Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

No good deed goes unpunished
Over on the Wikipedia 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&mdash;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. –xenotalk 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * - 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one above (which I find dubious), and another dubious one was issued in the Matthew Hoffman case (which is now entirely rescinded).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&mdash;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 409 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 Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages.

See also: Specialpageslist with editable versions.

There are no results for this report.
 * ^^^ Yep, doesn't work. –xenotalk 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 409 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter of MZMcBride being a sysop on the English Wikipedia 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 409 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "... misuse of local sysop rights ..." &larr; 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 409 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  talk 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Durova asked for 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  talk 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  talk 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting 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  talk 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  talk 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  talk 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 409 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where have I breached confidentiality?  Roger Davies  talk 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  talk 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 409 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. And? That was the context. Where is the breach of confidentiality?  Roger Davies  talk 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 409 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. &mdash; Coren (talk) 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)
 * I agree with you, mostly. Wikipedians have a tendency to manipulate (or plainly violate) the English language on a regular basis. Oh well. On a semi-related note, I do think there's something to be said about being accountable for your edits and actions, which is why I use a username here. Perhaps you want to consider logging in? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have an account to sign into, but if anyone feels the need to hold me accountable for contributing my thoughts then I don't think that my having an user id here would help them much. My IP address is probably a better starting point to tracking me down if there were reason to do so. 87.254.70.16 (talk) 18:35, 12 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 Wikipedia:Database reports is very close to invaluable for the English Wikipedia ? 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 Wikipedia, 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)
 * I don't think ArbCom will be "alerting" (especially since the Toolserver admins are likely aware of this). Rather, I think they've proposed to ask the Toolserver to reconsider MZMcBride's access. You stated "patent abuses of access", suggesting more than one incident. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you did mean to imply more than one instance of Toolserver abuse, could you please clarify what those other instances are? Killiondude (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion. My comment was worded ambiguously.  My comment was in the plural (abuses) since I was commenting on the general rule.  That is, I believe that in any cases of abuse, communication to the Toolserver management is appropriate.  I was not meaning to imply that Mr McBride had committed any specific offense or offenses. —  James F Kalmar  02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the proposed remedy I was referring to, you'll see it's for a request, as I said, which is neither a transmission of information nor a demand. Cenarium (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cenarium: I've done my best with the /Configuration subpages and a public github repository to ensure that there is continuity with the database reports, regardless of whether I'm around. Publishing the source code both on-site and off-site is a "lead-by-example" approach, as I feel almost all code and scripts that are very valuable to the Community should be public in case of contributor burnout, mishaps, or what-have-you. If the Toolserver administrators feel I should no longer have access, that's their decision to make. I have far more trust in the Toolserver administrators to be apolitical and reasonable than I do in the Arbitration Committee. I can state that unequivocally.
 * James F Kalmar: To pretend as though the English Wikipedia lives in a vacuum is absurd. This case was brought up on the Toolserver mailing list (cf. this thread). To suggest that the Arbitration Committee is going to be informing anyone of anything is positively and verifiably false. Also, you would be wise to familiarize yourself with the works of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. No, wait. You would be wise to carefully choose your words, as Killiondude points out. "Patent abuses" is very strong language. This is one of those cases where you really need to provide evidence (which shouldn't be too hard given the meaning of "patent") or retract the claim.
 * Carcharoth: The Toolserver administrators can be contacted at . More information about the Toolserver is available here: FAQ. More information about the Toolserver administrators is available here: System administrators. I can't imagine a scenario in which the Toolserver administrators would wish to contact the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, but the avenues for communication between the two bodies are pretty clear. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is ultimately accountable to the English Wikipedia community. The Toolserver management is ultimately accountable to Wikimedia Deutschland.
 * --MZMcBride (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. Without comment on your actions specifically, I believe that in any cases where any user is found by the Committee to have abused Toolserver access, a formal notification of the facts should be made to the management.  —  James F Kalmar  02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth: I think MZMcBride answered most of your questions, I agree with what he says, especially that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is ultimately accountable to the English Wikipedia community. I would most certainly have problems with an informal approach to Toolserver management by ArbCom if it were aimed even remotely to remove MZMcBride's toolserver access, especially if it were done without the community's knowledge, because it is not your call. Arbs or ArbCom should not speak on behalf of this project or its community. I would most certainly make every reasonable efforts to counter such attempts, in the interests of this project; egos, interpersonal disputes or political campaigns, should not be allowed to overtake.
 * MZMcBride: This is nice to hear, but there's only a few volunteers with the knowledge, access and dedication to do the kind of work you're doing, which isn't limited to database reports, so it would be a great loss for the project.
 * One essential point to make is that much of the information from the Toolserver rendered usable by MZMcBride is used for BLPs, so no more access would hinder our ability to deal with them (at short and middle terms). I know some arbs feel the community is incapable of dealing with BLPs, but really you wouldn't help by hindering our ability to do so. Cenarium (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"the findings of the case" with regard to MZM's use of the Toolserver are rather one-sided. I see no mention of any of the tools that MZM hosts/runs (except for a vague mention of the number of watchers tool) such as User:MZMcBride/wikistalk, WP:Database reports, User:MZMcBride/climax, User:EdwardsBot, or User:LaraBot. Mr.Z-man 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration tips
From User:Durova/Durova's arbitration tips 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 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)

Coren's comment
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 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Really, Coren? I think you forgot about the part that if it's ArbCom-approved, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is more than acceptable.

