Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed decision

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Casliber
3. Coren
4. FayssalF
5. FloNight
6. Jayvdb
7. Newyorkbrad
8. Rlevse
9. Roger Davies
10. Risker
11. Sam Blacketer
12. Stephen Bain (bainer)
13. Vassyana
14. Wizardman

Recused

1. Cool Hand Luke
2. Kirill Lokshin

Away or inactive:

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

"...nominate them for deletion..."

Why was this included in the injunction? As far as I can remember, I haven't nominated pages for deletion using a script in months, possibly years. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something that was included for completeness, not borne out of a specific act you have done. The point is that, for the sake of reducing the risk of escalation and misunderstanding, you should not delete or cause to delete articles through an automated means during the case. — Coren ^(talk) 03:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...which have been controversial and which some participants in this case have alleged violate policy."

Has anyone alleged that deleting broken redirects or orphaned talk pages violate (long-standing) policy?

"However, many of the concerns regarding the mass deletions remain the same as those covered by the injunction."

Is there any evidence to support this claim?

Quite simply, I'm baffled how it's possible for me to be "in trouble" for deleting pages from a backlog. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think temporary desysopping is unnecessary here... if MZM were to link a bunch of to-be-deleted pages in a subpage, review them all carefully, then use twinkle's batchdelete to delete them, this would be a semi-automated, not automated, deletion. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because apparently, on this railroad, it doesn't matter which ticket you buy, there is only one stop. Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Flo's motion is based on the fact that the Arbs have to trust MZM when he says he does not use scripts to delete because the deletions by scripts and manually by multi-tabbing/Twinkling look the same in the deletion log. Thus it's not easy for the Arbs to determine whether the injunction is followed or whether he just supervises his scripts. Probably an injunction to limit his deletions per hour would be equally effective to limit that risk, although he could just set the script to that limit... SoWhy 21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed motion posted by NYB is acceptable, though I express the sentiments of quite a few people when I say that time would be much better served resolving this case entirely rather than voting on motions. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Today several arbitrators have suggested wordings for motions to temporarily suspend admin, or extend the injunction, so other wording may come soon. Editing in a collaborative environment means that "you" need to conform your conduct to the needs of the Community. The rate of these deletions seem unnecessarily provocative. We and the community are asking you to not unnecessarily take actions that cause people to complain or raise concerns about what you are doing because it is disruptive when you do it. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah MZMcbride. I hope this teaches you the value of doing volunteer work quickly and efficiently. Quite frankly you should be banned for how fast you work. Its just unnatural. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As indicated in my voting comment on the motion, I plan to post a proposed decision on the workshop this evening, invite comments for a day or two, and the move to the proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect that has me royally confused here is the exact nature of the problem. I specifically didn't run a deletion script because of the injunction. Instead, I used tabs (something that dozens of administrators do), and yet there's still an issue.

So I'm left wondering, had I clicked slower, would that have made the critical difference here? And, following that thought, am I really being sanctioned for clicking speed? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem here is that some people don't believe that manual tabbed deletion can be done that fast (most people think it involves a click with a finger every second for each deletion - doing that for 2-3 minutes is not impossible, but does begin to stretch credulity - if you are doing this a different way, now would be the time to explain). If you can get others to agree with you that it is possible to do what you did that fast, then you may be able to convince people of the technical aspects of this. But the wider issue is that there is a feeling that you should have known that this would look bad, that it looks like automated (or at least semi-automated) deletion, and that you should have gone "hang on, should I really do this? It is possible people may think I'm running a script or bot here." So it's not clicking speed per se, but lack of judgment over what your actions looked like to others. Now, what I said there may not reflect what others think, but that is my understanding of it. I'm personally opposing the temporary desysop motions (I am about to post a different injunction), but I can understand why some of my fellow arbitrators are taking a hard line here, and I hope what I've said here helps you understand some of the reasoning here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have sustained an extremely high rate of actions/edits using just tabs. I can't find a specific example, since they are buried in my contribs by now, but what MZMcBride did here is unquestionably possible using just tabs. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be easy to find the examples. Grab all your contribs and sort by date and time in Excel (or whatever program you use). Then find all actions with the same timestamp down to the minute (I used the "subtotal" function). How to count number of edits in 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-minute windows is, unfortunately, beyond me. But that method will allow you to find the highest number of edits you did in any single minute by the clock. For the record, there are 6 examples in my contribs of when I've edited at a rate of over 30 edits per minute (just using tabbed browsing), and the maximum rate I've reached using tabbed browsing is 49 edits per minute (and that is without consciously trying to go as fast as possible, but just clicking continuously through a set of tabs). The six examples can be seen here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Having said that, my point about judgment, which I made above, still stands. If I had been subject to the injunction MZMcBride is subject to, I would not have considered doing tabbed actions like this, as it could clearly be construed as some form of automation, even if it technically isn't. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said immediately below, your point about judgment seems to be about appearances rather than results. Last I checked, admins were supposed to do what was actually correct, not what was politically popular. I certainly hope I'm grossly misconstruing you and what I quoted below was just unfortunately phrased. If not, then we have far more serious issues than what's in the scope of this arbitration. Mr.Z-man 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, judgment does involve consideration of appearances. Weighing things in the balance between "how vital is this", and "will it cause drama". Things like "maybe I should check first", and stuff like that. Sure, if something is vitally important, then it should be done. But backlogs can be dealt with by asking others to deal with them. Please also note which of the motions and injunctions I've supported, and compare what I've said with what my colleagues have said. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, so there's a proposed injunction to temporarily desysop an admin for an unknown amount of time because he did something that ... might look bad to some people? Not for lack of judgment as to whether the actions were correct, but "lack of judgment over what [his] actions looked like."? Seriously? Is this how far we've come in elevating process and politics over quality and results? Mr.Z-man 00:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, I have a theory that your process looked something like this:

1. Create a list of pages to delete based on your criteria.
2. Create a list of links designed to each open a preloaded deletion page in a new tab (or use some javascript with similar effect).
3. Click through the links & tabs as quickly as was reasonably possible.

Am I in the right ballpark? Dragons flight (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is why I've always liked you. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I imagined the process to have worked as well (didn't even need to ask, actually, this is what "tabbed browsing" means). But again, the issue of whether it was wise to do this while subject to an ArbCom injunction is one of the issues here. This is a new ArbCom, and testing the boundaries of what can be done within an injunction or remedy is turning out to be a very bad idea. My advice would be for all parties to toe the line during arbitration cases, and to just prepare a defence and do other stuff while waiting for their case to finish. I will post below what my proposed injunction was (it was later expanded by Brad). Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, as apparently do you, but I think you'll find there are many Wikipedians who would never get to that list from just saying "tabbed browsing", and that is why I think it is important to be explicit about these things. Dragons flight (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just idealism, but I expect people on this site (especially Arbs) to live up to our principles like assume good faith. Anyone could've asked for clarification on my talk page or elsewhere about my methods, but instead people were quick to snap to judgments and try to dole out sentences. Rather disappointing. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse also applies. Rather than acting, you could have asked first whether your actions breached the spirit of the injunction. Not the letter, but the spirit. Not 'acting first and then answering questions', but 'asking questions and then acting'. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, an earlier proposal I made (off-wiki) got little support, but Brad's proposal is effectively a much-expanded and changed version of this:

"MZMcBride has breached the spirit of his injunction against using automated tools to delete pages (details). Consequently, he is directed to refrain from deleting pages while this arbitration case is pending. Running scripts to produce lists of pages that may be suitable for deletion is encouraged, but MZMcBride should not perform the deletions himself until this case is resolved. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately."

Copying here for the record, and to increase transparency. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but to me principles 7 and 9 are at odds with each other. In 9 it says the arbitration commitee does not resolve content disputes "such as whether and under what circumstances administrators may use bots on their administrator accounts". However principle 7 "They are expected to respond promptly and reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bots, and to be available to do so promptly when the bot or script is editing. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have this privilege restricted." sounds very much like they are directing under what circumstances bots are to be used including consequences for not following those circumstances. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of 7 is from the current bot policy, specifically WP:BOT#Good communication. Though expecting users to be able to respond whenever "the bot or script is editing" is somewhat unrealistic as many bots run 24/7 (ClueBot) or run for hours at a time. Something like the wording there was proposed recently and soundly rejected. The principle here should probably be modified to remove that. (though I also don't see how making a ruling on adminbots is more a content issue than a behavior one). Mr.Z-man 22:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had modified the wording regarding availability after I posted it, because I realize it might not be technically accurate for exactly this reason. On the other hand, in general, bot operators should be at hand unless the bot is doing something totally non-controversial and it has a long record of successfully doing it without raising any problems. Only in that case is it acceptable to, e.g., leave the bot running overnight. Would that be a fair basis for a narrower principle? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, even then... BetacommandBot's fair use work for instance, while controversial, was an important task and (I believe) ran for long periods of time. This distinction usually isn't considered when approving bots. Obviously if a bot is only going to be running occasionally, it may make sense to run it when you're online, but you might also want to run it at times of low server load, which, especially for people in the US, tends to be the middle of the night, or it might need to run at a specific time, like 0:00 UTC, when the operator may not be able to be online at that time every day. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding of Fact 14 says: "MZMcBride has repeatedly deleted redirects against consensus."

The wording of this seems to imply that at multiple times MZMcBride deleted redirects while willfully ignoring an established consensus.

