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)

Have made a request with regards to some workshop proposals on the /Evidence talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awaiting a reply (or lack of reply, as the case may be) from KnightLago regarding this this post before I'll be able to add further Workshop findings and remedies. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several Arbitrators have suggested creating (or perhaps enforcing) a "conduct unbecoming" standard for administrators. That is, that certain off-site behavior is directly incompatible with retaining adminship on this site. With over 1500 administrators, it is inevitable that some of them will be found elsewhere on the Web. And it is inevitable that some of them will be administering or participating in sites that are very unseemly to the English Wikipedia community. I'm curious if this case is signaling a change in the treatment of administrators' off-site activities. If an administrator is found to be actively engaging with a site that deliberately harasses users of the English Wikipedia, even if that person does not use their administrator tools to further the harassment or disruption or other bad acts (just as in this case where no administrator tools were used), I wonder if that administrator will be held to the same standard that's developing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, I think you are conflating a pile of issues here. Editors with a range of permissions have illustrated what might be considered "conduct unbecoming" external to Wikipedia without ill effect in the past, and I have no doubt they will do so in the future; more often than not, the poor behaviour results in nothing more than some eye-rolling, if it is noticed at all.

I am willing to consider the initial release of the articles as a bad decision made impulsively at the behest of someone who has a successful professional life in what some call "the art of persuasion", and he himself indicates (and you have not denied) that you had misgivings about your actions at the time you took them. You documented your actions in a highly public forum, and there was clear reason for you to believe that the recipient of the list intended to use it in a manner harmful to the encyclopedia, if not from his own words, then from the entreaties of several other experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedians. Several overtures were made to you (privately, publicly on-wiki, and in at least one case directly in person) in an effort to assist you in mitigating the potential harm; you rebuffed out of hand the requests to supply the identical list of articles to Arbcom that you had provided to "K", and you were angry that action was taken with the larger list of unwatched, unsourced articles to identify problematic edits to these articles that were made as a result of this ill-conceived "experiment".

Everyone makes the occasional bad decision, and I have my doubts that this case would have been accepted if you had recognised this bad decision for what it was and had taken steps in a timely manner to mitigate its effects. While generally speaking there is no positive duty for an administrator to take administrator action, there is an expectation that when an administrator makes an error that directly impacts the project, he or she will either rectify it, or provide what information others request so that others can rectify it. It's time to drop the pretense that this is all about something you did off-wiki. It is your actions with respect to *this* project that were "conduct unbecoming". Risker (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker: While it's true that some editors have been overlooked when they've acted in an unbecoming manner, the reality is that there are a few specific cases that I can think of off-hand in which users with advanced permissions have not been overlooked. There have been cases in which off-site activity has been directly sanctioned on-site, and there has to be some recognition of this.

The general standard for removing rights from a user is that the user has misused or abused them in some demonstrable way. However, in this case, there isn't any evidence to suggest that any administrator tools were misused or abused. So, you're faced with a completely separate standard for de-adminning a user, namely whether their actions off-site have been so incompatible with holding local user rights that they must be removed. When you say "it is your actions with respect to *this* project that were "conduct unbecoming"," it rings hollow. Posting a copy of a page that I wrote on another site is not an action with respect to this site. Giving a user a list of unreferenced biographies isn't an action with respect to this site. Both were done completely off of this site. Certain users tried to bring this off-site conduct on-site (and they were largely successful), but it was my hope that the Arbitration Committee would not be short-sighted enough to go down this road with those users. In order to remove rights from a user, there has to be a demonstration that doing so will prevent misuse or abuse of administrator tools and that doing serves a valid purpose other than gamesmanship. In this case, there has been no evidence to suggest that there is a higher purpose to the punitive nature of the proposed remedies. That is, whether or not I'm an administrator in good standing will not prevent me from posting off-site. It won't prevent me from generating lists of biographies and sending them to whomever I please. None of these things required administrator tools.