Your actions lately have been worse than disgraceful, Coren. Your comments on this case and elsewhere have ranged from irrelevant to vindictive to flatly wrong. I think it would be wise for the Community to take a break from evaluating how administrators can be recalled and instead focus on how Arbitrators can be. My recall criteria are that if ten administrators say I should step down after a week-long consideration, I will. I've watched your behavior for far longer than a week and you can put me firmly in the "you should resign as an Arbitrator" column, as a former and current administrator on various Wikimedia wikis and as a longtime user. I wonder if it would be difficult to find nine or ten others that agree with me. Hell, I wonder how many of your colleagues on the Arbitration Committee wouldn't mind being able to sign such a statement. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest toning down the rhetoric here and in other commentary. Shell  babelfish 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric usually means that there's a "lack of sincerity or meaningful content." While that may or may not be true of my other posts, I can assure you it isn't true of this one. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know your comment was primarily to Coren himself, so feel free to disregard this reply if you wish. But I respect you as an intelligent person, so I am sure you must be able to see that the Committee is so far unanimously voting to approve the sanctions related to your decision.  You will likely have seen that participants in arbitration proceedings are usually always displeased with the arbitrators who vote to sanction them.  Thus, any comments you may have will be taken more seriously, with fewer charges of reciprocal criticism, if you wait to make constructive criticisms of the Committee until well after your case is over.  As a final note, you will remember that Coren was re-elected just two months ago with remarkably high support for an incumbent. —  James F Kalmar  02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly disregarded. Your approach to accountability (changing usernames so many times in the past year that I've lost count, and I imagine you have as well) makes anything you say nearly impossible to listen to. I don't have an issue with most of the Arbitrators or even the Arbitration Committee, really. I commented on a particular Arbitrator and his actions. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I truly was trying to be positive and helpful.  I am sorry if my comments and suggestions in relation to this case have made you uncomfortable.  It appears to me that ad hominem comments do not make your argument more appealing. In the interests of making sure the record is straight: I have never changed my username without clearly indicating such on my user page, and I have never done anything dodgy such as use two accounts at once. —  James F Kalmar  02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, I was commenting on your actions (changing account names frequently). That isn't really "ad hominem." And, hey, you don't seem to have any issue commenting on my actions. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My username doesn't seem (in my opinion) to have much to do with your original comments about Coren. But in any event, I will end this conversation here, as it appears to have exhausted any usefulness.  I do wish you the best (and I will leave a note to that effect on your userpage). —  James F Kalmar  03:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"High drama"
Shell made an allegation that "high drama appears to be a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident" with respect to Durova. I consider that serious enough to require evidence, and there is none on the evidence page to justify this - the only evidence is the diff of what appears as an isolated incident, and even that is merely put in the finding. Could the other evidence please be provided on-wiki for this serious accusation, as private evidence would be unable to substantiate that?

In any event, I think it's ironic that some members of the Committee resort to attracting further controversy by making it an issue for a notably high-drama public decision. A wise ArbCom would have persisted in attempting to resolve this part through other means, not so much because the editor has been distinguished as a "respected" one who "should know better" by one, but most especially because the claim involved the integrity of arbitrators themselves - when no appropriate mechanism still exists to review the appropriateness of arbitrator conduct and integrity, that arbitrators have decided they must have authority is absurd. ArbCom and high drama; perhaps that is an apt title for an Fof.