He deleted a large number of redirects, and I'll concede it was without consensus, i.e. an action taken unilaterally. However, I don't see the evidence that he was doing something he knew the community didn't approve of or that he did it multiple times. The current wording seems to imply, at least to my way of reading, a series of willful acts against the Community's wishes. If there is evidence of that could someone point it out to me, cause I'm not seeing it. I would agree that he acted with inadequate foresight and caused a disruption, but it also seems that he didn't intend to cause disruption and did modify his actions based on the consensus raised at ANI. Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any arbitrator is seriously considering the idea that MZMcBride ever intended disruption; the findings of fact are — by necessity — observations after the fact. — Coren ^(talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has the feeling of grudge-bearing. That's all I'll say about it. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look over the linked evidence for the FOF again before voting on it, but I agree that there is a definite difference between acting without consensus and acting against consensus. (I don't see much value to the comment just above that appears to impugn the motives of one or more arbitrators, however.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rereading the various discussion about this incident now. So far, I think that the wording of the proposal is alright because indeed there were previous disagreement with him doing a large number of deletions of re-directs. That was the reason that there was a strong reaction to the June 2008 deletions. The community wants to know before hand if there is going to be a large number of deletion done so that potential problems can be addressed. Since that is the issue, I don't see a problems with including this as a finding. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the ANI thread linked above is from early June 2008, several months before the current method for adminbot approval was implemented. At that time, running adminbots on an admin's main account, while technically not allowed, was pretty much the SOP due to the extreme difficulty of getting approval in the old system. Mr.Z-man 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the issue is that the task was performed from MZMcBride's primary account, but that it was done when consensus had not been sought and continued despite expressed concerns. — Coren ^(talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that MZMcBride has submitted a WP:BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Basketrabbit for consideration by WP:BAG. I'm reviewing the bot now and withstanding adverse comments intend to approve it in a day or two. MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. There are no procedural objections to this; MZMcBride's ability or capacity to run bots is not, and has never been, in question. — Coren ^(talk) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we have instances of temporary desysoping with automatic resysoping after a fixed time period (like proposed here), is the committee willing to acknowledge that such is a punitive action? - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - the idea was that it was a recognition of someone who longitudinally had done good work, but that in recent months, for what ever reason their conduct had taken a turn for the worse. Thus it is utilising WP:AGF that a bit of a rest would allow time for a reflection and recharge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of good or not, automatic resysoping with absolutely no regard to ones actions during the time they are desysoped isn't preventative in the least. I cannot fathom how this can be interpreted as anything but punitive. Not that this should change anything, but lets not play games here. I was hoping the committee could at least have the courtesy to tell it like it is. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rjd, I am trying to follow your reasoning, but I do not see the connection that you do. Perhaps if you explained why you think this is punitive it would help. Chillum 03:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be anything but punitive when there's an automatic reinstatement of the bit? If there was some sort of review (at the end of the predetermined time period) of MZMcBride's actions during the time he was desysoped that would at least make sense to me. Instead, no matter what happens between now and then, his bit will be restored. That won't prevent anything, should his conduct continue in a way that some feel was inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It prevents while it is present. Not all prevention must be permanent. I still don't make the connection between the action having a set time period and it being punitive. All blocks that are not indefinite are of fixed duration, that does not make them automatically punitive. If you read through the case you will see that long term action is being considered separate from this action. Just because this action's expiry does not take specifics into account does not mean those specifics are being overlooked. This action does not exist in a vacuum. To make this connection for me you will need to do more than restate your case. Chillum 05:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see Rjd's point but the block-length comparison is interesting. But I don't think it fits. A block prevents all editing, thus taking away the ability for the user to show they have improved. A temporary desysop will allow the user to edit and thus the community can partially grasp whether the user is really taking the reasons for the desysop to heart or whether they are still showing the behavior that lead to this desysop in the first place. So with a temporary desysop the user in question could just go on a X-month wikibreak and then return to the state it was before (or, as Rjd says, they could just continue to act in the ways that prompted the desysop with no way for the community to stop them from regaining the bit after the given time period). With a permanent one, they'd have to re-earn the community's trust to regain their adminship, so they might really take the reasons for the desysop to heart (of course, they might just fake it until they get the tools back and then continue as before). Regards SoWhy 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then. Since the actions in question happened weeks ago and the person in question has shown a willingness to cease those actions in the interim... what is this preventing? Has there been disruption in the meantime? Do you have reason to believe that when this case is over he will cause disruption for the period in question? The fact is a temporary desysop weeks after the fact is arbcom telling him he is being punished, plain and simple. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Committee might not be willing to admit that such a temporary desysop would be punitive, but they are only fooling themselves. I'm surprised that the Committee are creating Shoemaker's Holiday / Tango redux already, given the number of them that criticised those decision. It sadly appears to be standard to make ArbCom a laughing stock these days; is compulsory training being given? Black Kite 17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to ensure I am correctly interpreting the messages in this section. Do I understand correctly that the range of users here are promoting a full desysop of MZMcBride, rather than a break where he has an opportunity to get his act together? Or are you suggesting that any temporary desysop should only be lifted when he meets certain specified conditions? Risker (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False dilemma. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not really. Since the only proposal that seemed to be being discussed in this section relates to temporary desysopping, and particularly concerns with the temporariness of desysopping, my comments were pretty well on the money. Nobody in this thread until after I posted the above comment seemed to be saying that desysophood is a bad idea, with the possible exception of Black Kite who probably is not aware of some of the finer points of the two cases he mentions above. (In fairness, there were some salient points that required oversighting in one of the cases, so it may be difficult for him to be fully aware.)

With respect to Rjd0060's comment below, it does seem that his concern is that a temporary desysop should be tied to actions rather than timeframe. I can see some validity in that viewpoint, and it is one of the reasons I have not yet voted on remedies. I would be open to suggestion on what criteria, based on the evidence and findings, would be more reasonable in lieu of a specific timeframe. Risker (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the finer points of both cases, thanks. The point I'm making is that as far as the community was concerned then the result of both cases appeared to be a botched and pointless desysop that didn't appear to fit the issue. Which is pretty much what a desysop would appear to be here. What would it achieve? Black Kite 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in this thread until after I posted the above comment seemed to be saying that desysophood is a bad idea, with the possible exception of Black Kite.... *clears throat* may not have been in this thread...but still counts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping is a bad idea. –xeno (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of desysoping here either. In my mind some combination of behavioral restrictions and/or mentoring would make more sense. MZMcBride has made large positive contributions to the admin sphere. Cutting off his ability to any admin work is not necessarily the best response to dealing with a fraction of his admin actions that were poorly considered. If we assume he isn't trying to cause problems, and I think most people agree with that, then the real question is one of how best to avoid unintended harm. In my opinion, behavioral restrictions, such as strictly requiring pre-approval for bots and bot-like actions, would be a more measured response to this case. Dragons flight (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you could read it like that I suppose. Any temporary desysop is clearly punitive rather than preventative, because if it was preventative it would be a full desysop. Personally, I'd extend that to any desysop being purely punitive, per the previous ArbCom cases that I mentioned above. Black Kite 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting either of those, no. I don't believe that any temporary desysops with automatic reinstatement after X days is preventative in any way, but they are entirely punitive. This is because the reinstatement is automatic with no regard to ones conduct or behavior. I'm just arguing the principle. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Rjd0060, to clarify, would I be correct in understanding that in arguing the principle, you are arguing against 1.1, but aren't making comment on the other alternatives? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the practice of temporary desysoping with automatic reinstatement is strictly punitive and shouldn't be used, unless the reinstatement is pending no objections by the committee after some sort of review. I have opinions on this particular case, sure, but I could be making this argument on any Arbitration case where this type of remedy was proposed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But I think Risker was looking for community views on this particular case. As you don't like the idea of a temporary desysop, in this particular case, would you favour a full desysop or none? As for my view, I personally think that Nyb's views in this case (at least, with regards to remedy 1 alternatives) are spot on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "punitive" and "preventative" is a misleading pop meme. Almost every legal system in the world works on the ideological premise that the two are critically interrelated, not mutually exclusive. I.e. by "punishing" (a word we're not suppose to use because of the widespread nature of this meme) you help prevent [repetition, imitation and retribution]. So Black Kite, since a 3 month break allows time to reflect and learn without the possibility of causing disruption, I don't understand your assertion that

"Any temporary desysop is clearly punitive rather than preventative, because if it was preventative it would be a full desysop"

Clearly it serves a function. We also have to recognise that the very act of doing one's job as an admin is likely to permanently prejudice one's chances in RfAs, so the Committee should almost always reserve the right to resysop long-standing admins who've briefly entered a state of disrepute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either an editor is trusted with the sysop bit or they're not. Would MZM be inherently more trustworthy if he was desysopped for three months? My argument would be no, which is why I am arguing that such a sanction can only be punitive. Black Kite 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out (somewhat related to this thread) that remedy 1.3 and principle 10 would seem to be incompatible. Unless a a full ban would be considered otherwise for some reason, a full desysop wouldn't seem to agree with "positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation ... may be considered in determining the sanction" as its basically the harshest remedy that could come out of the case and still make some sense (there's no real topic involved, so a topic ban wouldn't make any sense). Mr.Z-man 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@BK -- Well, it's surely the case that any admin as useful and productive as MZMcBride, with such a long-standing record of work and commitment to the project, is entitled to have time to adapt when it becomes clear the powers that be really aren't going to tolerate certain patterns of behaviour. I.e. there is clearly a case for an intermediate remedy between the permanent disrepute and loss of a total desysopping and an enforced break from certain tools (a temporary desysopping). It goes without saying that all such remedies are of course both punitive and preventative. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue (in my mind, at least) is that there has been a constant mantra of actions like this being preventative and not punitive when that clearly isn't the case. The principles themselves are somewhat irrelevant—a seasoned debater could make strong arguments for either side.

But the issue is that you have a body (not necessarily ArbCom but perhaps more so the community) that claims one thing and then acts in a directly contrasting way. That is, stop saying actions aren't punitive when they clearly are; at least have enough courtesy to call the spade a spade. It serves no one to live under false ideological principles in which everyone tries to manipulate the meaning of the words in order to make the actions fit. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is punitive, and no its not a good idea. Synergy 21:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, remedy 1.3 is similar but without an arbitrary timeframe, so I don't have a problem with that remedy either. And yes, taken at a reductionist level, any ruling which has any impact on any editor can be seen by that editor as punitive (and by those standards so is mass-deleting secret pages). And to Black Kite, given what you have seen on WP, I am surprised you'd cling to an absolute assumption on a person's ability to carry out a given role all the time - editors burn out, lose it, get upset, get angry, get stressed, regress, get depressed, become erratic etc. quite frequently. This is pretty obvious. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree that admins can burn out (I had a 2 month wikibreak myself, and it was very useful, but that was voluntary and partly prompted by IRL issues), but this appears arbitrary - if you're basically saying "We don't believe that you are suited to this role now, but come back in 3 months and we think you will be" then that doesn't strike me as an option that is going to benefit the encyclopedia as a whole, it strikes me as a banishment; thus, punitive. I can see no possible benefit that could be gained from such a resolution that could not gained from the other "MZM is directed..." options. Unless you're going for a complete desysop then the other options appear somewhat irrelevant. Black Kite 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the idea was a minimum time, in case a person fronts up one day later stating they have reformed. As I said, I am happy with the other wording too. As far as banishment, we are not talking blocks or bans here, only trust with tools and working with others. Things may change as dialogue progresses, just as they have led to this point upon observation of the dialogue thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, your reasoning makes no sense. "Either permanently desysop or don't" sounds like good ole Dubya. A three-month desysop can be seen as an enforced break, as a warning, as a few more things ... all of course [in Casliber's "reductionalist" sense] punitive (*shrieks*) ... but clearly serving a potentially good purpose, such as enabling MZMcBride to resume work having had time to reflect and adapt whilst at the same time appeasing many of the forces he angered, warning others, and so on. On the other hand permanently desysopping deprives wikipedia of a highly-trained, experienced and time-giving admin, which is arguably a completely over-the-top reaction that will do little but result in a net loss to wikipedia. I don't understand why you're trying to over-simplify the situation like this.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over-simplifying the situation because some people are trying to complicate it. If you actually want to get rid of a "highly-trained, experienced and time-giving admin", then you can either desysop permanently - or, as I strongly suspect, an enforced "3 month period for reflection and adaption" would probably have exactly the same effect. Some people seem to forget that Wikipedia admins are volunteers; unless they truly have got the patience of a saint, if you fuck them around like this you're unlikely to be able to call on their "highly-trained and experienced" selves again. Black Kite 01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately or not, it doesn't look like the Arbs are inclined to let MZMcBride off with no kind of desysop. A permanent one guarantees he is lost, and 3 month desysop makes it highly possible he won't be lost. It's not exactly hard to figure which one of the two is better here [with these considerations that is]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading those arguments while they develop, and I'm afraid I must admit I have failed to understand the point. In essence, I hear arguments that an indefinite desysop would be "punitive", but a shorter term without the tools would not be. This boggles my mind, because it's exactly as though one was arguing that every crime should get life sentences because shorter terms will not be "protective".

