Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Proposed decision

< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | MZMcBride 2

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James F Kalmar (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 6 February 2010 (→'Formal' request to Toolserver management: ++). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:08, 6 February 2010 by James F Kalmar (talk | contribs) (→'Formal' request to Toolserver management: ++)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

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)

Loosely related threads
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Refusal to fully recuse from the case, especially in light of the quoted statement, gives the appearance of impropriety. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) We partially recuse all the time, especially on big cases. There's nothing improper about it. Roger Davies 23:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) No, that is inappropriate. And in this case, especially so. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Why is it especially inappropriate in this case? When this case was opened, the arbitrators thought that it would primarily focus on examining the behavior of MZMcBride. The Durova bit is a recent development, and one that some arbitrators don't even think belongs in the case. To my thinking, this is one of the best examples of a case where an arbitrator might recuse from one incidental matter. Cool Hand Luke 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) There are 13 other active arbitrators for this case. To avoid impropriety and have one recuse, would not detract from the Committee to function appropriately in the case. Cirt (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You still haven't explained what the impropriety is. Roger Davies 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC) In light of the direction this thread has taken it seems more appropriate to conduct further discussion by email. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 6 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) Yes. And? That was the context. Where is the breach of confidentiality? Roger Davies 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You don't really expect me to connect those dots onsite? I object strongly. My email to the ombudsman was cc'd to the Committee, but appears to have bounced back. Perhaps I mistyped. This development catches me completely by surprise; I was composing a reply to a cultural institution to obtain high quality images. Could we please let sleeping dogs lie and get back to the encyclopedia's primary mission? Durova 23:40, 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)

Loosely related threads

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Refusal to fully recuse from the case, especially in light of the quoted statement, gives the appearance of impropriety. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We partially recuse all the time, especially on big cases. There's nothing improper about it. Roger Davies 23:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is inappropriate. And in this case, especially so. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it especially inappropriate in this case? When this case was opened, the arbitrators thought that it would primarily focus on examining the behavior of MZMcBride. The Durova bit is a recent development, and one that some arbitrators don't even think belongs in the case. To my thinking, this is one of the best examples of a case where an arbitrator might recuse from one incidental matter. Cool Hand Luke 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 13 other active arbitrators for this case. To avoid impropriety and have one recuse, would not detract from the Committee to function appropriately in the case. Cirt (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what the impropriety is. Roger Davies 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of the direction this thread has taken it seems more appropriate to conduct further discussion by email. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 6 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)

Yes. And? That was the context. Where is the breach of confidentiality? Roger Davies 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't really expect me to connect those dots onsite? I object strongly. My email to the ombudsman was cc'd to the Committee, but appears to have bounced back. Perhaps I mistyped. This development catches me completely by surprise; I was composing a reply to a cultural institution to obtain high quality images. Could we please let sleeping dogs lie and get back to the encyclopedia's primary mission? Durova 23:40, 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)

Fritzpoll re recidivism

It seems a bit silly to say that someone is expected to "avoid" having "poor judgment". To say that someone has poor judgment is precisely to say that they don't have the capability to judge well and therefore can't identify the behaviour to avoid. If you think they can avoid it then it isn't their judgment that you're doubting, 87.254.70.16 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, one avoids "poor judgment" by thinking of the consequences of one's actions before committing them, longer if necessary. — Coren 03:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No. You can avoid hasty action by thinking longer. Your judgment is something else entirely. In any event, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that MZMcBride didn't think about his actions before taking them, it seems apparent that he has thought further about them subsequently and it doesn't seem to me that further thought has changed his mind. That's consistent with the normal meaning of poor judgment as in 'doesn't recognise as unwise actions that the speaker feels are unwise' but isn't consistent with your apparent use of the term to mean 'needs to spend longer thinking, after which he will inevitably agree with me'. Actually, he comes across as relatively cerebral; I find it hard to believe that lack of thought is an issue here. 87.254.70.16 (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

