Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

Statement by Davewild

I urge Arbcom to accept this case. The Administrators noticeboard thread linked above pretty clearly shows that the community has failed to deal with this. Policy is clear that "Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" are not grounds for speedy deletion. Considering the previous MFD where there was not a consensus for deletion and that again policy says that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." it is pretty clear to me that these deletions are against policy. Considering the previous ARBCOM case where MCMcBride was admonished and that it was said in the WP:AN thread that MZMcBride continued deleting the pages after the WP:AN thread was started I feel ARBCOM have to act.

I also disagree that these pages should be deleted at all, as I have said on the WP:AN thread, so this is not just an argument over process but won't repeat that here in order to keep this short. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That MZMcBride continued deleting these pages long after opposition was raised in the WP:AN thread can be seen from some of the entries to his deletion log from earlier today - shown here. Davewild (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Black Kite : If there was a previous arbcom ruling about that admin or it was a pattern, then yes I would say bring it to arbcom. However considering that you personally quickly restored the page so that is no longer a problem and I could not see any previous rulings or a pattern then it is a very different situation behavourly. Considering no argument has been made on how deleting these pages actually improved the encyclopedia but instead just alienated hundreds of editors I think this is the opposite of improving the encyclopedia which is the what WP:IAR is for. Davewild (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Response to Newyorkbrad : A RFC on the issue of whether the pages are appropriate could be good but considering how they are now deleted, it should have taken place before they were deleted so non-admins could see what was being discussed, instead of an admin taking unilateral action. A RFC on user behaviour seems useless considering the prior arbcom ruling and the lack of any understanding of the concerns already raised in the WP:AN thread. Davewild (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Response to Iridescent :Have you checked MZMcBride's talk page, there are plenty of objections there from those whose pages were deleted, as there were on the WP:AN thread. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by Ali'i

The Arbitration Committee previously admonished MZMcBride over wheel warring and acting against consensus. There was no wheel warring here, and there was also no violation of consensus. While it is true that there may not have been a consensus established that these secret pages should be deleted, there is also no consensus that they should not ever be deleted.

MBK004:I'd say that his deletion log message was not inappropriate because he "did not discriminate who received this message"; in fact, I'd say it makes it more appropriate because he's not playing favorites toward long-term editors. You could argue that it was wrong for everybody, but you can't argue that everyone some people should be treated with kid gloves because they've been here a long time (in fact you should probably argue the other way around, if anything).

In the end this is going to come down to being bold and ignoring all rules versus doing things within process. Wikipedia is a project to build a free encyclopedia. That is it. Everything else is superfluous (and expendable). At the top of this edit page, it reads, "The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project." The question remains: do these secret pages actively benefit the encyclopedia? I've noted my position before, but I'll repeat it here: They do not.

I would argue that there are further steps to take before bringing someone to the Arbitration Committee when their only goal was to help the encyclopedia. What about a request for comment on whether or not the secret pages are acceptable? Why a rush to de-sysop someone when the administrator's noticeboard discussion hasn't even finished (still raging at the moment)? Please allow the community time to address the situation before undertaking a case that could result in the loss of a valued administrator. Apologies for length. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to SoWhy

You are creating a false dilemma: He didn't delete Wikipedia or Barack Obama or any other high-level, value-laden articles. --Ali'i 20:59, February 24, 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

GRBerry makes a good point (another venue) I forgot to add in my initial statement: If it was out of process, this should really be handled at deletion review. Arbitration should be the last recourse, no? --Ali'i 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by the_ed17

To start off with, I'd like to say that this is the first time I've participated in anything ARBCOM-related, so apologies for any mistakes.

Now, I was the one who originally started the "MZMcBride and deletion" section (it was moved from AN/I to AN after a few minutes). I didn't start this because I was opposed to the deletions of secret pages, per say (I'd actually vote delete if there was another MfD, and I had forgotten about my secret page a LONG time ago); I was more afraid of precedent being set that 'any admin can speedy and user subpage they want' without consensus being there.

I believe that consensus is probably to the point of deleting secret pages—however, without a clear indication of that consensus, MZM should not be deleting the secret pages. That MfD was closed with "no consensus". How do you derive consensus in February 2009 from a MfD in April 2008 that was closed with no consensus?

I also believe that his deletion summaries were overly offensive for the same reason given by MBK (disclaimer: I am that coord mentioned above).

I do believe that there is one thing left out by MBK. While discussion was ongoing on AN, MZM was still deleting the secret pages, although he changed the edit summary to "made more secret". When I commented on this fact on AN, MZM replied with "All finished now. As I said earlier, fair treatment seems best here." Wouldn't "fair treatment" be to keep the status quo and restore all of the deleted pages until consensus is reached?