Let's face facts: any sanction has, at its heart, a core that is punitive to the sanctioned editor, whether it is a ban, a topic ban, a desysop, or even just a directive or admonishment. The ultimate objectives of all sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia, but the means is necessarily punitive (or, indirectly, dissuasive). In this particular case, the desysop options that have been put to vote (we'll ignore 1.1 since it has no support and the proposing arb intended something closer to 1.2) all have, at the core, the same overriding principle: MZMcBride's actions were not compatible with the role of an administrator. One of the alternatives provides a set period of "probation", if you will, that seems to be adequate to both give him the time to readjust his work method and provides for an "easy" way back. The second alternative is more open ended, but serves the same purpose: impress upon MZMcBride that some of his actions were inappropriate, and that adjustmentsmust be done to get the bit back.

I suppose that, not unlike the justice systems you find in the real world, the objective is protection, the hope is rehabilitation, the means is punition, and the consequence is dissuasion. — Coren ^(talk) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote above? (It seems no one did.) It isn't necessarily about the validity of the principles, per se. It's about saying one thing and acting in a directly contrasting way. However, you've admitted that a temporary de-adminning action "is punitive" (your emphasis), which is what the OP was looking for, so this discussion is likely over. It would just be nice if we stopped saying things aren't punitive when they clearly are. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, you're summarising rather than contradicting the recent course of this debate (BK aside). So there's rough consensus that both would be punitive, as in actions that punish. While political necessity sometimes [per MZMcBride] encourages euphemistic word-dodging, it isn't reasonably deniable. But by extension it's not worth focusing on either, as such remedies by necessity have to be. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll ever see me equivocate around such terms; or ever had. My point is that there seems to be some perception that ArbCom doesn't do (or shouldn't do) punitive. I'm simply stating that, by definition, anything it does is, but that it is never (or almost never) the objective. — Coren ^(talk) 03:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm well aware you're not the type for that kind of thing, but you're not really representative either (as I'm sure you're aware). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "punitive" can be emotionally charged, but personally, I would never support a "punitive" sanction as in simply "this editor must be punished." In an arbitration case, or in my administrator capacity, I think of my role as seeking to identify the sanction calculated that will best serve the cumulative interests of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, based on the record of the case and the surrounding circumstances considered as a whole. For me, and I suspect for all or most of the arbitrators, appropriate factors in formulating a sanction include such matters as:

• Will the sanction outright prevent misconduct by the sanctioned editor or administrator that would otherwise continue?
• Will the sanction act as a deterrent to future misconduct by the sanctioned editor?
• Will the sanction incrementally prevent or deter future misconduct, or have events that have taken place before we reach the sanctioning phase (such as comments by the editor whose conduct is under review suggesting that he or she has already modified his or her behavior) demonstrated that the sanction may be unneeded?
• Will the sanction act as a deterrent to other editors or administrators who might be tempted to engage in serious misconduct?
• Will the sanction send a signal to editors who were negatively affected by the misconduct, whether or not they are parties to the case, that their legitimate concerns have been heard and respected?
• Will the sanction be sufficient to put an end to any prospect of a problematic situation continuing to fester, resulting in increased "drama" and distraction from the project of building an encyclopedia? (This is the aspect in which Scott MacDonald so memorably opined that my judgment is consistently deficient; I suppose my remedy votes in this case will become another example for his list.)
• Will this proposed sanction, or some greater or lesser sanction, be the fairest and most proportionate reaction to the situation confronting the committee, taking into account the rights and roles not simply of the editor whose conduct has been questioned, but also of other editors (and on occasion, though not in this case, of other persons affected by the conduct, such as article subjects)?

I considered all these factors at great length in this case, and concluded that the best outcome was the one I proposed. Others may in good faith disagree, and given that all the other arbitrators to have voted so far have disagreed, I am prepared to accept a judgment that their cumulative wisdom in the matter might exceed mine. The most unfortunate part, for me, is that the case never needed to get to this point in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, plus odd glitch in the software) It's hard to get around the fact that having the tools or not having them is a binary choice. Normally if an administrator is qualified to have the tools but has misused them then the Committee responds with reminder, caution, or admonishment--but retains the administrator ops; if an administrator is not qualified then the Committee removes theose ops pending reinstatement after review. The method of review may vary, but making reinstatement automatic is problematic. Theoretically, it might be a credible solution if the editor has enrolled in some offsite course (leadership, communications, etc.) which the Committee believes would fill the necessary gap. Otherwise it's hard to grasp: looks either too harsh or too mild. This reads as if the Committee is seeking a middle ground and instead of finding it, proposing to levitate in the air between the first and second floor of a house. A lateral move to the staircase landing would be more stable: if an administrator has misused tools in specific ways but not others, then perhaps a constraint against specific misuses would be worth considering. Durova^Charge! 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On musing on this I prefer to think of no remedy being gratuitously or unnecessarily punitive (as all can be preceived punitive on one level as outline above). Thus what I am aiming for is minimum level of sanctions to achieve desired result - and I feel that mere warnings are insufficient. All parties would be advised to remember that there is no black and white, just many shades of grey. (yeah I know it is a tad glib but I am deadly serious too) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive is a hot button term in Wikipedian discussions, and often not useful. Think of it this way: is it likely that three months from now--with no followup screening process of any sort--MZMcBride would become a better administrator? If the intended message is shape up or we'll desysop you next time, how does that differ from the normal stern admonishment? Durova^Charge! 04:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an indefinite desysop is the absolute minimum needed to achieve the desired result, I'd be curious to see what else was considered and determined to be too much. And for that matter, what the desired result is. Mr.Z-man 04:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desysoppings can be constructed with review schedules: The User may appeal to the Committee for a restoration of the tools in XYZ months. What intrigues me, though, is this: it was MZMcBride's use of the deletion tool that sparked this RFAR. Perhaps the Committee could let him keep the bit while restricting his latitude to perform deletions (for example no page deletions in user space, except his own, subject to Committee review after 6 months). He's very hardworking: think what he's good at and what he's weak at, retain the good and constrain the weak points. Would that be suitable? Durova^Charge! 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be acceptable to me if other arbitrators considered it necessary. I am not at all sure that it would be acceptable to MZMcBride. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider this less a concrete proposal and more an avenue for discussion. There may be room for exploration here. And I agree it would be interesting to see what MZMcBride has to say. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Clearly-defined restrictions that avoid the problematic ambiguity that plagued this case's injunctions would be acceptable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...if [MZMcBride] does not use any automated bots or scripts on his primary account during that time. Talking as an individual arbitrator, I supported that remedy assuming good faith that you'd respect the above and not do anything controversial during the 3 months. I have assumed good faith and have believed it is just a burnout. In case this turns out to be wrong then we can go for a motion anytime it gets proven wrong to make it a total desysopping instead of a suspension. I had trusted you using the tools for a long time. I have then had little trust in that and believe I can trust you after the burnout period. That is the how I have taken it and believe some other arbitrators believe the same. If you want to include the motion clause for the sake of clarification then 'sure, why not?'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're drastically misinterpreting my comment, though I can't particularly blame you as I'm in an awkward situation at the moment. I spoke privately with another Arbitrator yesterday. I told him that I would not accept a temporary de-adminning on principle. There's no particular way to phrase this that I can come up with that doesn't have the potential to sound rude, but that's simply how it goes, I suppose. In short, I agree with Wizardman and Vassyana that temporary de-adminnings are something to be avoided. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way; I personally have had no other choice. No desysopping at all will be really ridiculous due to the recent admonishing in the Palin case; how serious I consider the problematic subpage articles; and of course the main issue of this current case which is how you handled deletions. I really can't see how someone would be rude after all the FoFs. I was rather expecting some kind of at least 'yes, I got that wrong but not the other one, etc'. I've heard nothing of that kind to warrant no more than an admonishment. Get yourself the community and the Arbitrator shoes to see how you could have dealt with it from that angle. As you see, I can't support a mere admonishment II but will have no problem to support a full desysopping if that is better than temporary suspension for you. I, at least, assumed good faith and thought it is a burnout but I cannot do anything to your very attachment to principles. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, have you considered the alternate solution of retaining his admin ops, but restricting his use of the tools in the areas which have caused problems? See above discussion, please. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have since I participate in ArbCom discussions but I haven't been able to find a practical remedy to the potentially harmful subpage(see FoF 10.1) since that has nothing to do with adminship though that is the last thing to expect from a wise and careful administrator (imagine the mess caused to readers and fellow admins if someone follows the pages instructions). The situation is not that simple as you could imagine and the 3 months has been the best viable option for me in terms of resolving this case; that is giving the admin/user a time to rethink their ways (i.e. communication, good and wise judgment) and reduce the level of the burnout. Again, I had trusted them using the tools but much less now though I am still having hope. Note also that the 3 months suspension got a caveat; so that doesn't mean automatic regaining of the tools. I am still struggling to fathom how the idea of partial adminship restriction you have been discussing above could be effective here since my degree of trust is very low and that is not limited to the deletion actions of course (in order to reach effective and wise remedies ArbCom takes into consideration the full background career of an admin or a user). Restricting this case to the deletions is not right (hint: problematic subpages --> poor judgment). Can that be corrected? Probably but I don't believe it can be corrected by adopting the way you are suggesting. That can work in other cases probably. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedial administratorship is not an option as far as I'm concerned because the role requires users to make independent decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect that within the next three months he will definitely get better at making independent decisions? Automatic reinstatement is a problematic solution. Durova^Charge! 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added and supported a desysop remedy. My preference would be a removal of adminship with no set time for return. I'm not at all sure that he will make better choices in 3 months. I voted for the other as well because I think that removal from the position now is needed and that may be the only alternative for that to happen. I think a break from the position with a fresh start could change the situation. As has been pointed out to me by some of my colleagues, suspensions are a traditional method of handling conduct problems in some organizations. If the temp desysop remedy passed, we may be kicking the can down the road, and if that is the case we will deal with the problems later. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than discussing labels (such as 'punitive'), would it not be better to concentrate on desired outcomes? I assume that everyone would prefer to have MZMcBride working as the valued admin that we agree he is - without the problems raised in this case - rather than losing him from the project. The question then becomes what is the best way to achieve that outcome? Is it probable, or even possible, that the Proposed Remedies 1,2,3,4,5 by themselves might be sufficient? I should remind ArbCom that last year's Cla68-SV-etc omnibus case contained parties who had had more previous warnings than MZM has had. In that case, there was emphasis placed on the least sanctions need to produce the required outcome. It also resulted in what might be considered an "absolutely final written warning" being given, with it being made clear that any future breach would be dealt with harshly. I personally believe it was exactly the correct outcome and wonder why a similar course would be inappropriate in this case? You really don't need to worry about appearing "weak" by not wielding "the big stick". Those of us in the peanut gallery will understand that the threat is sometimes more powerful than the action. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Agree with the concern about kicking the can down the road. Remember the Privatemusings mentorship where review was part of the original proposal, but not incorporated in the structure passed by the Committee? John and Lar would probably agree that with the mentorship structure on rails it decreased the incentive for PM to learn from us, and he ended up at user conduct RfC very shortly afterward. It's been a pleasant surprise after the way things were headed last fall that he hasn't come as far as RFAR again--although worries remain that it might happen. If desysopping is really appropriate here, then a schedule for review and possible reinstatement after three months would probably stand a better chance of long term success, than a desysopping with automatic reinstatement. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long has it been since MZMcBride made inappropriate (in the committees eyes, that is) deletions that the temporary desysop will be "preventing"? In my opinion, it would seem that if the committee was so concerned about MZMcBride's damaging actions, they would have moved this case a bit quicker or voted on an injunction to desysop weeks ago. Just an observation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: If I had to guess, the users in the case you referenced had more powerful friends or ArbCom is just looking to make an example of MZM. Mr.Z-man 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Durova... The conditional suspension of the tools was meant with that spirit in mind. If you want to add to it an official call for mentorship then that would be great.