The Committee is bringing itself (and the entire DR system) into disrepute, with Roger Davies as drafter requiring extra credit - it's below the belt to pretend that the remark was directed to "another editor" uninvolved, when it was specifically against an "involved arbitrator", based on his/her decisions as an arbitrator, and when the remark specifically mentioned ArbCom and Jimbo Wales. Other issues include the fact that the apologies have had no place in this decision when they should have, and the fact that the damage was caused by the unwillingness of the arbitration office to properly perform its duty - to act promptly when the subject repeatedly made inappropriate questions/comments to affect the filer's "respectable" reputation. So what's the reality of this all? The related proposals appear as a political attempt to put an end to whistleblowers; I do hope that the system hasn't crumbled that much! Decisions should be justifiable and fair, to the point that they are based on the rules governing Wikipedia and complete substantiated facts; decisions should not be based on standards that are at variance with the actual rules, or facts that have been consciously disguised/manipulated to further what would appear as a political agenda. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ncmvocalist has put forth a very well-put statement here, which raises some serious concerns. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also see this as problematic. When I followed the link and discover the complaint involved an Arbitrator, I wanted to bang my head against the wall.  Arbcom is not capable of defending it's members in this manner without undermining Arbcom as an institution.  If arbitrator's can't take the heat they should resign before they destroy the usefulness of Arbcom in an effort salve their personal feelings.  If someone make personal attacks such a habit that it truly deserves an Abcom sanction, give them a full case and use examples which do not include arbitrators to demonstrate this habitual problem.  If you instead your goal is to enforce respect toward arbitrators, I think you will find positive reinforcement to be more effective.-- Birgitte  SB  19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Making attacks on another user's character and accusing another editor of behavior that could be potentially illegal outside of Wikipedia, and doing so in a public forum, go far beyond the bounds of "whistleblowing." Mr.Z-man 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist: "Whistleblowing"? Your eyes are brown. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec, to Mr.Z-man) Without any comment on the merit of Ncmvocalist's complaint, one common way that whistleblowing scenarios play out goes like this: I see my coworker Joe Schmoe drop a lit cigarette on Monday: I step on the butt and put it out. On Tuesday he does it again and I ask him to be more careful. On Wednesday he drops another lit cigarette and I report to management. Thursday a fire breaks out and the warehouse gets damaged. On Friday, rumors fly that I accused Joe Schmoe of deliberate arson. I haven't accused him of arson and they aren't necessarily lying when they claim I have; it's human nature to get defensive, though. Durova 409 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to assume that I'm speaking of rumors? Mr.Z-man 21:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in the absence of evidence the selection of descriptive nouns is limited. In the hypothetical scenario it is quite possible to spread a rumor while mistaking it for fact.  Joe Schmoe has an obvious interest in deflecting attention away from himself; management has an interest in preserving its own reputation.  Management is also empowered to speak with authority and put an official stamp on things.  In a dysfunctional organization it serves a lot of short term interests to convince everybody that the hazard report filed the day before the fire was inappropriate...until someone shouts the word "arson" in front of the insurance adjustor, who rejects the insurance claim.  Durova 409 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The evidence for the "attacks on another user's character" is linked above. The other comment, as you know, was removed from a talk page and moved to the arbcom wiki, I'd rather not link to it in an active discussion. Mr.Z-man 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious misreadings have occurred, as demonstrated on the current evidence page. This is analogous to the hypothetical scenario where an organization's focus shifts away from improving its smoking regulations into debate over whether the whistleblower who reported a lit cigarette on the warehouse floor did or did not attribute a motive of arson.  Durova 409 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How does one read as anything other than an attack on someone's character? Mr.Z-man 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve Smith has already addressed that adequately in an earlier thread at this page. See also Ncmvocalist's opening post in this thread.  Durova 409 04:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Remedies, even as mild as a "caution", for remarks about a sitting ArbCom member made in the course of the arbitration, without any prior attempts at dispute resolution, give the impression that the user is being found guilty of "contempt of court". ArbCom members deserve as much respect as any other editor in good standing, no more and no less. Personal attacks are not acceptable in any venue. However I'd like to note that we have a longstanding practice that comments made by a blocked user in response to their block and directed at their blocker are brushed off. If users think that they may be punished or singled-out for honest comments made during the course of arbitration it is likely to have a chilling effect. In this case there appears to be general agreement that the matter of MZMcBride's actions should have been brought to the ArbCom's attention. A remedy like this makes other editors less likely to bring such matters to the ArbCom's attention, to the project's detriment.  Will Beback   talk    00:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is in any way necessary or relevant in order to bring this case? People shouldn't be singled out for bringing a case, but they shouldn't get a free pass either. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not merely the choice between those two extreme options. There are avenues of dispute resolution that are short of an Arbitration ruling.-- Birgitte  SB  01:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been to Arbitration about three times now and I've never had prior (formal?) dispute resolution like an RFC or anything like that. And who filed this case again? Your point is completely without merit. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other options, but Will's comment suggests that whistleblowers should be immune from any sort of "punishment" for things that are only tangentially related to actually blowing the whistle. To continue Durova's example, blowing the whistle on the cigarette guy does not give you free reign to start a smear campaign against the safety officer. Mr.Z-man 01:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)No. my point does have merit. There are more options to dealing with a dispute than just an Arbitration remedy tacked onto a peripheral dispute or a free pass.  I don't see how you can suggest that this is false.  I think Durova was wrong to pursue this dispute once you resigned and I said so then.  I frankly don't care about this dispute for Durova's part.  What concerns me is that Arbcom is unnecessarily undermining themselves.  I would like to see the institution of Arbcom to be effective in the long-term.  That is where my interest stems from, not from results for any one or any few people here.-- Birgitte  SB  01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Et tu, Mr.Z-man? So you think the arbitration office should focus on the isolated incident of the filing party which was dealt with and apologised for already? Even though the subject inappropriately making a comment about the colour of my eyes in this discussion, and despite the fact it remains unaddressed and without sanction? I have to put up with it because I "dared" to point out the incredible problems with this decision? That's why the arb office is again refusing to act promptly when such commentary is made, in the hope I'd respond in the same way the filing party did? It seems anyone who might appear as a whistleblower will have to pay the price, formally or informally (by tolerating such damaging commentary), even if they are non-parties like myself. Even if we are all volunteers, heightened positions and privilleges go hand in hand with heightened responsibilities and duties - only shame is brought about from ArbCom's repeated failure to perform its duties properly (especially when it comes to acting promptly when such comments are made). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should ArbCom "focus" on it? No. Should ArbCom completely ignore it because the filing party is a "whistleblower" in this case? Absolutely not. Please, someone, tell me how the comments in question regarding an arbitrator's character as well as potentially libelous allegations regarding the other party's supposed "view of women" were necessary actions to blow the whistle in this case. I asked it above and didn't get an answer, I can only assume its because there is no good answer. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is becoming like IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If ArbCom ignores all other inflammatory and utterly inappropriate commentary by the subject-party (which it did in this case) and fails to act promptly to curtail the effect of such inflammatory commentary (which again it was responsible for), then yes, it should completely ignore that isolated incident of the filing-party. That's common sense. At least the filing party apologised for the misunderstanding, and explicitly apologised for the overreaction with respect to the comments she made about the arbitrator . I can't say the same about the subject, who's continued to engage in such commentary right here, this time directed at me. On the other hand, you've said nearly nothing that addresses the issues I've raised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not common sense at all ("he got away with it so everyone else should too" is a rather poor system for defining acceptable behavior), but thanks for at least confirming that there is no good answer to my question. I can stop wasting my time in this thread now. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's sad you'd deliberately punish the provoked, and completely ignore the person who acted in a manner to arouse the reaction. If this is your style of adminning too, God help us all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the accusation needs evidences since "serious accusations require serious evidence" has been a catch phrase for the case.--Caspian blue 02:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough already, everybody. In the heat of the moment, Durova made a quite startling comment with respect to my being willing to send help to rescue her from a burning building; she has since courtesy blanked that section of her talk page and apologised for the exchanges that include that comment, and I am happy to accept that apology. (And, for the record, there is no question that I would send Durova help, just as I would for anyone else, friend or foe.) Durova has also come to realise that the evidence and related commentary that I moved to the arbwiki was widely interpreted to suggest something that she herself did not intend, according to the evidence she subsequently posted. Repeatedly referring to that easily misinterpreted evidence, and her since-retracted comment, does not reflect well on Durova. Simply put, Durova deserves better from her defenders. Long ago, I came to accept that there are people in the world who don't like me, for whatever reason, and that there are some people in the world I'm not particularly fond of either; as an adult, I know that there are times when I am going to have to work with people who may not like me very much, and I strive to do so collegially, effectively and professionally. I do not feel a strong need to have the Arbitration Committee make a finding with respect to a comment Durova made in the heat of the moment, although the meme that an arbitrator should recuse from carrying out work directly related to their Arbcom assignments for ill-defined reasons does need to be put to rest. As I recall, Durova's first two requests for me to recuse related to the Geogre matter, and I had already recused from them formally with the Committee, so her requests had no bearing. Her third, fourth and fifth demands that I recuse have been directly related to standard Arbitration Committee functions (acknowledging receipt of a time-sensitive email to the AUSC when I was the only listadmin available, an AUSC email providing her with advance notice of a decision in which I was the lead investigator (a standing responsibility for the lead), and most recently when I informed her that I had moved her evidence and related commentary to the arbwiki). Two of these last three demands for recusal have been discussed onwiki; aside from a few exchanges on Arbitration-related pages, most notably in the EEML case, I believe these are my only exchanges with Durova in the last half a year. I don't hold any ill feelings toward Durova; I have no doubt that she took to heart the feedback that she received in the fall of 2007, and that that episode should be looked at as something that happened in the distant past and that the matter is no longer relevant. I don't hold against her the fact that she included me in an RFAR this summer, because there was no reason that she would know of certain private matters of which the Arbitration Committee was contemporaneously aware that affected certain actions on my part. She does amazing work on images, and to this day I refer people to her if they ask me any questions, although I usually suggest to them that they not mention who sent them. She is, without doubt, dedicated to both the English Wikipedia project and the WMF mission. I'd prefer that she realise I am not "the enemy" and that we do indeed share a fair number of common goals and opinions, but that is her decision. I have recused from the parts of this current proposed decision that pertain to Durova, but it is time that the demands for recusal stop. I do not hold any bias for or against Durova; there are times when we will likely hold the same opinion, and times when we will disagree, but that is normal for any two adults. I leave it to my colleagues to decide if anything further needs to be said on this matter from the perspective of the Arbitration Committee as an entity. Risker (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are evading the underlying concerns. Yes, involved users actions legitimately need to stand up to scrutiny. But in light of the fact that these were isolated incidents, apologised for, and dealt with, this does not rise to the level of Fofs and remedies, especially on a PD. If it genuinely did, there would've been additional findings involving MZM and ArbCom for that matter (giving weight to those who played a part). That these proposals continue to have support and abstentions in the absence of additional findings on MZM for his own inappropriate commentary (even on this page, against me, which remains unaddressed and unsanctioned) suggests that the arbitration office is intent on furthering this political agenda. Shell still has not substantiated her claim; Fritzpoll has still not justified why these issues continue to remain unaddressed/unsanctioned, and the same goes for Roger Davies, who also disguised/manipulated the fact. There is plenty more that needs to be said and done, if the arbitration office wants to truly avoid bringing the entire system into disrepute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, you are arguing with the wrong person here; I am not going to take any actions in this thread at all wearing my jaunty arbitrator hat because I am speaking only for myself here. You have already posted to the talk pages of the people you disagree with, and they will respond, or not, as they deem appropriate. Keep in mind, though, that failure to agree with you is not the same thing as "bringing the entire system into disrepute." It means they don't agree with you. Perhaps you would like an arbitration clerk to assist you with your concerns about inappropriate commentary, as is the standard recommendation? You can post on WP:AC/C/N to identify your issue. Risker (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To identify my issue? Are you unable to instruct your own delegates given the issue was identified above or are you just being difficult by expecting me to follow this pointless bureaucracy? Or do you just "fail to agree" that it's inflammatory? Sorry, but I'm serious, and I won't play ArbCom's "standard" game when it prefers bureaucracy over proactively preventing inappropriately inflammatory commentary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have received a message on my talk page asking me to respond here. This comment is principally to acknowledge that I have noticed this thread. I will, however, note that almost every arbcom decision appears to be branded as "bringing the system into disrepute" (to paraphrase) so in of itself, such an accusation doesn't carry a huge amount of weight with me. I will note the following points in response: Overall, I cannot agree with the majority of this comment. I am happy to discuss these points further, but it is simply a case that people disagree, then we may just have to agree to differ. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration cases normally look at the behaviour of all parties involved in a case. There is at least one recent decision I can think of where the actions of a party during a case materially affected the remedies.
