Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence

Questions from Fritzpoll
I'm asking some questions on cases to give me (as an individual arbitrator and not speaking on behalf of the Committee as a whole) a better understanding of what is going on, and help with considering ideas later in the process for preventing the recurrences of the underlying dispute. I hope responding to these queries will not prove too onerous - I would prefer them on-wiki for examination, although if there is a pressing need for privacy, evidence can be submitted in the usual way via e-mail. Apologies if there is some evidence that already answers these questions - it just means I need to re-read more carefully or that the point is not clear. So here goes:

That's all for now - might add to this as more evidence is presented. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The case as presented centres on the actions of MZMcBride and questions his judgement and therefore his ability to be an admin.  Can diffs be presented by the relevant parties to show on-wiki action(s), pertaining to administrative access on the English Wikipedia, to show that this is the case?  If so, can they be presented categorised by type (behavioural, use of specific tools, etc.) to make it a little easier to follow?  I want to differentiate these from the off-wiki matters for a variety of reasons and I'm not clear where the dividing line is based on evidence.
 * 2) Presented evidence shows a wider dispute about the activities given their relationship to BLPs.  Can parties (both involved and uninvolved) suggest possible solutions to this on the Workshop pages, since it would be helpful to solve the underlying dispute at the same time as handling the specific?
 * I'd add diffs of misuse of tools and outing of a public user, but there are privacy concerns that ArbCom are be aware of. I reiterate this point, in the off-chance that some fail to see the pertinence of an admin outing a user to advance a position. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could e-mail these diffs to me, specifically where I outed a user (i.e., gave away their real-life name or previous username), I'd appreciate it. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Durova's evidence
In order to prevent more problems I request that the arbitrators curtail his ability to seek administrator ops again.

There is nothing in the evidence section by Durova that would lead any reasonable person to this conclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there's your RFA in the midst of MZMcBride1 last year. One could argue that such a stunt caused more drama than a regular RFA, but I would be somewhat skeptical; RFA's can be messy, and we don't normally bar them for their presumed messiness.
 * Perhaps she is arguing that you should not be given the bit back even if you could pass an RFA. I hope that the Arbitrators would reject such an argument. If you manage to pass another RFA, it would strongly suggest that the community does not find your actions too problematic. Perhaps she means that you would not or should not pass an RFA anytime soon, and that you should be barred from running in the near future as a kind of sanction. I don't know what the argument for this would look like.
 * Maybe someone could ask her? I would like the arbitrators to think about what rationale might exist for giving you such an unusual restriction. Is any active editor under one besides JoshuaZ (who must contact ArbCom for permission to file an RFA)? Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Shoemaker's Holiday was or is under a similar restriction. My question is more one of logic from Durova, though. She's asking for me to be barred from adminship, but has given no evidence that there was harm caused by me having it or that harm would be prevented by me not having it. There's been no evidence presented by her of misuse or abuse of administrator tools. In short, she's seeking a purely punitive action without cause or reason. I've suggested below and elsewhere that her motives and actions in bringing this case should be examined. I'm still awaiting a reply from Coren regarding that. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt at deflection there, MZMcbride. Whoever said that the best defense is a good offense, must have been referring to you. Rather than questioning the motives of Durova, perhaps your time would be better spent addressing the issues raised. Or maybe you would prefer to resign the mop all over again, again sidestepping their being removed from you - or would that be too obvious a choice?. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Arcayne, I suppose I could question your motives as well. But then I imagine you'd just accuse me of outing you as well. So... perhaps it's best that you e-mail me or stop posting here? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should I stop posting here? I'm a wee bit unclear as to why I shouldn't do that. Your cynical attempt to make the problem about Durova and not about your extreme misbehavior is the focus of our discussion here. I suggest you cowboy up and start dealing with it. The deflection crap is pretty transparent. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding Arbitration
I have two questions regarding the Evidence page and the scope of this case.


 * 1) Are Durova's actions within the scope of this case, particularly her previous feuds with Thekohser and her penchant for needlessly involving herself in matters completely unrelated to her?
 * 2) The evidence presented by Arcayne may prove problematic as he has failed to mention the user in question and has concocted an elaborate story. Is Arcayne's evidence within the scope of this case? Should his evidence simply be discarded?

