Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 5 February 2010

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)

NYB cites one above (which I find dubious), and another dubious one was issued in the Matthew Hoffman case (which is now entirely rescinded). A third example is JoshuaZ—at the time, the restriction on JoshuaZ was done because of private information which was supposed to remain private. I feel this restriction was legitimate, but I'm confident we would now allow him to run again because the private information became public in a very ugly way. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Local en:wiki admin access to the list of unwatched articles doesn't generate a log so there isn't a capability to track if he regained local sysop rights and used that access to repeat this very serious incident. That makes this different from wheel wars, improper deletions, etc.--all of which result in logged actions. Unless the developers implement a new log we can't really address a repeat of this incident by any other means, because unless he discusses it openly again we won't even be able to prove that it's happening. Durova 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, Special:UnwatchedPages does not work and was not used in any way in this incident. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The following information is cached, and was last updated 12:13, 4 February 2010.
Discuss this special page at Misplaced Pages talk:Special:UnwatchedPages.
See also: Specialpageslist with editable versions.
There are no results for this report.

^^^ Yep, doesn't work. –xeno 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter that it's buggy at present. It is a normal part of local sysop rights and presumably the developers have plans to fix it. Do they also have plans to implement a log of sysop views? Unless they do then this is a necessary preventative. Durova 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The matter of MZMcBride being a sysop on the English Misplaced Pages is not an issue with regards to finding unwatched pages. The Toolserver has access to this data. MZMcBride has access to the Toolserver. I agree with Xeno and CHL on this one; the community should be the deciding factor on whether or not McBride should be an admin. As a side note (and I've pointed this out before, elsewhere), the UnwatchedPages page is "broken" more than it "works", the past several years. From what I gather, at least. Killiondude (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's always been buggy. Once upon a time, I believed it could be fixed. You'll see that I'm on the soft redirect's talk page. I even asked Jimbo to intervene. It is, and probably will remain, broken. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We all know that the devs are backlogged. Are they willing to add to that backlog for the sake of tracking actions by one individual whose misuse of local sysop rights needed two prior arbitration cases? Is the local admin community willing to relinquish the expectation of regaining that functionality for anybody? Unless the answer to one of those two questions is yes, there's a dilemma here. Durova 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"... misuse of local sysop rights ..." ← Never let facts stand in your way, Durova. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin protection wheel war and the first MZMcBride arbitration both concluded that MZMcBride had abused local sysop rights. Durova 20:19, 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)

"The meaning here is somewhat ambiguous, and at least one interpretation falls within the realm of what I would consider acceptable comment."

In this edit, Steve Smith suggests that there's a possible interpretation in which the comment in question would be acceptable. I'm having a very difficult time understanding what kind of (reasonable) interpretation justifies this commentary by Durova. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

By coincidence, I just finished explaining that edit on the arb list. One possible interpretation of Durova's remarks is just that she has an intense desire to refrain from associating with Risker (or being indebted to her, or what have you). I don't think that's inherently a personal attack; it's a comment on a relationship rather than an individual. It's quite possible that the intended meaning was something less acceptable (and there is a distinction between "acceptable" and "justified"), but I'd rather not muddy the waters with this, especially given that I already see enough to support the only Durova-specific remedy proposed. Steve Smith (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the explanation. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So by this interpretation, Durova means something like "I would rather die than lower myself to asking Risker for help (because my opinion of her integrity is so low)." I doubt that's right, but I guess there's an argument for it. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the assessment provided above by Steve Smith is probably right on the mark. However, it does not really help or serve either of the parties here to continue to parse this further. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'd be more persuaded if Durova herself had argued this instead of dredging up the Geogre stuff.  Roger Davies 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Durova asked for Risker (talk · contribs) to recuse five times. That does indeed seem like an "intense desire", as Steve Smith puts it. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Should arbitrators recuse because someone intensely dislikes them? If so, where does this lead us? Should admins not revert vandalism because the vandal dislikes them?  Roger Davies 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To the question: Not necessarily, but the reverse should certainly be the case... Cirt (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But we all know how often the perps claim (troll?) improper motives by administrators for even the most routine of admin actions and the high frequency with which the community discounts them. Hence, I suppose, the "serious allegations require serious evidence" policy.  Roger Davies 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Risker (talk · contribs) to Durova: Should a case arise in which your actions are being scrutinised, I will certainly recuse. Durova's actions are being scrutinised. Risker has still not recused. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does she need to recuse from the entire case? She has stated she'll recuse from those aspects concerning Durova. I'm not sure what the point here is.  Roger Davies 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Steve is right. I wish that were all to be said. Excuse me if this seems speechless; has anyone noticed that MZMcBride has resumed incivility and personal attacks "For the umpteenth time" and more pointedly "Never let facts stand in your way, Durova." and that Roger Davies has breached confidentiality? Whether or not you accept my apologies, how is this tolerable? Durova 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Where have I breached confidentiality?  Roger Davies 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the Geogre thing, I imagine. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to this.  Roger Davies 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What the heck? Where has Roger breached confidentiality? Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That diff Roger cites as justification is someone else's post. I share the "what the heck" sentiment. Durova 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"For the umpteenth time" is a personal attack? Perhaps Steve has a creative interpretation to make that fit. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)