Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Case Opened on 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MZMcBride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Statement by Durova

MZMcBride was formally admonished and then ~~desysopped~~ [resigned, see clarification below] in two prior arbitration cases. He regained admin ops from the community afterward. Recently he used his toolserver access to acquire a list of unwatched biographies of living persons and, by his own admission, gave an unspecified number of names from that list to a sitebanned user for "experimentation". The subjects of those biographies did not consent to the experiment. Yesterday that banned editor was caught using a compromised administrator account. To the extent that the banned user's experiment is known, it comes from the edit history of that account and other recently blocked socks.

This is a substantially greater breach of trust than the actions that caused Everyking's desysopping. Another name removed per correction. Alkivar was desysopped without possibility of regaining administratorship from the community, because he aided a banned editor's disruptive campaign.

A number of people have attempted to resolve this matter quietly. MZMcBride's responses range from unhelpful to defiant. "But please don't ever mistake that to mean that an honest or straight-forward response is what you'll always (or even sometimes!) get. :-) Happy editing, Hipocrite."--MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[1] referring to User:Hipocrite This is similar enough to the problems that brought MZMcBride to arbitration twice before, that more community dispute resolution would be pointless. I ask the arbitrators, at minimum, to desysop him without the opportunity to regain the tools. In conjunction with this RFAR I have also requested the termination of his toolserver access through separate action. Durova⁴⁰¹ 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

Apologies for the delay in posting this statement. Holiday weekend travel and some other issues collided, making it impossible to write anything of value until now.

I believe this case should not be accepted for a number of reasons:

Unclear scope: this is very similar to the issue that was encountered in the last case filing; some Arbitrators and others have certain ideas about what this case should involve while others are completely in the dark;
No attempt at prior dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is the preferred venue here; trying to claim that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war is prior dispute resolution is insane;
Nothing to arbitrate: there has been no evidence presented here that administrator tools have been misused or abused; there has been no evidence presented here that there is anything that the Arbitrators could reasonably act on;
The central powder keg in this "incident" has been defused by this post an hour or so ago.

I understand Newyorkbrad's concerns regarding information being posted on-wiki and elsewhere that can cause harm. I've been working on a project called climax in which these same issues will likely arise. Have you ever wondered how many biographies are viewed fewer than 100 times a month but contain no references? Apparently nobody has ever collected this information into a single database. It will soon be possible to find every high-risk biography or every biography containing an unusually high number of "bad words" or every biography that hasn't been edited in two years. There are conversations that should be had about what data should and should not be released, but I don't believe an Arbitration case is the appropriate venue.

I've donated a substantial amount of time, energy, and resources into Wikimedia wikis, with a special emphasis during the past year on the BLP problem. I've been demonized and caricatured on my talk page over the past few days, which has expectedly been met with sometimes hostile replies.

I do not believe that accepting a case will lead to any party or any issue being satisfied. I anticipate follow-up questions and comments to this statement, so I will wait for them before posting further. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/2/1/5)