 * Attacks on the integrity of arbitrators cannot be used as a mechanism for circumventing remedies - otherwise every party to every case would sensibly do it in order to avoid arbitration. I'd rather wait for you to come up with a better alternative to Arbcom (there probably is one) and establish it before rendering us completely toothless.
 * I'm not sure where the "political" aspect comes into it to be honest. I personally think the idea that this is "whistleblowing", when it is on a public wiki about something that is in the open, is at least somewhat of an exaggeration.  I also don't know what "politics" we are meant to be involved in - it should be clear from the PD that we're not in complete agreement on the details of this case.  For us to be collectiely political would suggest a level of organisation and intent of purpose that, on alternate days of the week, Arbcom is accused of not having :)
 * When little is done to address the substantive part of my comment, I see more to it than just disagreeing, and I will take this further if required. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then you need to be more specific - I have clearly missed the substantive part of your comment that you want me to respond to. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many times I should repeat it, or if I'm just not being clear, so I'll number some as questions and add more detail to make it clear:


 * 1) Why should an user (in this case, Durova) be addressed/sanctioned for isolated incidents of overreactions during an arbitration, particularly where these instances were dealt with and apologized for? Do you believe punitive remedies are considered acceptable by the community that you are answerable to?
 * 2) Why do you pretend the "remark" was directed to just another editor, when it was specifically concerning an arbitrator in an arbitrator context? Why do you refuse to provide the complete and substantiated facts on this matter?
 * 3) What evidence did you use to justify the pattern of misconduct that warranted your support for these proposals? Has it come to the point where the Committee is no longer capable of resolving such issues through other means?
 * 4) What gives you the right to decide what conduct is appropriate or inappropriate towards an arbitrator? Do you refuse to let this go because you are afraid of what the community's inevitable decision will be, should this go further? I suppose you believe Durova's comments are relevant to the actual dispute being arbitrated?
 * 5) Why have you repeatedly ignored the commentary of the subject, but unduely focussed on the party? Do you believe Durova is the sole cause of the way this has turned out? If so, why? If not, why have the other causes been disregarded from this decision? Perhaps it is based on your belief that Durova attacks arbitrators in the hope of circumventing remedies - could you please substantiate this suggestion which you made in the comment I'm responding to now?
 * 6) Risker, above, insists that I play the standard bureaucratic game designed by the arbitration office in dealing with this sort of comment, if made in an arbitration context - do you consider it inappropriately inflammatory? If so, why? And if so, why haven't you (or even your colleagues) instructed your delegates to deal with it, but instead insist I approach your delegates, despite the fact you've all been alerted to the issue repeatedly during this discussion? If you don't believe it is inflammatory, can you please explain how it is remotely appropriate in an arbitration context, and why you, Roger (the drafter), and your other colleagues, failed to propose a finding of fact and remedy on this issue? Do you need someone to paint the pattern of conduct for you, or will this arbitration office actually proactively do something about it without giving me the lame bureaucratic excuses?
