouled by intervention to repair the damage it caused is an aggravating factor. It is well received that disruption to prove a point — no matter how valid the point may be — is unacceptable. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Steve Smith. Risker (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Adapted from my proposal on the workship. The level of detail is high for what, after all, was an isolated instance that might otherwise have faded from memory; but is justified in response to some of the questions that were asked on the workshop and elsewhere about why the "experiment" was a problem, why MZMcBride could be culpable for intended or executed vandalism by another person, why MZMcBride's status as an administrator is relevant when no admin tools were directly used, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

MZMcBride's sockpuppetry posting[edit]

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 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.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Whether or not the information is correct or even useful, attempting to assist banned editors or enable policy violations is incredibly poor judgement and applicable to the over-all point here. Shell babelfish 23:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. That the techniques can be otherwise learned or found, or that they are of limited usefulness in practice, in no way diminishes the impropriety of offering them because it then becomes invitation and endorsement to abuse the project. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It is no part of the basis for the finding of misconduct that MZMcBride posted about Wikipedia on another website, nor that he posted comments that could be taken as critical of Wikipedia (i.e., acknowledging that there are ways to sock on-wiki and increase one's odds of getting away with it). But it was unnecessary and unhelpful to effectively encourage a contributor to the other website who had all but advertised his or her intention to sock in violation of policies. That MZMcBride did so by re-posting specific commentary that he had been sharply criticized for posting previously, and which he had removed from Wikipedia in response to the criticism, aggravated the situation. By itself this incident would not warrant a case or a sanction, but I do find it relevant to the overall picture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think even this is particularly relevant. Sure it suggests bad judgement, but I am persuaded by the more general point that we cannot rely on security through obscurity. I think that it is sufficiently muddied an issue so as not to amount to a finding in this form. May reconsider later. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Accurate, but don't believe it was problematic and therefore relevant to this case. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Although I don't object to this finding, I do not believe that it is as significant a judgment issue as other points, per Fritzpoll. Risker (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride and Toolserver[edit]

4) 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, after the events leading to this arbitration, the toolserver rules were explicitly changed to prohibit the release of unwatched article data.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "after the events leading to this arbitration" to the final sentence for clarity. Roger Davies talk 19:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shell babelfish 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. While I acknowledge some of Risker's points below, I think the finding is accurate. I note MZMcBride's proposal on the workshop for us to observe that "unwatchedness" may be a poor metric for judging the prominence of articles. If this is so, then perhaps he enabled not merely an undesirable experiment in vandalizing BLPs, but a particularly pointless one to boot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Although I have no objection to passage of this finding, I think it is based on some misconceptions about Toolserver and the sensitivity of watchlist data. There are several accredited Toolserver users who have no particular connection to any other WMF project, and others who are under sanction by various WMF projects. Numerous Toolserver users produce data for external third parties on a routine basis, so a request from someone outside of the immediate community is not in and of itself of any particular concern. Numerous tools that have been made available by Toolserver users can be misused by others to vandalise a project or cause harm under certain circumstances. Until Special:UnwatchedPages ceased functioning, it was common for administrators to make lists of unwatched pages available to non-admins for the purpose of watchlisting; this was considered a good thing at the time. Having said all of that, I would have expected that MZMcBride would be able to discern a difference between a request for information from an accredited academic or an experienced and respected enwp editor and one from someone known to have vandalised articles, especially when the request was made outside of normal communication channels (normal channels being enwp or Toolserver talk page, or email address linked to either account) and was focused on articles with a higher than average vulnerability for vandalism. Risker (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's judgment[edit]

5) 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 minimum standards expected of administrators.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the most significant finding, and why I believe the community need to opportunity to re-assess his suitability for adminship Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shell babelfish 05:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As noted above, I do not have as significant an issue with the republishing of the sockpuppetry page as others do. I believe, however, that the second point is the heart of the decision. MZMcBride's lack of discernment and, in particular, his refusal to provide straight answers to direct questions aimed at mitigating damage from his initial poor decision demonstrate a level of judgment below what is expected of administrators, even in situations where they are not using administrator tools. Risker (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Although partly duplicative of the last sentence of 2 (an artifact of drafting by committee). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Move to divide the question. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's commentaries[edit]

6A) The filing party in this case, Durova has posted commentary on this case that was swiftly and correctly removed by an arbitrator and forwarded privately to the Arbitration Committee,