'Formal' request to Toolserver management

First of, this is completely out of your remit, you do not have any official standing (regardless of how overblown you may regard your position), and you'd better not have for everyone's sake, considering events from December that you should remember more often (in which Mike Godwin participated, to be clear), so you cannot make "formal requests". You should really have some sense of perspective. Anyone who can use Special:Random on a category (handy link here) and page histories could have found a dozen of BLPs in 5 minutes certain at 99% to be unwatched by any active user, and go ahead to vandalize them. It's that obvious, really. There's no need for a toolserver access, and I'll take this opportunity to agree with the assessment that the metric of watchers is an essentially useless indicator - the watchlist system is completely outdated and certainly unrepresentative of the level of monitoring an article receives. So, on the proposed 'formal request': do you realize that the information obtained from the Misplaced Pages:Database reports is very close to invaluable for the English Misplaced Pages ? Will you be able to defend your decision in front of the community and demonstrate that the benefits of MZMcBride loosing Toolserver access outweigh those of retaining them ? You should not have the illusion that such a request would be representative of the community, and if you do make your request, I assure you there will be a counter request from the community. So as to be clear, I think MZMcBride's actions and responses were unsatisfying in many ways and concerning to the point of re-evaluating admin access (before it became moot), but it is no excuse for you go beyond your mandate (and play the drama game to a certain extent). I also have some deeper procedural concerns (which are reflected in the events of December fwiw, even though I had been supportive of ArbCom on this occasion): basically, you act both as prosecutors, judge and jury in this kind of cases which are closer to ArbCom vs (User) than anything else. There is no way this can be called arbitration (as opposed to cases like Scientology or Date Unlinking which are good cases of arbitration). The speed at which the case is progressing is certainly revelatory. Well, I'll take this into consideration for the RFC coming soon on ArbCom and more generally Dispute Resolution. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a brief point to make here (I'm supposed to be inactive and doing other stuff, but there is an important point that needs making here): when a process becomes invaluable (and I agree that the database reports are invaluable), there should be plans in place to keep it going, rather than declaring any one person to be indispensable. I believe (and MZMcBride should correct me if I am wrong) that part of the reason for setting up the database report was to allow others to work on some of the backlogs, or specific areas, that MZMcBride had identified, and also to allow others to request reports of their own. This need to avoid indispensability is a general principle that applies to many places, and for other reasons quite apart from the reasons why it is an issue here (sudden and unexplained complete absence from Misplaced Pages, due to real-life events, is one such reason, unless processes are completely automated). The questions also arises of accountability. If someone wants to raise a matter with ArbCom, there are many ways to approach them. If someone wants to raise a matter with Toolserver management, who do you approach? And who are ArbCom and the Toolserver management ultimately accountable to? Also, a few specific questions, Cenarium: (1) would you have any problems with an informal approach to Toolserver management? (2) If the positions were reversed, do you think Toolserver management should be able to approach a project's ArbCom and raise concerns? Carcharoth (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

@Cenarium: Alerting the toolserver management to patent abuses of access is not really overreaching by the Committee. There is a difference between sharing information and making demands - the Committee is, quite appropriately, doing the former. — James F Kalmar 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration tips

From User:Durova/Durova's arbitration tips#Strategy by Durova:

"Try to conduct yourself so that you have no need to fear arbitration if you do go there. I’ve wound up in arbitration quite a few times because of the volunteer work I do. I've been admonished once for a genuine mistake I made and regretted. In no other case was any finding or remedy proposed against me.

None of us are perfect and sometimes I’ve refactored my comments or apologized to another editor during arbitration. Most of the people who ultimately get sanctioned fail to take responsibility for their own mistakes. Although I don’t have any privileged information about how the Committee members deliberate, the basic process as I understand it is that a case opens because external remedies are probably necessary for one or more people who don’t exercise enough self-control. So ultimately, the best thing do to is to demonstrate that you can handle your own problems. If you’ve made serious mistakes, admit them and do your best to make amends or take corrective steps such as entering the Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user mentorship program. The earlier in the process you take those steps, the better. Don’t do anything to get yourself blocked while the case is open; the message that sends is that if you can’t abide by policy while ArbCom is actively scrutinizing your behavior, you definitely need external limitations imposed on your actions." Sole Soul (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)