@Rjd0060... The long list of questions submitted to MZMcBride suggests that ArbCom had to listen carefully to MZMcBride rationale and clarifications. That means that the Committee had to get answers before analyzing the actions in depth and see if any remedy is warranted.

@Mr.Z-man... Each case has its own particularities. Comparing a case involving long-term 'ideological' disputes with a case of an admin acting on his own relying on his own measured judgment is now wise. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, it's your decision whether or not to vote to de-admin. But two questions keep rattling around in my mind. It's been happening for the past week or so. (a) Would the project be better off with me not as an administrator? (b) Do the majority of admins still trust me? I think the answers to these questions are no and yes, respectively. You obviously disagree, but quite a number of people on this page and in private conversation have told me the same thing. Does that mean that my actions were necessarily the best course of action? Absolutely not. In hindsight, some of them were downright stupid. But that's part of being an administrator. You live, you learn. We all have belly-buttons, after all. You and FloNight make a reasonable argument, but it's one that still seems to be in the minority. Risker commented below that there are likely better alternatives here. I think she's right. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(a)Yesterday, I stated to my fellow arbitrators that your case could be compared to a good sports player who —after a time spent in the club playing brilliantly— started to play the ball alone and disregarding the coach directions. When confronted with the disciplinary committee of the club, the player still believed that he's acting that way for the best of the club. The committee wasn't convinced because the results of the clubs were becoming catastrophic and the fans were asking the club to do something but the player still insisted he's doing things the 'right way' and that he'd not accept any temporary suspension and would prefer to whether stay or go (black and white). I gave the example of Ronaldinho (as you) and the prestigious club FC Barcelona (as Wikipedia) and stated that FCB decided to let the player go (Ronaldinho plays for AC Milan now and he is much more less brilliant). I believe that FCB did the right choice (the club is doing great this year) because unfortunately for the player it could not change his mind and judgment (black or white). I also believe that productivity and effectivness of a person depends on their attitude. People make choices and the more those choices are taken from a narrow angle the worse for their career (productivity and effectiveness) and the people surronding them (nuisance and poor performance). (b) I cannot talk on behalf of arbitrators but I can say that apparently most —if not all— believe that the problem resides in your attitude of 'black and white' —something you've just proven just above (I think the answers to these questions are no and yes). You decide and anticipate yourself (wrongly) the responses and reactions of others. That is like saying 'I'll do it this way because others will not care'. The best approach is to say 'I think I can do it this way but I'll make sure I am correct first'.

In brief, you are still an admin and I'd not let a good admin go but sincerely, you've done little to change our positions MZMcBride. There are two faces to your coin; if you'd be just admonished today and start over poor judgement tomorrow or next year then the ArbCom would be responsible and accused of having let you free making damage. I'd hear from the community that ArbCom decision was totally unproductive and the 2 cases were a waste of time. I need to be sure that you are taking this stuff seriously to the max. This is a community project MZMcBride; you are not alone. I am glad you are talking now about some silly things you've done and it is helping. If you decide to take this case as a learning curve then ArbCom —alongside members of the community— will be glad to help you be more productive the right way. And please, don't forget to do something to the problematic pages you are still hosting somewhere. I am serious about that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view that the majority of admins still trust me comes directly from the comments by admins on this page. You can say the answers by me above lack nuance because they are so short, but that's far different from saying that I see the world in black and white. Also, I truly believe that if my behavior were so egregious, it would be trivial to find ten admins to say so and I'd be recalled in short order. Further, it would be trivial for ArbCom to pass a motion de-adminning me on this project, something that NYB wrote in his lengthy rejection / acceptance of this case. For a project with as many admins as this one has, many have told me that I'm crazy for having such lax recall criteria, but I've yet to see any evidence that the procedure is working exactly as it should. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a few, mostly isolated, cases of poor judgment by an admin is seen as much worse than long-term 'ideological' disputes, or any long-term dispute for that matter? I guess we can expect some wrist-slapping for the date-delinking case then. I noted this same thing to Roger Davies at the start of this case, ArbCom is really giving off the impression as of late that its priorities are entirely misaligned with those of the community. Mr.Z-man 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point... I haven't written this long in ages. I will now take the liberty to do it. This is my priority tonight.

Priorities are relative depending on who defines them. I believe some of the people at this page (since we are all here) have this case as their priority. Probably I am assuming this because deletion issues are more important to them than a —as they would probably call it— lame dispute about links of dates. Some people would prioritize China and Mongolia historical disputes over Obama articles' case, probably because they are not interested in Internal politics. Some others may say that the West Bank - Judea and Samaria dispute is an impossible equation and may probably take forever as in real-life. Others would prioritize Scientology probably because they would believe scientology is either bad or good.

Anyway, this is my list…

7- Ruylong: admin/user, user/admin relationships (the diffs are there). Can wait.

6- West Bank - Judea and Samaria : This is not the first time this case arrives at ArbCom under other names. There are plenty of reasons since the wiki dispute is influenced by real world events and drama. I am afraid it is time for the community to help ArbCom by having more admins intervening and monitoring (as it was suggested for the Greek-Macedonia/fYRM/Republic of Macedonia. I don't know how that can be implemented since many admins prefer to keep away from that specific area. Many people around the world stoppedbeing interested in that mess while many others have already decided their minds. Wiki-wise, expect extreme wikilawyering.

5- Prem Rawat2: hint: number 2! some voices: ArbCom got it wrong at 1 and 2 is the consequence. Haven’t followed the details in fact.

4- Tang Dynasty: thanks to Wikirank I can safely say that though the seriousness of the subject of the dispute this case can wait.

3- Date delinking: Pending poll. I wished it was done before so there would have been no need for a case. Disputes about consensus/no consensus are probable but ArbCom can probably help with that.

2- Scientology: A bit serious and I personally believe it is not as black and white. (too much exposure to media coverage)

1- Obama articles: The most serious (BLP, high profile articles)

Now, I must agree with you that prioritizing is more important though we should not take it at face value; there is a ethical factor to consider. People probably wouldn't tell you neither explicitly nor implicitly that a case about an admin's actions is less important or doesn't need to be prioritized over I'd say a BLP case. Wikipedia values its contributors. may probably.

The case of Sumbebenny went fast. There is one reason for that. The admin recognized he was at fault and promised to stop acting as WP:DICK even before the case started. He got a tough case as well since the but there were no much arguments from the community. Immediatelty after the case closed, the admin went to apologize and shake hands with Ameliorate! Excellent gesture. He won his case and I respect his actions. So the case went damn fast.

Now, would you agree with me that we could have closed this case 2 days ago or I’d say 2 weeks ago if there had been no injunctions and no non-ending discussions arguing punishment vs prevention. Being objective, one would say that the first injunction was triggered by the admin in question himself. We can probably agree that the second injunction culpability is shared between ArbCom and the admin. But has he commented on my seriousness regarding the subpage? No, MZM has chosen to argue that the community is with him. Which community? What about the community who filed this case? Get them a trout in their face? What about the silent community? I wheel warred, I got admonished, I deleted pages with tools and bots against clear consensus and in disrespect of many, I used snarky edit summaries, I created potentially harmful pages, I still give valuable opinions on how you could create a mess with the admin tools and get away with it with no 'punishment' (posting at WR yesterday). MZM could not mean it but would you find that something cool and helpful? I don’t find it cool and I have the total right to vote assuming nothing has changed and it won’t change any time soon and 3 months is enough for me to make an assessment with a follow-up. And the response is a simple 'i did little wrong', 'my principles doesn't let me accept a suspension', 'the bunch of people (majority of admins) here trust me and defend me', ‘this case has taken long for a reason’ (well, the case may have taken less or more time if the admins and others who were against your deletions felt that you'd get no sanction). In fact, arbs are devided between full desysop and a temporary conditional one. ArbCom is not devided between no desysop and something else.