Support:
#  Roger Davies talk 02:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Struck on purely procedural grounds (see note below).  Roger Davies talk 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shell babelfish 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. True, but doesn't warrant a finding in this case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Remain unconvinced that a finding is necessary. KnightLago (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree that it was inappropriate, but not necessary to have a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doesn't warrant a finding in its own right. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The comments in question were unwarranted and unsupported, and are not the only instances of problematic comments surrounding this case. There should be absolutely no repetition of such comments in the future, and I do not want my oppose vote to be construed as condoning them in any way. Having said that, I do not find that the comments rose quite to the level of requiring an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support struck purely on procedural grounds. I agree with Cool Hand Luke that this should not appear to pass by process as it sends the wrong signal. My switch to oppose has no bearing on my opinion of the merits of the motion. I will move back to support if FayssalF turns up and votes.  Roger Davies talk 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Agree that it was inappropriate, but not necessary to have a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate, but quickly corrected and handled properly thereafter. No need for a finding. Shell babelfish 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced this rises to the level of needing a finding. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't warrant a finding in its own right. - Mailer Diablo 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse:
  1. Recusing on this question in this case only. Risker (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6B) The filing party in this case, Durova has 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.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regardless of the intended meaning, there are ways to get across concerns without bringing in unnecessary drama, escalation and disparagement - this isn't one of them. Since high drama appears to be a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident, a finding is an unfortunate necessity. Shell babelfish 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Poor behavior made less excusable coming from a respected member of the community who, honestly, should know better. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not really relevant to the dispute being examined here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not really relevant, and remains ambiguous. KnightLago (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As in the proposed findings. Note that I do not support what she has said here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. - Mailer Diablo 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comment on 6(A). Although I will oppose the finding, based in part upon Risker's observations on the talkpage to this page, comments of this nature badly damage our collaborative environment and should never be repeated. I will also add that even apart from its rhetorical excesses, I (and I believe all of my colleagues) are in radical disagreement with the substance of Durova's comment. In my year-plus of working with her on this committee I have consistently found the quality of Risker's work as an arbitrator to be excellent—making the untoward virulence of the comment directed at her all the more startling, which is not to say that it would have been acceptable directed at any user at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
As in the proposed findings. Note that I do not support what she has said here. SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The meaning here is somewhat ambiguous, and at least one interpretation falls within the realm of what I would consider acceptable comment. I have reconsidered this remark, which a number of people have correctly pointed out was stupid. I continue to abstain on this finding, however, as I see no good coming from dragging this remark into the case. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ambiguous. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per above (principles). Mailer Diablo 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse:
  1. Recusing on this question in this case only. Risker (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Second choice.  Roger Davies talk 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Second Choice. We know that history will again repeat itself if we don't shunt it off a vicious cycle. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak third choice. Better than no finding, but concur with Fritzpoll on the merits of the urging. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Third choice. Agree with Steve, better than nothing but not sure anything about the 60 days is necessary. Shell babelfish 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 2nd choice. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice. The non-binding "urging" would provide guidance to the community if MZMcBride chose to file a new RfA, without ultimately limiting the community's discretion. The 60-day window also provides guidance to MZMcBride on when he might be able to seek our permission to regain adminship without an RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't like the "urge" - it is ineffective because it has no force and can be ignored. If the intent is to make him wait 60 days, then that is what the remedy should say. I still won't support any time limits on a return to RfA, and prefer my version 1.2) below Fritzpoll (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

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. Furthermore, MZMcBride is required to get the Arbitration Committee's explicit approval before submitting a new request for adminship request. 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.

Support:
  1. Strong First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No - MZMcBride (per my support for FoF #5) has shown evidence of lacking judgement compatible with being an administrator and so the community must have the opportunity of deciding his administrator status. I have seen no compelling reason why this committee should retain jurisdiction in this case Fritzpoll (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Better no explicit remedy at all than this one. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No reason to assume the community can't handle this. Shell babelfish 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This should be a community decision.  Roger Davies talk 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While I believe this would limit further DRAMA, it is ultimately the community's remit to grant rights in controversial circumstances. KnightLago (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

1.2) 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. 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.

Support:
  1. Proposed. This is the same as 1) but with the urging removed, which, as I state above, I do not believe to be particularly useful Fritzpoll (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. It needs to be stated that the case would likely have resulted in tool removal had MZMcBride not made the decision to step down. Shell babelfish 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice, mostly out of wording. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. There is no crat option when one resigns under a cloud. There is only the community (and the Committee). KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 1st choice. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Second choice, per my comment on 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

1.3) 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.

Support:
  1. Proposed, first choice - substantively the same as Fritzpoll's, but without the redundant and speculative bits. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. More efficient than mine, but I prefer to leave no ambiguity about this being a matter of procedure: rather, I think it important to clarify that he faced such sanctions. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. I think its important to note the reason RfA is required. Shell babelfish 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Third choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 3rd choice. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The clearer versions above are better. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Versions 1) and therefore 1.2) may be longer but they were drafted to explicitly address specific concerns in this case raised by the bureaucrats.  Roger Davies talk 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Roger Davies. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In favor of 1.2). KnightLago (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

MZMcBride admonished[edit]

2) MZMcBride is admonished for failing to learn from the lessons of the past and for creating avoidable drama.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support an admonishment that covers more than 2.1, but not sure this is easily understandable. Shell babelfish 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. And indeed, knowing full well that drama would be necessarily created as a result of his actions. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KnightLago (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This should state "strongly admonished". — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Noting that the reference to unnecessary "drama" echoes a proposal offered by MZMcBride himself on the workshop. This whole episode was unnecessary, as was the failure to deescalate when its problematic nature became apparent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Support an admonishment, but per my comment on proposed principle 3, what are the lessons of the past that MZMcBride is alleged not to have learned? Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2.1) MZMcBride is admonished for facilitating vandalism by a banned user.