This comes down to a "conduct unbecoming" finding and ruling, which is not muddying any issues, as you suggest. That's what this is. The Arbitration Committee is empowered to decide who can and cannot be an administrator on this project, but they cannot for a moment think that they have any power or influence over editors elsewhere absent what I described as "extraordinary circumstances." I'll be the first to admit that I'm the most biased person in this case, but please don't suggest for a moment that what is being done here—punishing a user for off-site behavior and "conduct unbecoming"—is acceptable when there are so many other users being overlooked for actions that are far more unbecoming for this site. There are no heroes here, only hypocrites. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it's worth, if it were simply a case of your having handed over a list of unreffed and unwatched biographies to a user, I wouldn't have had so much of an issue with that. That you handed them over when there was a clear and stated intent to vandalise them (whatever the motivation) is an action that calls your judgement into question. For my part, this is why I think there is a need to go through RfA again. I understand your objections, and I have followed your reasoning - I simply don't agree Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to MZMcBride): Your actions were not completely off-site, and your failure to recognise this is a key reason why your judgment as a trusted member of the community is in question. Actions have consequences, and those consequences don't obey the strict separations that you would like us all to pretend exist. Your off-wiki actions with respect to the list of articles had genuine on-wiki consequences, and you should have been able to reasonably appreciate the likelihood of these on-wiki consequences before taking the action; if you did not, then you were quickly apprised of the potential for such consequences and were asked directly through several means, including appeals on-wiki, to assist in mitigating them. Alternately, you may feel that the consequences that occurred were exactly as you intended, in which case your judgment of the appropriate management of article space is equally as questionable, and that too is a matter of concern here on this project, irrespective of what you have written, said or done in any off-wiki venue. Risker (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) This case has been turned into one of judgment because, as I noted, the other standard for user conduct review (demonstrable misuse or abuse of the administrator tools) is unavailable here. What the Arbitration Committee is proposing here (and not for the first time) is that certain behavior that directly undermines a person's judgment may be subject to review, even if those actions were off-site. There are three examples off-hand that I want to mention of situations where a user's judgment could be questioned and I'll note in advance the the outcomes of the three examples have not been the same:

1. A user who administers and participates in a site that hosts content that directly attacks and causes harm to Wikipedia contributors;
2. A user who openly admits on-site to taking illegal drugs;
3. A user who blogs off-site about Wikipedia-related matters, using unsavory language, and also makes incendiary comments on-site;

These examples are based on actual administrators (or former administrators). In the first two cases, the Arbitration Committee has taken no public action. And arguably in one of the examples, the Arbitration Committee has silently endorsed the behavior as it has proved beneficial to them.

All three examples illustrate cases where a user's judgment might be called into question (whether reasonably or unreasonably). So my question becomes: why is there unequal treatment? This isn't a simple matter of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if the Arbitration Committee honestly believes that off-site actions and behavior are subject to on-site review and that a user's off-site behavior can be factored into their on-site judgment, is this simply a matter of nobody filing a case (which isn't strictly necessary for ArbCom review in any case)?

My personal view is that absent demonstrable poor on-wiki conduct, there is a much higher standard to be met, one involving extreme circumstances. Risker: You've admitted that certain off-site behavior is often over-looked. Why is this particular behavior being treated differently? Is a user who admits to taking illegal drugs really said to have better judgment? What about a user who voluntarily participates and administers a site that actively harms and disparages Wikipedia contributors? You won't judge their behavior? But a private message and a post on a separate site is so beyond the level of good judgment that it warrants a full case? I'm sorry, but to everyone outside the Arbitration Committee, this reeks of hypocrisy.

The issue here is one of unequal treatment. You could make a reasonable (though in my opinion largely stupid) standard that off-site behavior is completely subject to on-site review and then enforce that standard. But that isn't what's happening here. What's happening here is that specific "bad acts" are being considered while arguably far worse bad acts are simply being ignored.

There are a few questions that I'm curious about:

1. Do you feel there is unequal treatment currently in the standards of administrator conduct, and why do you believe this unequal treatment does or does not exist?
2. What do you think this case will substantively accomplish? [The obvious answer here is that it will allow the Community to re-confirm trust in a particular administrator or not through the Requests for adminship process, so there is a follow-up below.]
3. And, if this case will accomplish any particular outcome, is there a reason to exempt other administrators from the same outcome?