The following, as you many know, are the main functions of ArbCom (in no particular order of importance): ArbCom mailing list, Functionaries mailing list, ArbCom-Wiki, reception, discussions, decisions and responses to ban appeals and their feedbacks (missed one appeal last year), different types of serious complaints from around the world, answers or clarifications to claims such as in the case of Guido refuting his inaccurate claims. That only took a few hours from the time of a few arbitrators, hours on IRC for discussions with people for different reasons (I personally don't appreciate it at all and don't IRC in fact), CheckUsering when necessary, working on cases (evidences, workshop, talk pages of proposed decisions), responding to queries and criticism here and at individual talk pages, and let’s not forget the arb discussions and the implementations of many recent changes found at WP:AC/N. You got 15 people managing that. That seems like more than a legal department of a mid-sized company with full-time employees. Of course, one can argue that there need to be 25 or that 10 are already enough. And we can still say we got a spare time for ‘’’editing’’’ and building the encyclopedia and more importantly a life outside Wikipedia like any worker or volunteer in the world.

So why on earth are we here debating punishment vs prevention since it is widely known that we make blocks ranging from 1sec to definitely or indefinitely? There are also many people that go with 'adminship is no big deal and so is de-adminship.'

The community can do much to help. As there are differences between priorities there are differences between types, ways of criticism. That feels like a very annoying and unfriendly atmosphere. People may even seem to arrive to the point to take stuff so personally. NCMvocalist, please take this friendly advice and sincere positive criticism from me. Please help us better, the way you are acting vis-à-vis ArbCom is exaggerated and getting unproductive. Arbitrators may get tired and that is probably why they would make mistake like any other. Referring to Rlevse as ‘the other one’ at Vassyana’s talk page is poor taste (think about yourself being treated that way); that is worse than the ‘haz cheese’ your are wasting the time arguing about. Wikilawyering is unproductive. We all know that ‘haz cheeze’ edit summaries produce more bad than good. So please stop counting and naming individual arb names at least. Stop blaming ArbCom of all horrors of the Wiki (ANI discussing Greek/Macedonia dispute). Let us move please and stop criticizing for the sake of criticizing. Make good criticism with no ‘idiot’, no ‘the other one’ stuff. Let it smile. ArbCom people are volunteers like you and do not deserve all this! I’ll be glad to let you try the experience of the role of arbitrator for a few cases. I am talking seriously NCMvocalist. IAR (the Arbitration policy and elections). Really, Coren, Rlevse do not deserve all that. Why? Because you believe they may have gotten some things wrong. Think about it for a minute. A big smile and a better atmosphere is needed because other important stuff are waiting for the community and ArbCom to fix. You have already received notifications of every single ArbCom case. So please help us there.

I hope I could be able to draw you a more detailed and precise but I can’t because there are other important priorities waiting. I hope I’ve not wasted the time of anyone here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't believe that an RFAR that barely made it past the posts for acceptance is now seemingly heading towards a desysopping. MZM leads the pack in administrative actions by a ratio of nearly 4 to 1. It's inevitable he would have a few cock-ups. The other well-written remedies should assist in resolving the issues that brought this RFAR - no need to remove the bit, imo. –xeno (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your input. As you know Xeno, cases get accepted before detailed evidence is presented and FoFs produced. You are absolutely right that it is inevitable for someone to have some cock-ups when they have a high ratio of administrative actions but that should not override the fact that when cock-ups are identified one should do something to fix them. The subpage problematic pages FoF has been posted a couple of days ago (the issue was raised during the case acceptance indeed) and if I were MZMcBride I'd have already taken the opportunity and gotten rid of the page from where it is hosted, be wise and avoid referring to it in public forums especially at late hours of the case closure; that is like 'fix it and forget about it please because it is potentially harmful to the project'. That would be me if I had a case against me with serious concerns raised about it. I believe that this is not how Wikipedia responsible admins should act and I hope you agree with me. Responsability is one of the main and most important aspects of adminiship. If you don't get the hint and fix it then you are not fit for Wikipedia adminship —at least for the time being. That was about deletions and problematic pages. The rest is recent problematic history as you know. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I looked at your user page and couldn't tell if you had any type of background in system administration, MediaWiki, or any similar field. However, I do know that the two people in charge of keeping everything running on this site and its 700 sister sites both saw my essay and neither of them had any concerns with it. And, for that matter, neither did the community (inasmuch as the page was kept following a deletion discussion). The page is now located on MediaWiki.org, a site where both head system administrators for this site have complete and ultimate control and could delete (or ask me to delete the page) at any time. Yet none of that has happened. So, I'm left wondering: where do you divine the knowledge to speak on such issues with such authority? Especially when those hired and tasked with keeping the sites safe and running have found no issue.

For what it's worth, a polite request on my talk page to delete the pages would likely be met with a positive response. Though I suppose nobody ever thought to do such a sensible thing such as politely request that it be deleted. No, threatening punitive actions (and, to be honest, at this point it nearly looks like retaliation) seems like a far more respectable approach. Good grief.

--MZMcBride (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The devs allowing you to host it there doesn't mean that no harm can be done; it just means that everything can be cleaned up. The question is what's the point? And that was already discussed between you and me at my talk page at the time of the case presentation. So why would you like me to repeat myself and say the same stuff at your talk page? Wouldn't you consider that as a waste of resources and energies?

You got the rest wrong. I am a pro sysadmin, web developer and designer on different frameworks and environments (.NET/IIS, open source/XAMP bundle, Ruby On Rails) and I administer a couple of professional websites of mid-sized companies including e-commerce ones (secure payments). You should have probably looked here instead of my userpage to get to know that those 4 years old edit are still making the first paragraph of the 'Security' section as of today. You could have found out that I created .NET wikiproject in 2005 before I stopped being interested for a reason (open source). I have the latest version of MediaWiki installed as well as prior versions. However, I am not claiming authority or that I know better than you or the MediaWiki devs. A couple of arbitrators who supported that FoF are also quite knowledgeable in the area. So do you believe all this stuff can go on my userpage or do you believe that it was necessary for me as an arb to go through all this personal details to justify my position MZM?

There is no retaliation MZM. I have assumed that it is about a burnout and the remedy of that is a kind of chill out for a couple of months; time for anyone to relax and think about it differently. I've stated that a couple of times. I didn't go for a full desysop but you didn't accept temporary desysopping for principles. What can I do for it? I can't see you fit for adminship for the time being and have high hopes to see you chilling out probably with the help of other admins or mentors if needed and get the tools later on. Seriously, nothing is retaliatory here at all MZM. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Catching up) Fayssal, officially calling for mentorships hasn't had a good record this year. Durova^Charge! 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more. The incident that brought this to RFAR was, essentially, a matter of communication skills. MZMcBride took a bold action that was arguably defensible within policy, or at least not explicitly against it. But as Mae West was fond of saying "It's not what you do; it's the way you do it." Yes, we're not MySpace. But we don't want to alienate our productive editors either, and an action like that might just cause people to leave. When concerns arose at the admin boards he could have paused, communicated, and the issue would have settled down. Instead he continued, which drove matters to RFAR. During RFAR I attempted to work out a conduct RFC with him, and that looked for a while as if things could take that direction but he delayed in making a clarification Coren suggested and followed up with a couple of posts that appeared contentious. So here we are. One injunction, two injunctions, now a possible desysopping. And although on MZMcBride's side most of what he's done is defensible in a narrow analytical sense, it is also--forgive the bluntness--socially and politically tone deaf. Generally speaking, I have serious doubts about the advisability of temporary desysopping in any situation. In this particular situation it appears especially problematic because, if this analysis is correct, this is the type of problem that isn't likely to correct itself with a three month hiatus. At least not automatically correct itself, because it's less a matter of clear bright lines and more one of taking in a broader set of data and becoming more tactful. So I've suggested a range of other options above, which seem more suitable to this type of dilemma. Best wishes, and I can't see how date delinking possibly ranks as high as number three Durova^Charge! 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate mentorships and I know that you are good at it. But mentoring someone can be done regardless of them having the tools or not. I had given my reasons why I believed the 3 months suspension could work and I've never considered the return of the tools automatic. I had also given my reasons why I can't accept admonishment II and I disagree with a people who believe that this is merely about deletions. It is also not about whether the deletions themselves were legit or not since it has been made clear that ArbCom don't rule on that; it is rather about the way stuff they were done. You and me (as a non-arb) can agree that he took bold positive actions when it comes to deletions but that's all. Creating problematic and potentially harmful pages is part of being bold but the wrong way. I again say it and repeat it; that is a serious issue and I really don't see a reason why I should tolerate it especially that no bold action of reversing it has been taken. Again, I consider that serious stuff. That is not something for the 'loolz'. Also, We all know, by experience, that ArbCom generally considers the whole background and it wouldn't make sense if we disregard past history —especially recent one. A few people may still disagree but that is natural. Others may agree and that is natural. That said, I'll be very happy to endorse and support actively your mentorship if possible. I will also be glad to see MZMcBride a new admin in the near future if mentorship gets its fruits (whether via supporting an appeal via ArbCom or by expressing my support via RfA). If you want me to add a mentorship remedy I'll be glad to do it.

As for the date delinking, it is just because it's been there for months and the poll is almost being closed. That doesn't mean that I'd have placed it at the third position if it were opened just yesterday. I hope Mr Z- Man agrees with you and me. Thanks for your initiatives and efforts. Appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrt date delinking, I certainly hope the poll won't have much of an effect on the case at all. The issues being decided in the poll are mostly a side issue to atrocious conduct that caused the case, edit warring over dozens of articles and the guideline itself, pervasive incivility (which I believe is/was still a problem on the talk page of the poll), bot/script abuse, and some abusive sockpuppetry. This was an ongoing issue for months before the case started.