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not believe they are relevant. Insofar as the concern she (and others) have expressed regarding your judgment are not related to her, hypotheses about her motivations have no impact on the merit of those concerns.
 * The committee is, of course, aware of the identity of that user (and avoiding to mention it is the obviously correct thing to do); I would have expected you to also be aware of who this was referring to, but if you are uncertain just ask by email. As for the scope, it's borderline.  It certainly is a peripheral matter at best, but it might be shown to be relevant if it was demonstrated to be part of a pattern rather than an isolated incident.
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you believe Durova's actions should be viewed in a vacuum? Are you suggesting that her previous involvement with this editor had no impact on her actions? Are you suggesting that her incessant involvement in these types of matters is usually appropriate? I need not be the first one to point out that Durova has her own grey history on this site; if I'm to be subject to an Arbitration case without any type of prior dispute resolution (Requests for comment, etc.), is there a reason she should be exempt?
 * Of course I know who Arcayne is referring to. But without the ability to respond to the evidence, it creates a ridiculously unfair scenario in which my reputation is tainted without public recourse. Either I should be free to respond fully or the evidence should be removed. (And, by the way, can I get a status update on that whole affair, by e-mail if you prefer? I've heard literally nothing since my block was overturned.)
 * (Wait, there's a three?) I'll likely be posting my evidence regarding Trulyequal1 sometime within the month. I'd strongly suggest that you urge your colleague to come forward first.
 * --MZMcBride (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not going to respond to the other two, but I have removed the evidence from the page since Arbcom already have the facts at their disposal anyway, and there is tangential relevance, if that. In addition, I notified Arcayne of the reason for removal here.  Fritzpoll (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I would recommend, however, that you concentrate now on addressing the substantive aspects of the concerns expressed about your behavior rather than let yourself be distracted by peripheral matters that will not bear upon the case at hand. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right.... Most people realized there was little to no substance to this case a few days ago. (So much so that it was nearly rejected.) If there's something substantive I should be addressing, you'll need to point it out here or on my talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Durova's evidence (2)
Why barring RFA is necessary and preventative Unless this has recently changed, administrators have access to a function called Special:Unwatched. From a post today it appears that MZMcBride still fails to appreciate the seriousness of the situation he created: he attempts to take the Arbitration Committee to task for its legitimate offsite discussion that was engendered by MZMcBride's own very non-legitimate offsite decision to hand a list of unwatched biographies to a sitebanned user--a list which he withheld from the arbitrators until shortly before this case opened.

At no time has MZMcBride expressed regrets for the disruption caused by his action. Nor has he provided any indication that he would refrain from future abuse of access to data on unwatched pages. It is necessary to curtail his opportunity to access such data, in order to prevent future disruption to BLP articles. So, why is barring adminship necessary again?
 * 1) It's called Special:UnwatchedPages, not Special:Unwatched.
 * 2) It's been broken for months; it currently returns "The following information is cached, and was last updated 15:41, January 25, 2010. // There are no results for this report."
 * 3) A proper list of unwatched pages is available to any Toolserver user.

I'll take this time to apologize to you (Durova) and the community. I commented on my talk page that my replies have not always been as polite as they could have been because I felt I was being attacked or that users were being hostile toward me (and users who should know better, at that). I think it's a natural, but unfortunate, reality that when people are perceived as being hostile, they're met with equal hostility. I never intended to cause drama; as most people are aware, I'm usually the one wondering where the encyclopedic focus went. That is, after all, supposed to be the common goal here.