I appreciate the thoughtful and intelligent comments so far (much as I disagree with them) and I look forward to your responses. Fritzpoll: You in particular have stated that a re-confirmation RFA is what's needed here, but I'd like you to examine some of the other examples of off-site and on-site conduct and try to explain the distinction between those and this case. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall certainly look at the examples you cite, although it will take me some time if you don't tell me where to look - I'm sure you'll appreciate that I would need to examine the specific examples you cite in order to judge the surrounding circumstances. If you are unhappy posting these on-wiki, can you please forward them to me via e-mail? I'll take a look and try to formulate an intelligent response. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Briefly,
  1. No, but there is often unequal attention. This is partly because nobody can see everything everywhere, and partly because even when we do see matters that might deserve attention the committee does not generally intervenes without prompting except in extraordinarily egregious cases.
  2. Well, the ultimate objective in all cases of poor judgment leading to sanctions is to make sure that it doesn't happen again — or at least that it's significantly less likely to happen in the future. Having to go regain the community trust is one of the methods that is known to work; it means the editor has to convince a tough crowd that the right lessons were learned.
  3. I don't see why. This committee has been pretty consistent in holding administrators to a fairly high standard when matters are brought to us, though we certainly do not (nor, arguably, should) actively seek out cases to "prosecute". — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think MZM that you're missing the point here - can you address the comments about the on-site concerns rather than focusing on the small bit that occurred off-site? The lack of response to concerns, refusal to monitor the "breaching experiment" or even give others the ability to do so and the witch hunt against Knight Lago for cleaning up your mess are just as serious as the original interaction with the banned user - all of those occurred on-site. Shell ^babelfish 00:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell: A witch-hunt? Explain to me again why KL couldn't have just been forthcoming about the entire thing. Rather than use his own account to revert and block, he used others. Rather than just coming out and saying, "Yeah, it was me," he stayed quiet during the (entire?) acceptance phase of the case. It may not be full of impropriety, but if you've got nothing to hide, can someone explain why he was so damn intent on hiding it? It gives the very close appearance that he knew his actions weren't completely above-aboard, regardless of reality.

And, please, you're trying to shift focus of this case and legitimize it, "Oh, but you did these things, over here!" The experiment got cancelled. I published the list and the edits were reverted. I apologized for the surrounding drama. What more, exactly, are you after? I didn't monitor the edits to the biographies? You want a list of unwatched biographies, Shell? I'll send you one right now and in two weeks, I'll make a list of every reverted vandal edit to them and you can explain why you didn't watch over all those pages. That's fair, right?