 * 7) Do you require more specificity? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is you goal with above line of questioning? To trip up Arbcom on something, anything, so long as one of them falls? To convince them to change their approach in some general way?  To correct some specific injustice you see in this finding?  To win the rhetorical argument going on here regardless of the substance being debated?  Or something else I can't quite imagine?  I am not at all sure what you mean to accomplish here with that and I wonder how much thought you have given it yourself.  What I am sure of, is that Arbcom would do itself no favors by rewarding such loaded questions with a substantive response.  Your questioning would be more useful if you asked about things that you do not believe you understand.-- Birgitte  SB  00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom have been doing what they are supposed to be doing in the way that they are supposed to be doing it, no questions can "trip them up" as you suggest. I'm not sure what rhetorical argument you are referring to. Fully substantiated and complete facts, principles that outline actual rules set out by the community, disclosure about decision making, fairness in the outcomes given, etc. etc. That's what I'm hoping to accomplish, even if it appears as naiive and impossible to some. It seems ArbCom can't provide answers to these substantive questions, no matter how many or few concerns are loaded into them, and now the arbitration office has instructed their clerk to tell me to stop asking questions for that very reason - note how it was only after that warning that the clerk addressed the concerning commentary made by the subject of this case. This entire system is infected by an unhelpfully large amount of bureaucracy. I'm trying very hard to resolve the concerns short of less pleasant means, but if this office is refusing to take responsibility and is repeatedly being uncooperative when concerned members of the community ask questions, then it seems that all deals are off and a more appropriate name for this system of governance is dictatorship. I think it's truly sad if we have arrived at that point where decisions need not be justifiable and fair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is no clear path of "doing what they are supposed to be doing in the way that they are supposed to be doing it" for Arbcom. Secondly I am not trying to be cynical and suggesting that your hope of changing something is naive.  I am hoping to focus you in on what is most important to you to see changed.  I can understand that you would like to see everything done perfectly, but you are more likely to have an effect if you find one thing that you believe is most important to correct and focus there.  Bureaucracy is not necessarily a bad thing.  Unnecessary bureaucracy is inefficient, and best done away with.  But some degree of of bureaucracy is what makes for a predictable process and frankly protects people from the sort of poor decisions that are likely to be made in the heat of the moment.  I find your characterization of the clerk's message, your own questions, and the lack of response so far rather removed from the reality that I see.  As I said above, I think Arbcom should ignore your questions as they are currently drafted.  It would be foolish of them give any weight to the assumptions behind those questions. You say you are trying very hard to resolve your concerns, but I still can't make out what you are particularly concerned about and your questions do not seem to be completely sincere.-- Birgitte  SB  05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that's not true; rather, it is not always clear. Secondly, I'm glad that you aren't trying to be cynical. Expecting perfection is a pretty high ask; plenty of other issues would've been raised if that was the case. I agree with your point about bureaucracy, but I was referring to the unnecessary aspect. As I understand it, there are others who share my concerns. I'm not sure why you think my questions aren't completely sincere, but I'd be more than happy to consider your suggestions (hopefully specific ones) on how to reduce the likelihood of my questions being misinterpreted as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you remove =the assumptions of motivations from the questions. For one thing it very unlikely that all the arbs that supported this finding and remedy did so for the same reasons.  The only thing they agreed on was that particular wording, but the "why" could be substantially different for different people.  And since you cannot read minds you don't really know that any of your assumptions are valid.  Not naming Risker as the party who Durova spoke against is unlikely to be a case of Arbcom truly pretending it was someone else for example.  You cannot know anyone wished to pretend it was someone else, and it is not plausible that they would be so foolish to try that with the link and a predictable recusal right there. To make your questions seem sincere, you need to avoid any presumption that you already understand what anyone was thinking and withhold your judgment until you have heard the explanation you are asking for.  I am concerned about this finding too.  But my concern is that can be too easily miscontrued by people and findings in general like this one could further erode confidence in Arbcom.  I don't believe there is anything nefarious behind it.  Just that it is poorly thought out. You seem to think there is some deception involved.  Not everyone who has concerns about this finding will share your exact opinion.  The two of us are a good example-- Birgitte  SB  02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the issue at hand, ArbCom shouldn't use such strong terms as derogatory. Do I have to remember you the incident of December once again ? Cenarium (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway the whole ArbCom system is utterly broken, I've lost any confidence I had in it with the BLP motion and this case. I should have trust Mike Godwin and realize this in December. A system were the same people make the investigation, prosecution and judgment can never be fair, and we've been too lenient by allowing ArbCom to make rulings on anything they see fit without any effective restriction. As I said, I'm preparing a RFC (to review the situation, including recent actions, and propose solutions - I've been working on alternative systems for some time) but wouldn't like to launch it before the BLP RFCs conclude, so that we can have the full attention of the community. However, I don't exclude an emergency RFC in case of spectacularly bad actions by ArbCom like contacting the Toolserver admins on the issue of MZMcBride's access or addressing to the WMF on any policy issue besides CU/OS. As a community, we're responsible of ArbCom and need to deal with this problem that is aggravating from day to day. This is not a reflection on arbitrators who make a difficult job and are exceptional editors in a number of ways, but on the system. Cenarium (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right that it is utterly broken. I don't believe so, but I cannot dismiss the idea as impossible. But I doubt that you find this to be the consensus in any near-term RFC.  Still I really don't think you should be including recent actions such a RFC.  Your arguments about systematic problems will be completely ignored as everyone merely rehashes how they personally believe recent events should have unfolded. If you want people to even examine that systematic question, you need to avoid introducing anything they will be more passionate about.-- Birgitte  SB  00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to open it soon because of that too. But we get major controversies every month since quite some now: the 'Law affair' (as titled by the SignPost) in October, the AUSC election in November, the one I cited above in December, the BLP motion in January... We can go back further, till the first RFC on ArbCom in August 2008 which didn't achieve much, and before. If we're to wait for drama to quite down before an RFC, then it might just never happen. It's something I'd planned since November actually. Cenarium (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Risker
"Until Special:UnwatchedPages ceased functioning, it was common for administrators to make lists of unwatched pages available to non-admins for the purpose of watchlisting"

I do not think this is accurate. First, Special:Unwatched has never functioned in a meaningful way. That report has never progressed beyond digits&mdash;that is, only the first 1000 pages alphabetically were available, and the report was only updated every few days, such that the last page listed was never deeper in the "alphabet" than the number 2! I do not dispute that distributing lists of these articles might have occurred once or twice, but it was not common. Cool Hand Luke 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I had been of the impression that you too were one of the admins providing the lists. I provided lists to several longstanding users who were interested, and indeed I have a separate account (User:Risker checklist) whose watchlist is made up of articles from that list, so at least several thousand of those articles gained a watcher. I recall seeing other admins leaving talk page messages for people that they were emailing a list to them. Of course, that speaks as much to how many articles are unwatched as anything else, in that despite thousands of them having been distributed to people willing to watch them, we still never got past the numerical article names. Risker (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong. I don't know what goes on with IRC, for example, but while I added many pages from unwatched pages, I didn't forward any to others.
