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

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)

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Durova

No one doubts that MZMcBride is a skilled coder and an active volunteer. The problems that caused this case are with his his judgment and communication.

Past arbitrations

This is the third case in less than a year and a half where MZMcBride's actions have been arbitrated for similar reasons.

In the Sarah Palin protection wheel war arbitration the Committee concluded that MZMcBride had acted against consensus, had not communicated adequately, and had set his judgment ahead of the community's. It also concluded that his wheel warring had violated the provisions of a prior arbitration case. The Committee admonished him and warned that he would probably lose his admin bit if further incidents of that type occurred. The case closed in October 2008.

In the MZMcBride arbitration that followed the Committee determined that MZMcBride had taken controversial action without appopriate communication. His deletions occurred without warning and used summaries such as "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less"[1] He continued the deletions until after an arbitration request was filed, then resumed deletions during arbitration. The arbitrators passed two separate injunctions to halt the controversial deletions; the second injunction occurred after he violated the first one. Two days before the case ended he resigned his administrator ops. The case closed in April 2009.

Similar problems again

By early January 2010 MZMcBride had used his toolserver access to compile a list of unwatched biographies of living persons. On 8 January the following conversation took place between MZMcBride and a sitebanned editor.[2]

Banned user: Mr. McBride, you know... this really and truly calls for a breaching experiment. Please, I beg of you, provide me privately with a random selection of just 10 of these 8,062 time bombs.

MZMcBride: I just sent [name redacted] this list privately. I'm inclined to also post a list here. This site seems to be the easiest way to get biographies looked at and checked.... Feel free to post your results publicly, [name redacted].

Actually MZMcBride provided that banned editor with double the requested number of of unwatched biographies and then failed to monitor the banned user's experiment.[3] He did not provide that list of BLPs to the arbitrators until ten days later, shortly before this arbitration opened. On 9 January Roger Davies asked MZMcBride whether he had followed through on the promise in that offsite discussion.[4] MZMcBride's answers were uncooperative.[5]

Patterns that emerge from the discussion at his user talk and RFAR:

• Attempts to steer questions about the breaching experiment toward changes MZMcBride would like to implement in how Wikipedia handles biographies of living persons.[6][7][8][9]
• Attempts to sidestep responsibility for the unwatched BLP experiment.[10][11][12][13]
• Attempts to impugn the motives and conduct of people who persist in doubting his actions.[14][15][16][17][18]
• He calls transparency a core value when he requests information,[19] but invokes very different ideas when other people request information from him.[20]

Breaching experiments are not allowed on this website. If MZMcBride were determined to attempt one he could done it himself. MZMcBride magnified the problem by involving a banned user to experiment with nonpublic data, failing to monitor the banned user, and then delaying a week before complying with arbitrator requests for that data.

When MZMcBride first announced his intention to go about things this way he called it "the easiest way to get biographies looked at and checked". Afterward he behaved as if he could leverage the attention as a bargaining chip. He has expressed no regrets toward the twenty living people who did not consent to let an administrator entrust their biographies to the care of a sitebanned editor, nor for the arbitrators and other editors who watchlisted 8000 biographies and undid subtle vandalism from the experiment, nor for the person whose administrator account that same sitebanned user had compromised.

Once again MZMcBride has cut policy corners in order to have things his way. This time it involves gross misjudgment in one of our site's most sensitive areas. In order to prevent more problems I request that the arbitrators curtail his ability to seek administrator ops again.

Evidence presented by User:Nagle

There was subtle vandalism going on within the biography articles listed by McBride.

• Ron Hunt (footballer) - see this edit. The edit inserts the claim that Ron Hunt, a football (soccer) player from London, later became an officer of New Leaf Venture Partners. There's a vague citation which mentions a Ron Hunt. Checking the New Leaf Venture Partners web site for their officer bios [21], we find that their Ron Hunt has an MBA from Wharton and came from Coopers and Lybrand (accountants) and the venture capital arm of Credit Suisse. Said edit was later reverted by the original editor, Orderly Conductor (talk · contribs), an account currently blocked as a sock of Thekohser (talk · contribs).

• Petter Schjerven - see this edit. This is by "Orderly Conductor" again, and adds a reference in Norwegian. Someone who reads Norwegian will have to validate that one. Said edit was reverted by "Orderly Conductor" after 2 days.

• Eileen_MacDonagh - see this edit by Byzantium Loved Prague (talk · contribs). That user is now blocked as a sock. This added a claim that the artist had won an award when graduating from USC in 1963. Other sources indicate the artist was born in 1956.[22] Another editor caught the error and reverted.

• András Fejér - see this edit by banned sock Byzantium Loved Prague (talk · contribs). Here, the same editor seems to have inserted a valid piece of information, adding "Notably, he studied Bartok’s music with the violinist Zoltan Szekely", which is confirmed by this New York Times reference. [23] Unless there are two notable Hungarian violinists named András Fejér, it's a good cite. But the reference is mislinked; instead of having a link to the article, it just has a Wikilink to the New York Times. It's been removed from the article, then the remove reverted, by well-established editors who are clearly working to check the validity of the item.

• Patrick_McDonnell_(actor) - see this edit by Bluefish live peacefully (talk · contribs). "Prior to his work in the dramatic arts, McDonnell was an assistant city attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin." (Unlikely, since McDonnell's career has been in Ireland.) This was removed by Trulyequal (talk · contribs). That account was blocked for sockpuppetry after six days of editing, but Trulyequal (talk · contribs) removed the notice that their account was a sockpuppet.[24].

• Anne Katrin Walter - see this edit, inserting bogus info (2008 Miss World contestant cited with book published in 1939) by Big Lovin' Pineapple (talk · contribs). Account blocked as sockpuppet, bogus info reverted.

Remaining to be checked: Omid_Khouraj, Surapong_Kongthep, Tanakorn_Santanaprasit, Lydia_R._Diamond, Omar_Pene, D._W._Rutledge, Jasmin_Stavros, Piotr_Libera, Connor_Byrne, Tony_Bellus, Ced_Gee, Daniel_McConnell, Sylviane_Agacinski, Jaime_Zea.

I have no idea whether McBride was involved in this, encouraged it, or what, but someone now has to dig through every article in McBride's list, and every article edited by related editors, for subtle vandalism. Most of the damage from this exercise in vandalism seems to have been cleaned up, but it's eaten the time of at least half a dozen good editors to do it. --John Nagle (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.