Seriously, when you find something substantive to this case, I'll be all ears. But at this point, you're literally grasping at any possible excuse to make this case seem worthwhile. "Oh no, he had the audacity to ask a sitting Arbitrator why they secretly operated an alternate account and didn't come forward about it or recuse from the case!" Good grief, get real. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell: One more thing. In the same post, you say that nobody was able to monitor the vandalism, but that I'm being too rough on KnightLago for... monitoring the vandalism. The Arbitration Committee was provided with a copy of the list it requested I believe within an hour of the request. Can you explain the discrepancy in your reply? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point here, which you're busy furiously obfuscating, is that if you'd supplied the names of the twenty articles at the start – instead of burying them in a list of 8,000 – none of the special watchlist arrangements would have been necessary.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what would have happened if an Arbitrator had asked me on my talk page for a copy of the list of 20 articles. Oh wait. Newyorkbrad did and I provided one. Looks like it was provided within an hour of the request, as well.... Did anyone else ask for a copy of the list, publicly or privately? I honestly don't remember. Is there evidence of me being asked for it and saying no? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you directly how many articles were in the list you sent K. You didn't reply. You didn't provide straight answers to my earlier questions either.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'd forgotten that you were the one who requested the list of 8,000 articles. So, you requested the list at 5:07 and I sent it by 5:19. God, I'm so obstructionist and evasive! The only part I apparently didn't answer was your prying question about the contents of my private correspondence. What were you saying again? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you were obfuscating back then too. You serially evaded direct questions about whether you'd supplied a list or not.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger: One could easily say that all of your private correspondence on the Wikimedia-operated arbcom-l mailing list is far more subject to review by the Community than my private correspondence on the Wikipedia Review. I'll show you mine if you show me yours? I actually asked for a copy of a thread from the arbcom-l mailing list recently and was soundly shot down. But, hey, my privacy is apparently worth less than yours. I get it. You'll have to forgive me for not CC'ing you on every Wikipedia-related (or non-Wikipedia-related) message I send. I do realize that you're one of the key operators of the Internet. And you'll also have to forgive me for not answering your invasive questions about the contents of the messages you're not copied on. My bad. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having great difficulty understanding how you can claim privilege for twenty articles names.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having greater difficulty understanding how you can claim privilege for mailing list threads that directly involve discussion of me on a Wikimedia-operated mailing list. *shrugs* And, as I said, I'm fairly sure you never asked for the list itself. Did you? You asked how many items were on it, which I didn't answer (and rightly so, really). Can I ask similarly invasive but non-privacy-decimating questions of the posts to arbcom-l? I wouldn't think so, but maybe there's an untapped potential for answers here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing whatsoever invasive about asking for the list you supplied, especially as it was to be used for vandalism. You were, after all, the author of the message.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It's invasive in the sense that the message wasn't to you. I'm not saying that asking me about the message is necessarily inappropriate. I'm saying that you can't honestly expect me to surrender private correspondence or information about private correspondence simply because you ask. With all due respect, Roger, who the hell do you think you are? And, where did you ask for the supplied list? I thought it was becoming clear that you never actually did ask for the list itself, you just asked about the number of items in it and whether it existed at all. That's what I'm reading on my talk page, at least. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to surrender private correspondence. I asked for a list of names, of which you were the author. I earlier asked for confirmation that you had supplied a list: you evaded that question royally.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I avoided the question. As I said, I don't fault you for asking it. I fault you for trying to blame me for not answering it directly. Where did you ask for a list of names? Point to a specific edit, please. The only edit I see of you asking for a list of names is one in which you were e-mailed (incredibly promptly) with a list of article names (about 8,000 of them). I do see me not answering the confirmation question. But that's already established here and elsewhere. And if the list was the entirety of the private correspondence, asking for a copy of the list is the same as asking for the private correspondence itself. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren and Fritzpoll: You've got mail. Looking forward to your replies. This discussion genuinely interests me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To MZMcBride: When I first asked that you provide the list (in my initial vote on case acceptance), you did not respond at that point to the best of my recollection. When I renewed my request by e-mail, you—well, I won't disclose the contents of your e-mail to me, but you didn't turn over the list at that stage and didn't seem eager to do so. True, when you prodded me to post my request again on your talkpage, you responded quickly at that point. That's not the same, to my mind, as your having responded when you were first asked; the delay allowed the "breaching experiment" to continue for a couple more days.

Frankly, I am sympathetic to an extent to your point of view that this case is getting more attention than it might warrant. But I also think you are slow to acknowledge that no one on-wiki, not even those who take BLP concerns most seriously, has to my knowledge expressed any form of agreement with your actions in this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a copy of the list on January 17, 2010. I e-mailed you on January 17, 2010 to work out how to give you the list without violating any commitments I may have made. I didn't want to break my word. I posted the list on January 18, 2010. I can agree with you on the point that my actions in this matter have not been looked upon favorably by most of the editing community. A few users have privately said that posting about my actions publicly on the Wikipedia Review was better than secretly sending the list and simply waiting a few months (which would have likely avoided all of this trouble for me entirely). I suppose there's a price to be paid for honesty. (And, yes, Roger, before you come swooping down here, I evaded your questions, but I don't believe I ever lied to you.) I'll likely be posting some further thoughts on the Toolserver, list generation, and agnosticism tomorrow. It won't make for very interesting reading, but it may shed some light on what some view as my unwillingness to care about who I give lists to. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more point that I'm not sure who is and who isn't aware of: I was in favor of a third-party oversighter to this experiment, as was Mr. Kohs, from the very beginning. In fact, some of the initial e-mail exchange (from January 8, 2010) CC'd a particular administrator and trusted user on this site. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MZM: Got your e-mail, and thought I'd need longer to think it over, but here is how I would react to the three examples that you cite:

1. Yes, I would desysop if that editor was actually involved in attacking the contributors - I do not want a semantic debate on the phrase "involved", suffice it to say that merely being active on such as site is insufficient. There has to be an active role in damaging Wikipedia.
2. This has no impact on Wikipedia - the second it does, I would be handling the issue that caused the (potential) damage, and the issue you describe would be irrelevant.
3. If it had come to arbitration, I would have voted to desysop.