Accept. Steve Smith (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out to me, it is not strictly accurate that MZMcBride was desysopped by ArbCom in the past; he resigned the tools while a case was in progress. Steve Smith (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - awaiting statement from MZMcBride and others. Am leaning to decline or dealing with this by motion, as we know most of the facts of the matter already. Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for a statement from MZMcBride, and am prepared to wait. There is no rush here, and I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed that waiting for a statement from the named parties is the right thing to do before deciding whether to accept the request or not. Additionally, there may be an element of some people who are discussing this on talk pages not wanting to make statements here (or not being aware of this request). I would encourage anyone discussing this on user talk pages to make a statement here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - although Arbcom has some facts at its disposal, these require a public airing and analysis. Clearly there is enough discord in the community for this case to be brought forth. I note that I have had e-mail exchanges with MZMcBride over BLP issues - I do not believe this affects my ability to hear this case neutrally. If anyone disagrees, I ask them to contact me privately in the first instance Fritzpoll (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. While we do know some of the facts, a full case has the benefit of more evidence and facts coming to light rather than rushing on summary motions. - Mailer Diablo 21:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there isn't a problem in giving MZMcBride a few more days to write his response. We can afford to wait so long it is reasonable to do so. Clerks, please take note. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions to clerks updated as per above. - Mailer Diablo 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. Am willing to deal with this by motion, but I think that this might be best served by a full case. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the clerks please delay formally opening this case for 48 hours? Indications are that MzMcBride has limited availability this holiday weekend, and I'd like to give him an opportunity to make a statement. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that MZMcBride has resigned his administrator status at Meta. Waiting to see if we still need a case, or if the matter can now be considered moot. SirFozzie (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, pending further statements and discussion, I am going to leave my vote as Accept as a full case. SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - waiting for more statements, especially from MZMcBride. Unless there is more to this than immediately apparent, seems that it could be dealt with by motion. Shell ^babelfish 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Awaiting further statements. MZMcBride is requested to provide the Arbitration Committee immediately, on-wiki or by e-mail, with the list of the (then) unwatched BLPs that he provided to the individual in question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold for now per SirFozzie. I believe we have a good idea of MZMcBride's position on the issues raised, but he should nonetheless be accorded an opportunity to make a statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Continue to hold pending statement by MZMcBride here and/or at User talk:MZMcBride#Request. I am considering a decline vote if MZMcBride agrees to desist from conduct such as reflected in the events leading to this request and in his "socking guide" post on Wikipedia Review. There are ways to acknowledge and address Wikipedia's flaws, of which all of us on this page are aware, without exacerbating them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Decline as moot. MZMcBride has resigned his adminship, so the main remedy that might have been achieved in the proposed case is moot. Because the resignation came in the face of a request for arbitration that was about to be accepted, it automatically follows that MZMcBride cannot regain adminship without a new RfA (which I urge not take place for at least several months) or by special vote of this committee (which is highly unlikely to occur), so we do not need a case to establish that. While I understand that a case could be used to reemphasize relevant principles and findings, I think that much of what there is to be said has already been said in my comments at User talk:MZMcBride#Request. I think that lessons have been learned and we can turn the page on this matter. I am also unwilling to impose additional stress upon MZMcBride at this time.Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Awaiting further statements, especially from MZM. Leaning to accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Awaiting statement from MZM, but leaning towards accepting. KnightLago (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading MZM's responses to questions about this matter on his talk page moving to Accept. A full case is probably necessary. KnightLago (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as a full case; there's too much here to effectively deal with by summary motion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Awaiting statements. Vassyana (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, this situation needs to be dealt with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remain recused with regards to MZMcBride. Cool Hand Luke 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Awaiting further statements, likely until Tuesday. Risker (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline as moot. MZMcBride has resigned his administrator permissions, and further sanctions are not appropriate. I believe that Newyorkbrad's comments on MZMcBride's talk page and above appropriately summarize the situation. There is little question that this is a resignation under controversial circumstances, which will no doubt be brought to the attention of the community at any subsequent RFA. Risker (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Having now read MZMcBride's statement, I believe we should take this case, perhaps with a specific scope. For example, to determine whether:
(i) MZMcBride's publishing of a 'how to' "Guide to Socking";
(ii) MZMcBride's provision of a list of soft targets for a planned programme of vandalism by a banned user;
(iii) MZMcBride's subsequent ignoring of vandalism of the articles on that list;
(iv) MZMcBride's hosting of sofixit.org;
(v) MZMcBride's apparent serial ignoring of policy to prove various points;
are consistent with the standards expected of an adminstrator.
Roger Davies ^talk 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; left alone, none of this will blow over — it'll all just fester. — Coren ^(talk) 19:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I removed TrulyEqual1 from the list of parties; that account was created by and is under control of an arbitrator for the simple task of reverting the anticipated vandalism to BLPs. This was done with the knowledge and assent of the committee. — Coren ^(talk) 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Administrator conduct

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community; they are expected to lead by example and to follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with this trusted role, and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Return of access levels

2) Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later request the return of those permissions may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up permissions under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule. (RfAr:MZMcBride April 2009)

Passed 12 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Recidivism

3) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruption to prove a point

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

Passed 12 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

5) Policy defines Vandalism as … " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It further states: "Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated". Editors who facilitate vandalism may be sanctioned even if they do not directly engage in acts of vandalism.

Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious accusations

6) Due to the risk of harming current or past contributors in real life, users must be careful when accusing other editors of potentially damaging behavior. For example, claims of stalking, sexual harassment, or racism could harm an editor's job prospects or personal life, especially when usernames are closely linked to an individual's real name. These types of comments are absolutely never acceptable without indisputable evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence" such as "diffs and links presented on wiki." In the context of arbitration, such serious allegations should not be posted publicly in any case. Participants should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the [serious accusation] with the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 6 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Findings of fact

MZMcBride's editing history

1) MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has edited Wikipedia since May 2005 and has made more than 70,000 edits. He has shown a high degree of dedication to the project as well as a commendable level of concern about the effects that biographies of living persons ("BLPs") on Wikipedia may have on their subjects.

A) He has twice served as an administrator: from 13 May 2007 to 6 April 2009, and, following a new request for adminship, again from 4 September 2009 to 19 January 2010.

B) MZMcBride has twice resigned as an administrator: first, while he was the subject of the pending arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, and second, on 19 Jan 2010 three days after the request to open this case was filed and while it was on the threshold of acceptance.

