Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:57, 3 April 2009

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Injunction question

"...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)

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  03:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposed motion by Flo

"...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

(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)

Request for clarification

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)

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)

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_adds 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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: , , , , , . 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Earlier proposed extension of MZMcBride's injunction

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)

Principles 7 and 9

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)

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)

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)

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)

FoF 14

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)

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  01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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  22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BRFA

Just a note that MZMcBride has submitted a WP:BRFA at Misplaced Pages: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 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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  22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary desysoping

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Well, unfortunately or not, it doesn't look like the Arbs are inclined to let BK 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 . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)