Getting back to this case, I think the main rationale for deciding remedies should be: "Is the project made better by this." Ignoring the "secret pages" deletions for a minute (as its basically the sole counterexample to this), most of MZM's deletion work has been on the "maintenance" side of things - broken redirects, orphan talk pages, old IP talk pages - any improper deletion here is at most a minor inconvenience to someone, no lasting harm, if any harm at all, is done to the project. I think some perspective is in order. Right now ArbCom seems to be treating everything roughly equally: Yes he's working more than most admins on the BLP problem, but he's also shown poor judgment with deletion. Putting these on the same level is either downplaying the seriousness of the BLP problem or the amount of work MZM has been doing or significantly inflating the importance of the types of things he's deleted in his maintenance work, or both. Mr.Z-man 07:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mr. Z-man. I've just noticed this post. Well, my response is somehow similar to parts of the response I've just given below. Basically, consensus seeking before taking action and community approvals are more important than the value of individual actions. If you believe what you are doing is right and beneficial to the project then why would you believe you won't get consensus for it? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a fatal assumption, in my mind. Good faith aside for a moment, namely you're assuming that all participants in a given debate have no ulterior motives or biases. And that all participants are exercising common sense, rather than basing their views on irrational fears or misconceptions (think, for example, "I hate all adminbots and would never support one ever" or further "all automated processes are unacceptable"). As I've said previously, Wikipedia is large enough that I could find consensus to kill my cat—and I don't even own a cat. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)So the means are more important than the ends. I have to say, I'm not really surprised that we're now codifying this into policy, just a little disappointed. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this in a new section, cus I can't figure out where it will flow properly above.

It was said that any Arbcom sanction is punitive. True, but misleading because it leave out certain definitions. A preventative action CAN (but not always) include punishment. Punishment can (but not always) be preventative. Its all in definition.

Arbcoms (and admins) goal is to reduce disruption to allow for collaborative discussion. Punishment only serves to send a message 'obey the rules'. You could argue that punishment is preventative because it convinces others not to perform that action. However what people lose track of is that for this discussion, preventative means preventing current disruption, not imaginary could happen from others disruption. That is, a block of a person prevents disruption because that person is currently disrupting and a third person can reasonably conclude he will not stop otherwise. People get caught up in the fact that a 'punishment' is included in the prevention, but that is unavoidable. Hence, if you block someone for disruption 3 days after the fact, the prevention aspect is removed and punishment is all that remains.

Arbcom is in the position of ALWAYS being a month after the fact. But people only get dragged before arbcom if disruption is ongoing. Arbcom can prevent ongoing disruption with topic bans and such, and it is still concidered preventative because of the assumption that previous measures to prevent have failed and future disruption by that person is almost certain. Which is why such measures are concidered carefully, and why its all or nothing.

Back to the matter at hand, a temporary desysop a more than a month after the fact when continued disruption is not certain, is punishment. The only purpose it serves is to send the message 'obey the rules'. Risker asked if this means I am promoting a full desysop. My responce is, if there is no hope for him as an admin then desysop. But do it because you truly believe he is too much of a problem to keep, not because he needs to be punished and admonishment isn't enough for you. I may be chided later for assuming bad faith, but several comments from the arbs have a 'he needs to be punished' edge. He's a volunteer, not a wayward child. He will either follow the rules you lay out or he won't. If his work/attitude is not welcome then show him the door, its not your place to spank him. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment is always preventative because acts being punished occur within a system; in fact, if remedies don't have any preventative potential then they aren't really punishments, but random acts of malice. Although I don't personally support any desysopping here, such a punishment definitely prevents or potentially prevents repetition, imitation, and retribution, and contributes to the restoration of good-feeling and peace by appeasing the section of the community he has upset. On the other hand, if you make assertions like "it was too long ago" critical arguments, you create incentives for stalling ... i.e. anyone repeating such behaviour will know in advance if enough time passes everything will be ok for them (in fact, there is a present case where this is clearly what is happening ... no names of course). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

198 (I hope you don't mind if I give you that nickname), when considering remedies, the Committee's primary purpose is to the encyclopedia, but it also has (I believe) some responsibility in putting structures into place to provide guidance and support to the editors/admins involved in the case, and to those who will (we hope) reflect on their own practices in taking note of the decision. Finding the right balance between protection of the encyclopedia (broadly defined) and promoting improved editorial/administrative practices is probably our most difficult assignment. In this case, I'm trying to find a middle ground that would be a net positive for both the encyclopedia and MZMcBride, but the more traditional remedies (warning, admonishment, desysopping) don't fit quite right. This seems to be a situation where thinking out of the box might give the best resolution. Risker (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that if I didn't think a desysop was needed to prevent future problems, I would not vote for it. The temporary desysop has the potential to change the situation for the positive beyond the length of the desysop so I see it as a viable options to use in preventing ongoing problems. I would never vote for a remedy that was solely punitive. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon; Many a block has been overturned on ANI for being too long ago, and it has been established on arbcom that time is a factor that leads to unacceptable punishment. Arbcom evades most too long ago arguments because they tend to deal with 'ongoing' issues, so stalling rarely works against arbcom but I've seen it work against admins. I am also not denying that prevention includes punishment, I am saying that the ideal is for prevention to include punishment as a side effect and punishishment without immediate and measureable prevention is unnacceptable.

Risker; I agree that arbcom has a difficult job, morally, and will understandably trip across one ideal or another. But most of that difficulty comes from self-imposed and situation imposed restrictions on yourselves. My understanding is that Arbcom is not here to punish. This is not me imposing it on you, this is me pointing out that Arbcom has repeatedly imposed it on itself. I would have no problem if you said 'Arbcom is here to punish' and then punish someone. Indeed I have felt that certain people deserved to be punished by arbcom and did not. I'm just looking for what I percieve to be a hypocricy to be reconciled and too date I have not read anything here that tells me it has. Luckily for Arbcom I am but a single voice. If enough people think I am a fool then I can easily be ignored.

FloNight; I point back to my ideal that rememdies prevent first and punish second (preferably as a side effect). I read your statement as saying you intend to punish first and prevent later. Not solely punitive, but punitive first.198.161.174.194 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I think the aspect of the situation that matters is preventing future problems. If that could happen by closing the case without any sanctions then I would vote for that as my sole remedy. Based on my observation of the situation over the past year, I don't the situation is going to change with out a desysop. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself (although I believe that most if not all members of the Committee will agree), punishment doesn't enter into my considerations when contemplating appropriate remedies in cases. The fact is that every remedy agreed upon by the Committee can be (and is) perceived by some segment of the community as a punishment, even the most benign ones. There's not much I can do about that; I'm not a big fan of the "Stepford wives" theory of normative behaviour, and respect those who disagree with me in good faith. Risker (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree on the idea of a desysop as it may well be warranted. I'm nitpicking on the idea that the the temporary desysop by itself does nothing and everything is accomplished by the idea of punishment and the threat thereof. You could replace the word desysop with anything and the message is the same 'do as we say or face punishment', wherein the value of the remedy is tied directly to the value of the punishment. To say that punishment isn't part of that consideration is impossible because the remedy hinges on him acknowledging he was punished in order to change his actions. If it is not perceived as a punishment, it fails. If this remedy is not solely punitive, then what exactly does it do except make him fear further punishment? 75.153.229.217 (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, adaptation. Name it whatever! What is being debated here is so philosophical. If you are an admin then you must know the difference between blocking someone for 24h and indefinitely. Why aren't you arguing that the one who could be blocked for just 24h must be blocked indefinitely? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 24hr block holds purpose. In and of itself, the 24hr block ceases an immediate disruption and that is its stated purpose. The punishment aspect of the 24hr block is an unavoidable side effect. What purpose does the temporary desysop have if not to punish?198.161.174.194 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 24 to indef you got plenty of periods. I am talking about a time span, not a period itself. And I believe you are missing the caveat and the conditional aspect of it. We are not talking about automatic return of the tools. Wouldn't you restrict your son for a certain period from playing PlayStation if he's not preparing for his exams until he succeeds so he can play whenever he wants? He failed last year because he couldn't resist and kept playing even after your warning. Do you call that punishment? I call it incentive to succeed. That method has been used since life begun and I am surprised by the fact that it is still being used selectively as a counter argument and debated in 2009. Anyway, that is moot since I am not opting for it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing the conditional aspect because the conditional aspect is what is being taken away, making it a non-condition. At issue is his use of admin bots. So taking away his admin abilities and telling him he can have them back if he doesn't use bots in the meantime is like restricting a childs ability to use batteries, but he can have them back if doesn't use his battery operated game boy for a month. As far as calling punishment incentive to succeed and you being suprised people would argue against it, I repeat what I said earlier. I'm OK with Arbcom punishing people if that is their stated purpose... its Arbcom that said Arbcom doesn't punish people. I'm arguing against Arbcom saying one thing and doing another... but as you say... moot now. I guess it would be more constuctive to talk about who is going to do the hundreds of thousands of deletions now that MZM is out.198.161.174.194 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) There are different kinds of "conditional", although the exploration of possibilities was limited because MZMcBride was clear that he would not accept any conditions on his administrative privileges. Some possible examples: running a list of planned deletions (for example, the OldIP ones) and posting a link to the proposed list to WP:AN 24-48 hours before carrying out the deletions, to identify which ones should be skipped because the information is needed for other purposes; or working with other users who make use of this information to redevelop the criteria by which this list is generated before OldIP deletions are carried out. Having a small group of mentors with whom to discuss ideas, specifically from the perception and communication perspective, might be worthwhile, and should involve admins and editors who come from different perspectives than that which MZMcBride generally espouses. This is the sort of "third option" I would have been willing to consider; however, I respect MZMcBride's view about "conditional" sysops and acknowledge that it is shared by many. That does leave the Committee with a binary choice (leave sysopped or desysop) and little leeway in attaching conditions if he is to remain sysopped. Risker (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for exploring and explaining that important side of the issue on hand Risker. That goes in line and reflects my stance accurately. 198.161.174.194, you have raised three points... a) you miss the point behind the removal of batteries. The kid needs to ask about how and when to use the batteries and consult with his parents before using them again because he's using them without any parental control for the time being. That is to consult with the community and the BAG in the wiki lingo. Once that is done then he can use them at ease and the 3 months period (to seek consensus and get approval) was considered sufficient in the wiki context. b) you'd tell me that he could still retain the batteries while doing that but there's no trust for the time being that he'd not use them inappropriately while seeking consensus c) the hundreds of thousands of deletions could wait (not forever but not more than 3 months - that is why we didn't opt for more than 3 months); that's much better than never being done again as he's refused the suspension and preferred full desysop and resignation over it because he believes that whether people trust him or not. So where is the punitive nature of it in all this? Consensus, consensus and consensus. The project is based on consensus and you are not going to sell that general basic pillar and principle for a stance towards particular deletion (very conjenctural and very narrowed compared with the genaral basis). You won't be happy if someone acts without clear consensus in a matter dear to you (someone acts on his way without consulting with you beforehand and acting without technical approvals). You just won't. And please, don't tell anyone that I agree (in essence) with his deletions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "but there's no trust for the time being that he'd not use them inappropriately while seeking consensus." I'm having difficultly seeing evidence for this view outside of the Committee members, to be honest. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Risker I sympathise with. It should be lamented that a compromise is out of reach. I think this is where I'm prepared to give my ACTUAL opinion on the case itself as opposed to simply discussing the prevent/punitive aspect. My personal view is that another admonishment was in order (he sits in a strange grey area between 'cant do nothing' and 'desysop is too much') and that he be directed to have ALL of his bots and scripts approved before use with the strict understanding that in his case, regardless of the merits of the action, defiance of that rule leads to direct desysop. This places it as a matter of trust. He is trusted to be an admin, but his trust in running a bot is in question. If, from this point, he acts in a manner breaching what little trust is left he understands it will be removed. I think that would satisfy most (but not all) of his detractors because it suspends his bot activities (the focus of disruption) until such a time as consensus is gained. It would satisfy his supporters, because he can continue to do good work but and builds on it to gain community trust. Finally it satesfies Arbcom in that they a) underline the seriousness of the issue of bots (something they failed to do when it was brought up in the fall) and b) establishes a clear 'line in the sand' about unapproved bot use. I do not percieve this as a punitive first remedy, because the disruption is being suspended and there is clear guildines about how the trust is earned back.

