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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul August (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 7 February 2010 (→Durova's commentaries: fmt fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:02, 7 February 2010 by Paul August (talk | contribs) (→Durova's commentaries: fmt fix)(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)

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

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 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

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

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

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrator conduct

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community; they are expected to lead by example and to follow Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is incompatible with this trusted role and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

Roger Davies 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Specifically on the second part of the principle. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Shell 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Return of access levels

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

Roger Davies 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the common practice Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Shell 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be tempted to extend this to "dispute resolution" in general. — Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recidivism

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:

Roger Davies 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
This is true Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Core issue. Shell 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)
Poor judgement, mostly Fritzpoll (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruption to prove a point

4) The point guideline says "if you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Misplaced Pages, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked".

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vandalism

5) Policy defines Vandalism as … " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". 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:

Roger Davies 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Including Fritzpoll's addition. Shell 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Abstain:

Serious accusations

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. Participates should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the with...the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

Roger Davies 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)

Derogatory remarks

7) Policy states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages….. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks".

Support:

Roger Davies 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Per my comment to 6) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Don't see the relevance to this case. Steve Smith (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Not relevant; again if there was something more general about expectations for behavior on case pages, I could support. Shell 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

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)

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

MZMcBride's editing history

1) MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has edited Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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:

Roger Davies 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Echo SirFozzie's point. Shell 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride's role in an "experiment"

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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) Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages through sockpuppets and that (ii) K. had been banned from this project and therefore was not authorised to edit English Misplaced Pages 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:

Roger Davies 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed fully. SirFozzie (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Shell 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride's sockpuppetry posting

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

Roger Davies 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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 23:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

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)
Accurate, but don't believe it was problematic and therefore relevant to this case. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

MZMcBride and Toolserver

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:

Roger Davies 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Added "after the events leading to this arbitration" to the final sentence for clarity. Roger Davies 19:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Shell 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride's judgment

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 minimal standards expected of administrators.

Support:

Roger Davies 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. SirFozzie (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Shell 05:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Move to divide the question. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Durova's commentaries

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:

Oppose:

Abstain

Agree that it was inappropriate, but not necessary to have a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
~~Inappropriate, but quickly corrected and handled properly thereafter. No need for a finding. Shell 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)~~

6B) The filing party in this case, Durova has made derogatory remarks about another editor on her talk page, writing: If 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:

Roger Davies 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Poor behavior made less excusable coming from a respected member of the community who, honestly, should know better. — Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

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)
The meaning here is somewhat ambiguous, and at least one interpretation falls within the realm of what I would consider acceptable comment. Steve Smith (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Second choice. Roger Davies 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Third choice. Agree with Steve, better than nothing but not sure anything about the 60 days is necessary. Shell 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Second choice. — Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

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)

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:

Strong First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

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)
Better no explicit remedy at all than this one. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No reason to assume the community can't handle this. Shell 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
— Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This should be a community decision. Roger Davies 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:

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)
Second choice. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
First choice, mostly out of wording. — Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
First choice. Roger Davies 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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:

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)
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)
Second choice. I think its important to note the reason RfA is required. Shell 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

The clearer versions above are better. — Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Abstain:

MZMcBride admonished

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

Support:

Roger Davies 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
SirFozzie (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fritzpoll (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Support an admonishment that covers more than 2.1, but not sure this is easily understandable. Shell 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
And indeed, knowing full well that drama would be necessarily created as a result of his actions. — Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)

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

Support:

Proposed - this seems relevant. Steve Smith (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In preference to 2) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Durova cautioned

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

Support:

Roger Davies 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fritzpoll (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Noting that a "caution" does not amount to a finding of wrongdoing. Steve Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In general, more care with what is said about others, but as Steve says, this isn't a finding of any wrongdoing. Shell 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
A caution is appropriate. — Coren 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

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)

Toolserver access

4) The English Misplaced Pages 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:

I remain convinced that this is necessary, given the highly inapropriate (by the English Misplaced Pages'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 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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: {Passing principles}; {Passing findings}; {Passing remedies}; {Passing enforcement provisions}
Proposals which do not pass: {Passing principles}; {Passing findings}; {Passing remedies}; {Passing enforcement provisions}

Vote

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.

Support

Oppose

Comment