| Revision as of 18:06, 5 February 2010 editInkSplotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users821 edits →MZMcBride and Toolserver: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:25, 5 February 2010 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,478 edits →On barring a user from RFA: response to CirtNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :Indeed - if the community thinks MZMcBride should be an administrator that is their decision to make. To my knowledge, there is no 'sekrit evidenz' or anything of the sort such that ArbCom must protect the community from itself by barring MZMcBride from RFA. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | :Indeed - if the community thinks MZMcBride should be an administrator that is their decision to make. To my knowledge, there is no 'sekrit evidenz' or anything of the sort such that ArbCom must protect the community from itself by barring MZMcBride from RFA. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{user|Cool Hand Luke}} - could you please cite what those instances/cases were when ArbCom has barred users from running at RFA? ''']''' (]) 17:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ::{{user|Cool Hand Luke}} - could you please cite what those instances/cases were when ArbCom has barred users from running at RFA? ''']''' (]) 17:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::I'm not suggesting the circumstances are comparable to this case, but one precedent is ]. ] (]) 18:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == MZMcBride and Toolserver == | == MZMcBride and Toolserver == | ||
Revision as of 18:25, 5 February 2010
|
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) |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
No good deed goes unpunished
Over on the Misplaced Pages Review, a contributor has noted that Magnus's Save-a-BLP tool has now been re-purposed for nefarious uses. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
On barring a user from RFA
ArbCom has barred users from running at RFA only a handful of times in its history, and some of those instances strike me as dubious. I think we need to have a solid reason to do something apparently so undemocratic, and I do not know what the rationale here might be. RFAs are dramatic in general; that can't be helped.
If the purpose is simply to keep MZMcBride from becoming an administrator, I think that purpose is illegitimate. RFA should make that decision. If we have no faith in RFA, I suppose we're at an existential crisis—we were selected by a similar method.
Therefore, I urge the committee to reject SirFozzie's alternative remedy 1.1. Cool Hand Luke 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed - if the community thinks MZMcBride should be an administrator that is their decision to make. To my knowledge, there is no 'sekrit evidenz' or anything of the sort such that ArbCom must protect the community from itself by barring MZMcBride from RFA. –xeno 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) - could you please cite what those instances/cases were when ArbCom has barred users from running at RFA? Cirt (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting the circumstances are comparable to this case, but one precedent is here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) - could you please cite what those instances/cases were when ArbCom has barred users from running at RFA? Cirt (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
MZMcBride and Toolserver
Proposed Finding of Fact #4 ends with the sentance,
On 17 January 2010, the toolserver rules were explicitly changed to prohibit the release of unwatched article data.
As a minor point of clarity, I'd suggest amending it to say,
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.
Just to be clear in the timing of things, that the change occured after MZMcBride's actions and K's breaching experiment. I think it's a small modification, and wouldn't require revoting from the arbitrators. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)