I don't believe it was cloudy on the day that I took a break from my adminship. I did so largely as a show that I wasn't a threat. This act of attempted de-escalation has been mis-interpreted, which is unfortunate, though short of asking Dan to restore my administrative rights locally (and create further drama), I don't know what else is to be done here. I still don't see anything that's able to be arbitrated, though I suppose others disagree. I'm still awaiting a clearer case presentation from those individuals. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, but it's certainly not true that there wasn't a cloud in the sky as you were being closely scrutinised and you knew it.  Roger Davies  talk 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument has been that the Arbitrators tried to skirt this issue entirely by relying on a five-year-old case (PhilWelch). I believe that the Arbitrators have a duty to decide here, a view similar expressed at the bureacurats' noticeboard.
 * As a hypothetical, if Coffee were to resign right now, would you say that's under controversial circumstances? Would the bureaucrats? It's an incredibly messy standard that's loosely defined (if not entirely undefined) apart from the presence of an Arbitration filing (and even then, it gives no weight to the legitimacy of such a filing). That is, a case filing could be entirely without merit and soundly rejected, yet I have no trouble imagining some members of the community still drawing the conclusion that if a resignation is done during any filing, it is controversial. It's not a view I agree with, but neither are many of the views that others hold on this site.
 * The current practice also forces an administrator to keep their adminship, regardless of whether taking a break from it would de-escalate matters. I don't believe such an imposition is ever appropriate for a volunteer site. There is a vast distinction to be made between taking a break from adminship (FT2, JzG, Kim Bruning) and saying that you're leaving the site or simply not responding (Aitias, Craigy144).
 * In this particular case, it's quite clear that I'm still around and still responding to inquiries, as always. The Arbitration Committee is empowered to say that I resigned under controversial circumstances, though it is not something that I agree with or support. It is also not something that I believe is supported by the evidence presented in this case. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this might discourage admins from "taking a break" when they are in the middle of a contentious RFAR request, but for everyone else this is a good rule. It allows users to avoid scrutiny by voluntarily relinquishing their bit, mooting any case. Otherwise, we would be forced to examine cases that nobody wants; a huge source of drama for no good purpose.
 * It's been a long standing rule, and I simply cannot believe you were not aware of it. Hell, it came up during your last case. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire point was that the case had (has?) almost nothing to do with adminship, right? If it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm an administrator, why should it matter whether or not I'm an administrator at the moment? If the crimes are so heinous, surely they deserve scrutiny regardless of whether I've recently visited Meta. (Not that there were any crimes, much less heinous ones, here, but I think you see my point.) As I pointed out above, it's not unusual for people to resign their bits. I suppose you could make a contrived argument that it was an attempt to avoid scrutiny, but the case filing vote was rather strongly in favor of acceptance and a few people have said that it was my badgering of those who voted as "decline/moot" that caused the case to be accepted. I haven't had the opportunity to fully investigate the surrounding circumstances of the other de-adminnings during cases, but from what I remember, most were "I'm leaving!" or they were quite clearly about to lose their adminship anyway. I don't believe that this case falls into either of those categories. I've e-mailed Roger a specific question about this case that will hopefully guide me in how to go forward. To be honest, I don't really see why this is contentious. I'm asking for a vote on my adminship directly, rather than a technical and procedural maneuver that skirts the question.


 * It's kind of ironic that I was specifically trying to avoid much drama after my last RFA (no adminbots, no contentious subpages, etc.) and here we are anyway.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You needn't worry about ambiguity or the lack of a vote; ArbCom issues boilerplate rulings when admins retire their bits on the eve of a case as you did. One will almost certainly be adopted in this case. You will notice that there was such a ruling in your last case.
 * If this is your idea of avoiding drama, well... Cool Hand Luke 21:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be harping on this, but both your and Roger's replies seem to indicate that you'll be doing exactly what I objected to previously&mdash;that is, using the boilerplate motion from "PhilWelch" rather than voting on my adminship directly. Am I just confused? Roger said he hopes to have the proposed decision posted to the workshop this weekend, but I'm pretty lost as to how my messages both here and via e-mail have been misunderstood. I don't know what to do to make the message clearer. I'm asking if a vote on the merits of my adminship itself will be held. Not whether I resigned during the acceptance phase of a case filing. That's already clear. I'm asking about whether a vote will be held about whether or not I should be an admin at all. Separate from the resignation altogether. Is that clearer? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they will probably vote on a PhilWelch-type motion. That's what ArbCom does in this circumstance, and people who resign under these circumstances must apply to RFA to have their adminship restored; I don't see how that could be clearer.
 * Incidentally, I think your failure to understand this point has caused you to misinterpret the focus of Durova's remarks. That you would need to pass RFA again is not in doubt. She is arguing that you should be furthermore restricted from RFA in some way. Cool Hand Luke 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the sofix.com evidence?
Does MZMcBride maintain the site which Durova said was "dedicated to tightening up BLP practices" If so why is he being allowed to participate in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people?

Were any members of arbcom part of that off wiki forum?

What is the conclusion of the arbcom after Casliber told you about the site in October 2002?

Doug Weller helpful said I should email the arbcom, but I think a public response would be best, as others may have the same questions as I do.Ikip 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Just saw that now and want to mention for the record that I haven't brought that into the case.  Nor, to the best of my recollection, is that statement within quoation marks attributable to me via any diff.  Roger Davies mentioned in his acceptance that he was interested in taking a look at that.  It'll be up to other people to raise that, though.  I'm not going there.  Durova 405 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)