I'm sorry if these positions are inconsistent with former Arbcoms, but I was elected to be me, not to be a bunch of other people who made those decisions - hard as it is for some people to believe, there isn't a brainwashing at induction! :) I can't speak for the other arbs, but this isn't about sanctioning off-site behaviour in general, it is about the effect that you knew your actions would have when you supplied the list. To me, I would feel more comfortable about the community reaffirming trust in you via RfA - I will not support any time limits, so you can go to RfA the second the case closes for all I care! As to inconsistency (the thrust of your questions), well that's partly a structural problem - in your third example, it never got to the stage where Arbcom could have done anything, so the response could hardly be made consistent. My instinct, naturally, is simply to answer your third question as "yes", but then we'd get into an argument about why your case is different from some other list of administrator misconduct that Arbcom hasn't sanctioned - I refer you to my opinion that inconsistency is a structural problem that I promise I will look into. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick and honest reply, Fritzpoll. You've been a very straight shooter here and I really appreciate it. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the issue here and I'm wondering if this view has any validity.

IF MZM provided a list of 'soft targets' to a banned user where it was reasonably certain that the banned user would vandalise said targets and said user DID vandalise said targets, does that mean MZM holds at least partial responcibility for the vandalism itself?

Unless I'm wrong the fact he gave the list out isn't disputed, the person he gave the list to isn't disputed and the fact that the targets got vandalised isn't disputed (actually im not quite as sure on that one).

So create list on-wiki, share list off-wiki, negative on-wiki effect. Is that not a clear connect-the-dots path where vandalism was facilitated by an admin? Absent the drama about his denials/avoidance/whatever, isn't that enough to warrent discussing dysysop?

Where has my thought process gone off the rails here? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're more or less on target, I think; the one thing you may have missed is that MZM resigned his adminship, so desysopping at this point isn't possible, but there is a motion to make it clear that he resigned it "under a cloud". Steve Smith (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this case is to decide wether or not there should be a case if MZM ever wants his tools back? Lame. I can count at least 3 ways to end this silliness now, but that would mean skirting rules in favor of common sense. Good luck with that. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's (in part) to decide whether MZM can be re-adminned by a bureaucrat by simple request, as is the case with most resigned administrators, or whether he'll need to undergo another RFA. There is no intention of creating another ArbCom case at some point in the future over this. Steve Smith (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault that somebody else vandalized? Run that by me one more time? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said... "Hey, that list of unwatched unsourced BLP, mind sending me 10 or so so I can vandalize it? (Ok, breaching experiment, but it required vandalism to do it)." and you sending him 20 in reply. SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right... where did I vandalize them again? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, MZM, no one's saying YOU did the vandalizing. You just were the enabler, and the pusher here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: I can certainly understand that you are frustrated at this point. However, you must see that it appears disingenuous to many editors when you act surprised that some would hold you responsible for vandalism that was only possible due to your actions. I understand that you do not believe yourself to be responsible. However, you are clearly an intelligent person and an experienced member of the community, so it should not really come as a surprise that most see you as having partial responsibility for what the banned user did with the data you supplied to him. — James F Kalmar 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised, as I'm of the view that editors be held responsible for their own edits and actions, not those of other users. It's absurd to say that this (or any) vandalism was "only possible" due to my actions. I didn't give anyone any special powers to hit the edit tab and press save. The reality is that nearly anyone can vandalize nearly any article at any time. That's nothing to do with me. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when you handed over those 20 article names, what were you expecting to happen? Do you think its unreasonable to expect that vandalism would be the result of you doing so? It was implied above by SirFozzie (he paraphrased, so I'm sticking to implied) that this 'breaching experiment' was stated as part of the request. If thats true, where do you believe the disconnect exists between you giving a banned user information to facilitate vandalism and your responcibility for the end result? Even though they are freely available, do you think its wise to give convicted arsonists gasoline and matches moments after he says 'cus I want to burn down buildings'? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding further commentary to the Workshop when I realized that everybody else had moved on to the Proposed decision. So, never mind! --MZMcBride (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]