 * I think the problem was how infrequently the page was updated and how many new articles are created all of the time. There were good proposals to do something about to make the list useful (e.g. this clever "Unwatched recent changes" code, which was tested, worked, yet never implemented), and I even asked Jimbo to intervene on his talk page, but nothing ever happened. Now even Special:Unwatchedpages is broken. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparent problem with vote counting and partial recusal
There is an apparent problem with vote counting and partial recusal.
 * According to the case page, For this case, there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 3 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 7 support votes are a majority.
 * However, there is a problem with how this is being interpreted. An arbitrator that has recused, is being mistakenly counted as an "abstain" vote:

This is incorrect. A recuse is a recuse is a recuse. One arbitrator's recusal should not be counted as a non-vote, whilst another arbitrator's recusal at the exact same time is instead counted as an "abstain" vote. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also one recusal which, as regards to the majority, acts the same as an abstain.
 * 1) Arbitrator recuses from the entire case, they are not counted in the total votes on that case.
 * 2) Arbitrator does not recuse from the entire case, and recuses partially. Their votes marked "recuse" are counted as votes as "abstain" ???
 * When someone recuses on an individual finding, then the majority is changed accordingly. Say there are 12 active arbitrators - this will mean that a majority is 7. If one person recuses from a particular finding, then there are 11 active arbitrators on that finding so the majority changes to 6 (but only for that one finding). Recusals are treated the same way whether it's for the whole case or individual finding - basically, it means "I'm not voting on this particular finding so change the majority accordingly".  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This table shows that abstains should not be counted in the same manner as "recuse". Cirt (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The table above does not take into account recusals on individual proposals. Try a thought experiment, suppose that Cool Hand Luke, instead of having recused on the entire case, had recused on each proposal. should that change the majorities needed? Paul August &#9742; 21:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well from what you are saying, it appears that "abstain" is actually weighted less than a partial "recuse". It would seem that from the weighting, "abstain" is more of a "weak support". As it does not count as much as a partial "recuse". Cirt (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstenations in this context has the same meaning as recuse though - If an arbitrator doesn't vote, it has the same effect as an oppose (although it's not noted on the count). If they recuse, they abstain, so the majority required is altered (as the table above shows).  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does not have the same effect - if an Arbitrator chooses to be "inactive" or full "recuse" from the entire case, then their votes are not factored in at all. However, abstentions for example have the same effect for 2 or 3 abstentions? Cirt (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Changing the table to two recused:

This shows that 7 support votes are still needed. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But you didn't reduce the number of active arbs (increasing the number of recused arbs decreases the number of active arbs) So it should have been:


 * Paul August &#9742; 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I am getting this right, to recuse is to say you are inactive for that particular *insert what they are recused on here*. Ks0stm  (T•C•G) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Paul August &#9742; 21:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Still a little bit confused but understanding this a little bit more now. Thank you very much to for the polite and helpful explanations! :) Cirt (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Recusals and abstentions have the same effect&mdash;they sometimes reduce the number of votes required for a majority. For this reason, arbitrators sometimes revisit their votes on findings with a large number of abstentions (that appears to have happened here). When many abstain, the finding sometimes has enough support to pass, which is often not what the abstainers intended ("abstain" is sometimes a friendly way of saying that one would not support the proposal as written although one is not categorically opposed to a similar proposal). Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I understand it an "abstain" as a practical matter for counting has the effect of a "weak support". Which is contradictory because when Arbitrators vote "abstain" they often comment against the proposal, perhaps not realizing that their very "abstain" vote will make it more likely that the proposal will pass. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that you leave the decision to the other arbitrators. By recusing, I have effectively abstained from every proposal.