Support:
  1. Proposed - this seems relevant. Steve Smith (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In preference to 2) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support both this and 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not believe this covers the issue. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This does not cover the issue. SirFozzie (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Relevant, though I don't think this covers everything. This is only the last in a string of poor judgments. Will consider if I can come up with alternate wording. Shell babelfish 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support a weak 2) for now, but would be open to an admonishment with better language. KnightLago (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova cautioned[edit]

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

Support:
#  Roger Davies talk 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Struck on purely procedural grounds (see note below). Roger Davies talk 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Noting that a "caution" does not amount to a finding of wrongdoing. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In general, more care with what is said about others, but as Steve says, this isn't a finding of any wrongdoing. Shell babelfish 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A caution is appropriate. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my opposition to the findings of fact. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Still per SirFozzie. KnightLago (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would urge Durova to be more circumspect, but I do not think it needs to be a remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per SirFozzie. - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments on the findings, I will oppose this, but by a narrow margin. I laud Durova's unquestionably superior content work over a sustained period of time, but urge that when she finds herself in disagreement with other editors, she address the issues without suggesting that disagreements are a reflection on other editors' integrity or good faith. (In a clear instance of irony, I have found strong parallels between some of Durova's occasional on-wiki rhetorical excesses and some of MZMcBride's.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support struck purely on procedural grounds. I agree with Cool Hand Luke that this should not appear to pass by process as it sends the wrong signal. My switch to oppose has no bearing on my opinion of the merits of the motion. I will move back to support if FayssalF turns up and votes.  Roger Davies talk 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I would urge Durova to be more circumspect, but I do not think it needs to be a remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per SirFozzie. KnightLago (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per SirFozzie. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse:
  1. Recusing on this question in this case only. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver access[edit]

4) The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee will make a formal request to the toolserver management that they reevaluate the propriety of MZMcBride's continued access to the toolservers, according to their own standards, in light of the findings of this case.

Support:
  1. I remain convinced that this is necessary, given the highly inapropriate (by the English Wikipedia's standards) disclosure of data that was used directly for vandalism. While the toolserver management is not bound by a request from this committee, we would be remiss to not raise our concerns to their team that the resources they entrust to their users may have been seriously misused. — Coren (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While TS can make its own decisions, that should be formally informed of our concerns. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed that we can and should make a formal approach to the TS admins and inform them of our concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nothing wrong with formally registering our concerns, while noting that we are fully aware that our authority does not extend to toolserver. Steve Smith (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. We don't need to enact a separate remedy for this. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is clear that the Toolserver administrators are well aware of this case, and are perfectly capable of making their own personnel decisions. Risker (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More convinced today that this is unnecessary, so move from abstain to oppose Fritzpoll (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Finding above indicates that they are aware and have made changes based on these concerns. Shell babelfish 19:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Risker and Shell. KnightLago (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moot. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
The TSWiki admins are certainly aware of this case, and their local rules on certain matters appear to have changed as a result. Given this, I'm not coninced of the necessity of this remedy, but not sufficiently so to rise to the level of opposing it Fritzpoll (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not sure whether this will be effective at this point. I would welcome a clear commitment from MZMcBride that he will never again use toolserver data unhelpfully as he did in this case. I also note that it is an oversimplification to say that we cannot exercise any control over use of toolserver—theoretically, if we were concerned that MZMcBride's misuse of toolserver data posed an ongoing threat to this project, we could simply ban him unless and until he resigned his toolserver access. But I do not expect that matters would ever come to that point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass
Principles: 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6.
Findings of Fact: 1., 2., 3., 4., 5.
Remedies: (1. is superceded by 1.2.), 1.2., (1.3. is superceded by 1.2.), 2., 2.1
Proposals which do not pass
Principles: 7.
Findings of Fact: 6a., 6b.
Remedies: 1.1, 1.3, 3., 4.

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Previous motion to close annuled by change in voting majorities
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support
  1. Move to close. I do not know of any other arbitrators wishing to vote, and any minor implementation details can be worked out in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steve Smith (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Findings 6A, 6B and remedy 3 still require voting to be accepted or rejected. If this changes whilst I am offline, please consider this vote annulled Fritzpoll (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Support
  1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KnightLago (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SirFozzie (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=445337284"