C) He has twice been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for administrator actions: in October 2008 and in April 2009.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride's role in an "experiment"

2) In January 2010, MZMcBride provided information, derived from special access to Wikimedia Foundation servers, to a banned user ("K."), knowing that K. intended to use the data to vandalize biographies of living people on the English Wikipedia. These are the circumstances:

(A) In a discussion on another website, MZMcBride announced that he had created a list of unwatched BLP articles. In the same discussion, K. stated that Wikipedia lacks the ability to sufficiently protect the accuracy and integrity of BLPs and, to demonstrate this, K. proposed a "breaching experiment".

(B) K. publicly asked MZMcBride for a list of unwatched BLPs for this "experiment". In response, MZMcBride publicly agreed to give a list to K. and subsequently supplied a list of twenty articles.

(C) MZMcBride gave this list to K. knowing that K. would use the articles for his "breaching experiment" involving BLPs. The context strongly suggests that K. would subtly vandalise little-watched BLPs by adding false, misleading, or inaccurately sourced information to them; monitor them to see how long it took for the vandalism to be reverted; and publicise the results. According to K., even as MZMcBride handed over the list to him, MZMcBride expressed concern that it might be used in a "nefarious" fashion.

(D) MZMcBride gave this list to K. knowing that (i) Wikipedia biographies come high, if not highest, in search engine results for living people and (ii) the introduction of inaccurate information into these articles—even if done by K. inconspicuously and without malice—could have unpredictable real life consequences.

(E) MZMcBride gave this list to K. despite knowing, or at least reasonably suspecting, that (i) K. intended to use it to edit the English Wikipedia through sockpuppets and that (ii) K. had been banned from this project and therefore was not authorised to edit the English Wikipedia for any purpose at all.

(F) After MZMcBride gave the list to K., K. under various usernames vandalised the BLP articles on it.

(G) After questions were raised about the propriety of this "breaching experiment" and his role in it, MZMcBride continued for several days to defend his conduct and objected to any attempt to terminate the "experiment". MZMcBride ultimately posted a list of the unsourced BLPs he had identified to K. after an arbitrator requested on his talkpage that he do so, at which point various examples of vandalism were reverted.

(H) MZMcBride may have subjectively believed that allowing BLPs to be vandalized by K. in the "breaching experiment" would serve the greater good in drawing attention to the vulnerability of lightly watched, unsourced BLPs to vandalism, an issue about which MZMcBride had expressed very legitimate concerns in the past. Nonetheless, we have little difficulty in concluding that his conduct in this matter fell well short of the standards expected of an administrator.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride's sockpuppetry posting

3) In December 2009, a contributor on another website asked for suggestions concerning techniques for sockpuppeting (i.e., posting from multiple accounts in violation of policy) on Wikipedia while avoiding detection through checkuser or otherwise. MZMcBride responded by publicly posting a list of techniques that could be misused for this improper purpose. The contents of his post were substantially identical to those of a page he had formerly created in his userspace but later deleted, providing the same information about how to sockpuppet. MZMcBride knew that his public posting of advice on how to sockpuppet while avoiding detection had previously been the subject of substantial adverse comment, including in his prior arbitration case, but did so anyway and has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for his action.

Passed 9 to 2, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride and Toolserver

4) MZMcBride was able to provide information about unwatched articles to K. because of his access to Wikimedia "toolserver" data. His access enabled him to generate, among other things, information on the number of users, if any, who have watchlisted each page on this or any project. Access to toolserver data is restricted to experienced and trusted users and is provided in the justified expectation that it will be used only for responsible purposes. Although the number of users watchlisting any page is generally public information, to avoid providing a path to vandalism of little-watched pages, data about pages with few or no watchers is available only to users with toolserver access. As long ago as September 2009, MZMcBride was aware of the concerns of the toolserver administrators that unwatched pages bypass MediaWiki's security. On 17 January 2010, after the events leading to this arbitration, the toolserver rules were explicitly changed to prohibit the release of unwatched article data.

Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride's judgment

5) In (i) republishing the problematic page and (ii) providing information to a banned user with the foreknowledge that it would likely to be used to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, MZMcBride has demonstrated judgment inconsistent with the minimum standards expected of administrators.

Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MZMcBride's administrator status

1.2) As MZMcBride resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration was pending against him, he may regain adminship only through a new request for adminship or by application to this Committee. To the extent MZMcBride requests that he be allowed to regain adminship by simple request to a bureaucrat, his request is denied, in large measure because his conduct would likely have led to a significant sanction against him had he not resigned.

Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride admonished

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

Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Passed 6 to 2, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.