 * Incidentally, Remedy 3 seems to be passing by the same thin majority as Finding 6A. Can a clerk confirm and update? Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to already be updated at present. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not. Remedy 3. See "implementation notes." Cool Hand Luke 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Updates
FoF 6 and Remedy 3 should be updated as not passing. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, these two require further voting. Two arbitrators (FayssalF and NYB) have not voted on them, and a support or abstain vote will cause them to pass. Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, however they should also be updated to reflect the fact that they are not passing. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that neither is currently passing. I've added a note to the implementation notes that F6A is no longer passing, and alerted the clerk . Paul August &#9742; 23:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to for the attentiveness to the matter. Most appreciated, Cirt (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be voting on everything tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Finding 6A, and Remedy 3 should again be under "needs more votes" as a support vote from FayssalF would cause them to pass, but they are not currently passing. I would also like to point out to Cirt that NYB's recusal on Remedy 4 means that it cannot pass (as is correctly reflected). Cool Hand Luke 13:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm wrong, see below. Cool Hand Luke 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Plea from CHL
FayssalF has just now been moved to inactive, which means that the contentious Durova proposals (Finding 6A and Remedy 3) are now passing. I would caution the committee not to allow these to be passed by this means. If FayssalF or another inactive arbitrator votes, fine, but moving him to inactive at the 11th hours seems like a parliamentary trick to me (although I know it was not intended as such). Cool Hand Luke 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with . This does seem like an eleventh-hour-move and is inappropriate to mark an Arbitrator as "inactive" which completely changes the voting assessments at the very end of the case! Cirt (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I realize that it is our practice to count FayssalF as inactive, and I'm not asking the clerks to do otherwise. Given the timing, I hope that the arbitrators either: (1) have the sergeant-at-arms round up some inactive votes, or (2) change one of the votes on either side so that it more decisively passes or fails. If this were not the eleventh hour, it wouldn't matter much to anyone, but I believe that allowing the proposals to pass under these circumstances will enhance rather than reduce drama. Cool Hand Luke 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger has now changed votes on procedural grounds for this reason - further amendments to the votes aren't necessary, as the proposals now fail. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. Unfortunate it came to this. We need to get the move-to-inactive-while-voting process fixed&mdash;this has always been a possibility, but it really wrecked some havoc here. Cool Hand Luke 15:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, we'll have to bump it up the to-do list, I think. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really need much (if anything). Just for the closing clerk to check whether any arbitrators who have become inactive over the previous week. It's just in this case, the votes were particularly close.  Roger Davies  talk 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, with Roger's comment suggesting he would again change his vote if an inactive arbitrator voted, and such a small margin between passing and failing, I see no guarantee of potential drama being satisfactorily taken care of. Arbs should therefore review their votes; decide if they personally want to pass this as relevant to the case or not. Don't you think so Luke & Fritzpoll? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the arbitrators have reviewed their votes. Over the past few days, all of the abstain votes have solidified into opposition; these are the considered opinions of the arbitrators. The only issue here is that the recent inactivity of FayssalF worked to change the required majority. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously cannot do anything if considered supporters are still intent on being considered as wanting it to pass, but if there are any doubts (I wouldn't want to gamble), I suggest now is the time for them to carefully review their votes. If there's a guarantee that FayssalF shall remain inactive until the case is published, that would obviously help, but there's no way of knowing for sure on such short notice. The bottom line is that none of us want any more drama from this - I'm sure that's a sentiment we all are agreed upon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it passes, it passes. My only argument is that passing remedies should pass by virtue of changed votes rather than changed arithmetic. If you don't like the result, that can't be helped.
 * At any rate, it only passes if FayssalF does not oppose&mdash;if he opposes, it still fails, but if he supports it then there's a more solid 7-5 majority behind it (a majority that does not depend on last-minute inactivity). Cool Hand Luke 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really the result that concerned me, but it was the supporters who have not edited these case pages for the past few days. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I have looked very hard at my votes here, but I do not wish to change them. Presumably, if other arbitrators have done the same, they would also not have edited the pages in several days :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but I wouldn't presume that all arbs review their votes quite to that extent, let alone check every case page every day. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Closing statement contains an incorrect statement
Looking at the motion to close, it looks as if Remedy 3 is being listed as a remedy that passed. When I look at the actual remedy, it deals with Durova and actually has more opposes (6) than it has supports (5) (with 1 recuse).--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's because the implementation notes haven't been updated since we marked FayssalF inactive and Roger moved his votes around to make sure that this alone did not influence the voting result. Rest assured, I've alerted the clerks and they will amend the implementation notes. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the "Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes" bit would mean there is less predictable confusion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The whole "changing the inactivity status" thing has caused a few bureaucratic glitches.  Hopefully my comment here will alleviate concerns - but it is in the interests of all that this case be brought to a close promptly, so the implementation notes can be fixed in flight. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree about this case; it's just that I'm sure that my suggestion was made over a year ago...? Something like that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good one - obviously I'm unaware of your idea's prior incarnations :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. :) But I hope it doesn't need to reincarnate in the future, again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a small phrasing niggle
FoF #5 says in part "MZMcBride has demonstrated judgment inconsistent with the minimal standards expected of administrators." - shouldn't that be minimum? "minimal" in that sentence seems to imply that there are only minimal (ie very low) standards of judgment required for administrators, which may not be the intended meaning. ~ mazca  talk 08:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yes, I think some of our critics might enjoy that slip... WJBscribe (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the sentence as phrased actually praises MZM's judgement. How funny. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it that way when I voted for it, but I will go ahead and make the copyedit. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we can blame the fact that nobody noticed it on our minimal judgment as administrators. ;) Thanks all. ~ mazca  talk 14:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)