I believe this is what NYB wanted, but his phrasing made it appear too soft. He only directed him to get approval, where I am saying all bot work must stop until approval.

FayssalF's points... well... I admit I'm having trouble following them. I think the child analogy has gone too far and is clouding the issue. I do know that when I spoke of the thousands of deletions, I specifically said 'now that MZM is out' and was not covering the idea of a suspention and only now that there is little to no chance he will ever get back to them. Your statements have a strange narrative. 'So where is the punitive nature of it in all this? Consensus, consensus and consensus.' When you say Consensus.. are you answering the previous question or is that the beginning of a new thought? When you say 'You just won't' that means everybody, or just me? And I'm not sure why you would think I'm telling people you agree with the deletions. Did I say you did?

I *think*, if I'm reading this right, that you feel the punitive nature of the temporary desysop is secondary because of your condition that he gain approval for bots once he is back. If I read rememdy 1.2 correct, he automatically gets his admin back (via a condition that is, by definition, impossible not to fulfill) and THEN seeks to gain approval for his bots. That leads me to continue to wonder at the purpose of the suspention. What does it accomplish that an immediate cease of bot use conditional on approval, without an admin suspension, doesn't. I apoligise for the bad wording, but I cant get it better. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have presented this issue to Vassyana who drafted this alternative, but I cannot blame any one individual for missing this issue - this is an issue that FloNight, Coren, Rlevse, Risker, FayssalF, Roger Davies, Casliber, and Wizardman rather disappointingly failed to pick up on, let alone address or acknowledge. I open this at this central location given that this wasn't at workshop and involved so many arbitrators.

While yes, ArbCom are right to support a finding that indicates that the deletion summary did upset some editors, ArbCom failed to acknowledge the other editors who appreciated the humour (which is relevant because of the underlying irony) - i.e. the intent in making that sort of deletion summary. I also reject any attempts to suggest that this is verges on a content consideration - it is a key issue in context and circumstances. Btw, FloNight (as well as Rlevse, Risker, Roger Davies and Casliber) were "uncomfortable" with ascribing "intentions or motives in a proposal" - I note this personal opinion contradicts their support for Fof 2 that explicitly stated: "His intention was to delete "secret" or "hidden" pages used for what he perceived as frivolous or "social" purposes...."

I can give Vassyana some credit for recently being extra active in responding to criticisms. This time, the issue wasn't making the proposal, given the explicitness of FloNight's vote on 4; the issue was with what happened with the proposal. I can also give Newyorkbrad a bit of credit at this point; for indirectly responding to (I think) all my comments at workshop (without completely neglecting the issue I'm raising here), and for confirming that proposal 4 is "first choice" over 4.1.

However, to call proposal 4.1 "acceptable" would be far from realistic. I would go so far as saying that it would be extremely foolish for any arbitrator to deem 4.1 "more accurate" and as a "first choice" - I note that Coren and Rlevse nevertheless did so. What evidence can they present to justify such a frivolous claim? Has MZMcBride made a statement that demonstrates that the summary was not "well intended" or that it was "meant to offend"? Diffs please. (I also note that FayssalF and Casliber indirectly indicated 4.1 as first choice in striking their support for 4, though no comment on their views regarding accuracy.)

Please note that I could've saved this criticism for once the decision was closed, but I raised an issue in bold now so that it can be remedied before it is too late. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite wrong. 4.1 does not state that the summary was not well intended, it just does not state that it was— something that we might be guessing at but that nobody by MZMcBride knows for a fact. The point of the FoF, as far as I'm concerned, isn't (nor should be) MZMcBride's state of mind, simply that the summary is snarky. Can you "provide diffs" into MZMcBride's mind?

Your frequent commentary into every twitch of ArbCom is sometimes insightful or helpful, but right now you're not helping and making a mountain out of a molehill. Making hyperbole about how foolish discussion on the exact wording of a finding is, quoting in dramatic bold, and making noises about how urgent it is to fix before it's "too late" doesn't turn that detail into a critical issue— it just makes you look like you're trying climb a molehill. — Coren ^(talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to where I said "4.1 states that the summary was not well intended"? Oh but that's right; you can't. You are the one who stated 4.1 was more factual - but it isn't. Fact: there were editors who did not find the summary snarky given the circumstances in which it was written; fact: words like "haz" are used in certain situations, and given the nature of the pages MZM thought he was deleting, that goes back to intention. That's an objective test; not a subjective one where one has to state "I meant for it to be well-intentioned" - the only time that test could fail is when you either assume bad faith, or he states "I deliberately meant it to be ill-intentioned". Your failure to respond on my point about Fof2 speaks volumes. The only person playing with words here is you: you are unable to respond to a pretty straight forward point, and ironically, this isn't the first time either.

Quoting in dramatic bold? I thought that pointing to the bold part of my comment would keep the discussion grounded on the issue; I guess your assumptions of bad faith just continue - even on the point of fixing issues before it's too late to fix. Your inability to comprehend the effect of ArbCom decisions on other people, even on small sentences in a finding, seems to say it all. Oh well, no one can stop you from pretending that you're always right, where nothing you've done or said was remotely questionable. :) You've just clarified what makes a good arbitrator, and indeed, what sort of training you were given. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more constructive to suggest an alternative wording. If an arbitrator agrees, they might well move it (or an edited version) to the proposed decision for voting. As far as links and diffs to support the wording of the proposed decision goes, I'm working on making suggestions and additions. Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; see my draft at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop#MZMcBride.27s_deletion summaries 2 - I think it's more on the side of accuracy and fact-finding. Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)though lacking in diffs. 10:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding FoF 4.1: MZMcBride's deletion summaries:

I've mentioned this at the workshop here, but am posting here as well to bring it to the attention of the parties to the case and those commenting here. I am also leaving a note to Misza13 and East718 to ask them to comment here. I'm presuming MZMcBride is following this page.

To quote: "Based on the old diffs of User:MiszaBot/PSP, this sort of lolcat deletion summary has been in use since at least 24 May 2008 (hover over 'rouge delete' links to see the suggested edit summaries). Checking the redlinks there might indicate much earlier use of lolcat summaries, and hence whether editors were being upset by them (or not) as far back as then. I've found at least one example here of a lolcat deletion summary from May 2008."

What I want to find out here is how long such lolcat deletion summaries have been in use for (before May 2008?) and how often, and if there is any evidence that editors may have been upset or not by such summaries (e.g. unexplained departures after the page was deleted, or upset talk page comments), or whether the community frowns upon the use of such lolcat summaries by admins. MZMcBride has answered a question on Misza's bot page, but not on the issue of the lolcat summaries (though I think he has commented on them somewhere, maybe at one of the ANI threads). Anyway, if not, I'd like Misza13, East718 and MZMcBride (and anyone else who has used, or enabled the use of, such edit summaries) to comment here on the reasons for using lolcat language in deletion summaries and whether, being aware of this ArbCom case and finding of fact, they intend to stop (or have already stopped) using or enabling such deletion summaries.

Ideally, if possible, deletion logs could be searched for lolcat-type words (to see how widespread this sort of thing is), but I don't know how feasible that is. I'm also aware that some of these deletions are nearly a year old, that it is possible that some parts of community don't care about some admins using lolcat deletion summaries (but equally that other parts of the community might object), and that a lack of reaction to previous lolcat deletion summaries might mean that this is a non-issue, but I do think that the prior use of such deletion summaries by others should be noted, and that those who used them previously to delete 'secret' user pages should be notified of this finding of fact and invited to comment here.

Any help in finding and notifying other admins who have used such deletion summaries would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further, with a quote from the proposed principle 4 in this case:

"Whenever an administrator deletes a page, he or she must specify the reason for doing so. [Editors] should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. [...] a clear and civil explanation of why a userspace page has been deleted should always be provided."

In my view, the use of lolcat deletion summaries as a "subculture" (among some admins) is no different to the use of secret pages as a "subculture" (among certain editors). Both subcultures fail to contribute to building of an encyclopedia, so either both need to go, or both need to stay. Arguably, those using secret pages learn more about wiki-markup than those admins using lolcat language in deletion summaries manage to make their point to the editors in question. And I know that many of those with secret pages will understand lolcat, but that's not the point. Deletion logs are a public record and need to be clear and understood by all. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the pages with playful deletion summaries keeps in-line with the playful nature of the pages. You also are deleting pages that aren't public-facing (and intentionally so, really). That is, deleting an article with a playful summary is far different from deleting a user subpage with a playful summary. However, I looked through the deletion log a bit and found quite a few deletion summaries for articles that probably meet your definition of "lolcat summaries" (links omitted to avoid embarrassing anyone):

• "o rly? rolfmao @ noz szources, lolzor"
• "lol gay people lol"
• "human genetic technologies? more like HUMAN GENETIC LOLOLOGIES" [Note: This article was subsequently re-created.]

Small sampling of what I found; I'm not particularly inclined to find more unless there's a good reason for doing so.

--MZMcBride (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - the fact that lolcat deletion summaries are used when deleting articles is a concern. I agree that deletion summaries for articles should be held to a higher standard than deletion summaries for userspace pages, but given that the proposed principle 4 in this case (almost certain to pass) specifically mentions userspace deletions, this is missing the point. "a clear and civil explanation of why a userspace page has been deleted should always be provided" - do you agree with that and do you think a lolcat deletion log is clear and civil? Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're asking MZMcBride the wrong question, as I noted at the workshop. Forcing a principle down the community's throat can only lead to disaster, especially when it's first applied and done so inflexibly - not enough regard has been given to circumstances. I'm sure the community will consider a reasonable proposals in policy-making, but it is never compelled to accept such a proposal in its original form - and if the community ends up rejecting it or modifying it, then that can reflect poorly on the users who applied it prematurely without official and direct community approval. That aside, the entire issue is that this principle wasn't reflective of what actually happened in practice up until this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's correct that the User:MiszaBot/PSP page was created on 24th May 2008 and had the "rouge delete" button ever since. Oh, and the redlinks there are pages that were deleted since that revision, not before.

Second, I asked the toolserver about possibly lolcat summaries before May 24th:

select log_timestamp, user_name, log_title, log_comment
from logging join user on user_id = log_user
where log_comment regexp 'sikrit|ohai|khtx|\bur\b'
and log_type = 'delete' and log_action = 'delete'
and log_namespace in (2,3) and log_timestamp < '20080524000000' limit 100;

and got 1 (one) result: ;-) An obvious false positive.

Third, I have never used the "ohai, i haz found ur..." summary (confirmed with a query too), merely provided the link as a convenience for others. Admins take responsibility of their own when they click the final "delete" - I have provided a rouge-meter in the form of the page owner's editcount. With that in mind, I don't see why I should stop the bot from updating that page (is that what you understand as "enabling"?). Миша13 11:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply.

(1) and (2) You are right that the redlinks were pages deleted after your bot created those revisions of that page - sorry for the misunderstanding there. The question I was trying to ask (and which you've answered) is whether that type of lolcat deletion summary was in use for userspace page deletions before 24 May 2008. From the query you ran, it seems that the answer is no, so would you say it is fair to say that the meme of using lolcat deletion summaries for deleting secret userspace pages started with the page updated by your bot? (3) I'm not suggesting that you stop updating that page, only suggesting that you remove the links that enable lolcat deletion summaries. i.e. It would seem logical, given the ArbCom principle (based on existing policy) that deletion summaries should be clear and civil and be able to be understood by all editors (not just those who contributed to the pages in question, or who may understand lolcat), that you consider removing the "rouge deletion" column. The page itself, and the number of contributions made by the editors, and the "normal" deletion summary link, look OK, but the lolcat "rouge deletion" links are not really needed. If you want to keep the lolcat deletion links, I suggest you ask the wider community whether they are happy with admins using lolcat deletion summaries.

One further note. Is it possible to run two queries like the one you ran above? (a) Looking for lolcat words in general, and looking at deletions in articlespace? It is outside the scope of this case, but I do think lolcat deletion summaries used when deleting articles is a serious concern. (b) looking to see how widespread the use of the ohai, i haz found ur... deletion summary was after 24 May 2008 (i.e. how far the meme spread and who used it)? Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is safe to assume it all started after I created that tracker page. I hope you understand the irony in blaming me for other admins using the link (again, especially since I never once used it)? Furthermore, if after this case any admins find themselves unable to fight the urge to click the rouge links (and confirm with "Delete" afterwards), I would say that's the real issue to address.

Yes, I (and anyone with a TS account) could run that query in other namespaces and agains other phrases. Drop a note on my talk page (with a list of lolcat words) and I can accomodate you (or you can file a request against Toolserver DBQ service).

Checking how widespread was the meme:

select left(log_timestamp,6) mnth, user_name, count(*)
from logging join user on user_id = log_user
where log_comment regexp 'i haz found'
and log_type = 'delete' and log_action = 'delete'
and log_namespace in (2,3) and log_timestamp >= '20080524000000'
group by 1,2 order by 1,2;

gives the following breakdown by month and user:

+--------+------------+----------+
| mnth   | user_name  | count(*) |
+--------+------------+----------+
| 200805 | East718    |       42 |
| 200805 | Herbythyme |        1 |
| 200901 | MZMcBride  |        1 |
| 200902 | MZMcBride  |      191 |
+--------+------------+----------+

That's not tons, I suppose. Миша13 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not blaming you for the actions of other admins, but still questioning the need to have used such language even as an option on a tracker page. I'll take this back to your talk page and ask if you will consider removing the option for lolcat deletion summaries at the next update of that page (08:10 UTC 6 April, by my calculations). As for the query you ran, it's not tons of lolcat deletions, but it does make clearer who was using such language in deletion summaries and whether it was widespread or just a few admins. Thanks for running that query. I'll also go to your talk page about the deletion summaries for articles. I suppose (and this is a serious suggestion) having a tracker page detecting lolcat language used in deletion summaries (in all namespaces) would be about the same value as a tracker page to list possible secret pages? Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Database queries have found no examples of such deletion summaries prior to May 2008...." Um, excuse me? I gave you at least three examples of similar edit summaries above. And as I said above, those were just a sampling. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant pertaining to deletions of userspace pages. And indeed specifically to deletions of 'secret' pages. But if you have more examples, please provide them. There is an edited list of articlespace lolspeak deletion summaries from 2008 at User:MiszaBot/LolSummaries, but I'm referring specifically to Misza's database queries above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now qualified this as referring to userspace deletions. Do you contest the rest of the finding or wording? Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned over this finding: #Non-segregation_of_logs. It implies strongly that it was the number of actions MZMcBride did that was wrong, as it prevented analysis of his actions. By that same theory, User:J.delanoy who has over 230,00 Huggle edits or User:ProcseeBot who has 15,000 tor blocks in the last two months are bad admins. A better finding might be that both the large number of actions performed and the lack of clear edit/log summaries is wrong. If someone does 10,000 blocks and enters the proper reason in each block summary, that is fine, if someone does 50 blocks without any block summary, that is wrong. I suggest that arbcom needs to be careful to spell out what exactly was wrong in this case. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the number of actions so much that they all end up in the same log, automated or not. — Coren ^(talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... I'm going to have to open a separate account for my Huggle edits? That seems a bit ridiculous IMO, especially since I can delete pages and block some vandals while using Huggle, and the interface there is far superior to the standard MediaWiki one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The big difference between huggle and a bot is the level of human interaction. I've never used huggle itself, but my understanding is that every action (or series of related actions) it makes is in direct response to a user event; it will not pick a page according to some set criteria and act on it without human intervention.

Unlike, say, AWB which I would recommend that users only use from a distinct account. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB, except when in bot mode, also requires a user's response (clicking "save", before which they have hopefully reviewed the changes about to be committed). –xeno (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I'm having a very difficult time seeing your point. Automated or not, a large number of contributions will be more cumbersome to evaluate than a small number. If you look at Special:Contributions/J.delanoy or Special:Contributions/Aitias, it does not matter that the edits were done by hand. What matters is that their contribution history is difficult to get a broad overview of. J.delanoy has made over 150,000 edits with Huggle. How is that different than someone running an automated script under their main account? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted evidence that, to my mind, contradicts that finding of fact. Wiki-archeology is often hard work; such is life. We have adequately skilled people around who can do the hard work for us when necessary, usually with little effort if they have Toolserver accounts. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit by John, I must say I laughed quite a bit. John: You expected people to post evidence that I'm not a terrible person out to destroy the project? Hahaha. It's rather hard to demonize someone with evidence like that. You gotta keep your eye on the ball! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subtext of that finding is that posting lists of BLP problems may be problematic. Unless there is evidence or substantial support of that opinion within the community, the committee appears to be pulling that one out of .. thin air. I am aware of lists like that have been put onwiki and used to collaboratively eradicate the listed problems. I am unaware of any reason to consider this an inappropriate practise, however {{NOINDEX}} may be considered useful by some. Personally I dont think it is useful to hide the problem; we would do better by halting new page creation until this very large problem has been fixed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Fair point, indeed. I hadn't read that subtext, though NYB has intimated to me several times that he doesn't like my list. My response has been that the actual articles are what need to be worried about, not my subpage (which, by the way, has used {{NOINDEX}} for weeks). (See also discussion here.)

You're very right that this problem is large and largely unmanaged. Within the past few hours, the number of articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs has gone up by several thousand (due to the work by Mr.Z-bot). And it's expected to go even higher over the next day. And all of this is before my new list is released, which will likely double the number of pages in the category. It's quite a bad place we find ourselves in right now.

--MZMcBride (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like, very much, the idea of compiling a list of potentially problematic BLP content. What I was trying to discreetly hint at was that there is potential for mischief created by the current method of posting the output on-wiki, and the possibility of releasing the output in a more controlled way might be sensible. To John's point, I don't believe the community has expressed any view on this point one way or the other, hence the suggestion of discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the opportunity for mischief?? (let me guess, this is BEANS too?) If the page is on the list, it only gets scratched from the list when someone trusted does so. The worst that could happen is that the folk who dislike Wikipedia could make use of the list to make hay of our very real problems (and I will commended them for doing so, if they point out the problem articles which demonstrate the problem).
What more sensible way of releasing this do you have in mind? And is the proposed decision page the appropriate forum for advancing the opinion that the current method of releasing these lists is not an appropriate method? I am a bit stunned that so many arbs think it is this FoF+remedy is OK. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Corrected 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the proposed principles, which currently enjoys unanimous support, Personal_expression_in_userspace, contains a small misstatement of policy which should be corrected before it goes live. It currently states "Administrators may delete inappropriate userspace pages, either speedily where the inappropriateness of the material is blatant, and otherwise through MfD or PROD." (emphasis mine) Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Proposed deletion specifically states that " This process only applies to pages in the main namespace (article namespace)." Therefore, userpages are not eligible for WP:PROD. As I'm not an arb or a clerk, I'm not sure what the protocol on these things is, so I didn't feel WP:BOLD enough to do it myself. If I could have done it myself, please let me know for future reference. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting this. Thanks. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a couple of days, but I have now seen this change and have no objection to it. Sorry about the mistake, but I do recall having seen the "prod" template suggested for use in userspace at times in the past; presumably this was in error as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of transparency, I would like to draw the committees attention to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2 which is currently taking place. Tiptoety ^talk 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tiptoety. The Committee has noted it. Risker (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]