To wrap this up, I would like to state that I completely agree with MBK's last paragraph. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(@ Deacon of Pndapetzim) - admins are trusted to override consensus? Um, where is that in WP:CONEXCEPT? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

I agree largely with the case as presented by MBK004. MZMcBride has shown several traits which are undignified for an administrator, his behavior in this case is BITEy and pointy. This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated by any administrator. Let me elaborate:

• MZMcBride was at ANI in similar cases before. In April 2008[1] and in December 2008 he was at AN for running an unauthorized script through his account that deleted old IP talk pages without any policy reason to do so. These deletions, which are still ongoing(!), were not backed up by policy at that time, nor was he allowed to run a bot through his account, both of which he continued to do regardless of the concerns voiced[2] He continued deleting , not even waiting for the discussion to finish.
• Despite a discussion still running that started on February 21[3], he started on February 23[4] to delete hidden pages, although consensus clearly was not established in this matter. Once pressed, he cited a 10-month-old MFD closed as "no consensus" as proof that consensus allegedly exists. Despite being told by multiple admins that his deletions violate WP:CSD and WP:DEL, he continues to delete those pages [5].

No matter what one might think of the kind of pages deleted, this case should be about the way MZMcBride behaved in this and similar situations. He willfully ignored deletion policy to delete pages outside policy, ignoring all appeals for him to stop and discuss the matter. He continued deletion even after concerns were raised that there is no policy that allows this kind of deletion. No matter what is “right”, an admin should stop a task they know leads to controversy and instead discuss with the community. The reason he gave for deletion (example) is unfriendly, rude and insulting editors who spent much time improving Wikipedia. His conduct is unfitting for an administrator of such a project, which relies on communication and people spending their free time without being paid. His actions in this case, but also in those mentioned before (and many others), will likely cost us editors who are fed up to see admins use the tools as they see fit, with disregard of policy and all those who have a different viewpoint.

I know we are short on admins but I for my part don't want to have an admin running around with this kind of behavior. Several cases by this Commitee have time and time again determined that administrators need to be an example to the rest, that their behavior should be more within the rules than the behavior of "normal" users. We cannot expect the rules to be followed if those tasked to enforce them are breaking them willfully and on a large scale. Thus I propose that this Commitee decides to de-sysop MZMcBride for his behavior. Regards SoWhy 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Ali'i

As noted by multiple editors here and at AN, the problem is not what pages were deleted but how. WP:IAR does not take you so far as that you can claim you just thought it's the best for Wikipedia after you know people oppose your actions. If MZMcBride delete articles like Wikipedia or Barack Obama, the problem would be the same. SoWhy 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man

Breach of policy is breach of policy, no matter which page it affects. We cannot accept that an admin goes around breaking policy just because we deem the pages he targets not worthy. If he is not allowed to delete pages, then he should not do it. No matter WHICH pages - I think policy should applied to all admin actions regardless of the target. My point is clear: User:Example/Superhiddensecretpage and Barack Obama are both not speedy deletable per WP:CSD. So why should the first be allowed? This case should not be about the targets but of the behavior (i.e. unwillingness to communicate, unwillingness to stop in face of discussion, insulting deletion reasons etc.) Regards SoWhy 21:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Ali'i (2)

That is not the point. The dilemma is not whether the pages deleted were "valuable" (which is subjective) but whether their deletions were supported by policy. That is why we have a clear set of speedy deletion criteria and more important, we have a section there called Non-criteria that explicitly forbids deletions based on reasons from WP:NOT (like NOTMYSPACE). See my reply to Mr.Z-man as well. Regards SoWhy 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man (2)

It's called a reductio ad absurdum: By your argument, we can delete any page as long as the deleting admin thinks it's best for the encyclopedia. And one admin might think it's best to delete Wikipedia because an article about Wikipedia on Wikipedia is hurting the encyclopedia. Yes, you will say that this has a negative effect but some people may also say that deleting pages created for social interaction hurt an encyclopedia that is based on collaboration. But, and that is the problem, you attack a straw man here. I never argued that those pages should have been kept or deleted. The problem lies that policy forbids deleting these pages without discussion, even if one might not think something negative may come from it. The whole point of this case (and this is what most of those arguing against it fail to acknowledge) is that MZMcBride deleted pages against policy - it does not matter which pages he deleted against policy only that he did so (and of course the insulting deletion reasons and the failure to communicate or reflect even when questioned). Regards SoWhy 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-Man (3)

WP:BLP clearly allows deletion of pages that violate it (that's why we have G10 for example). But WP:CSD clearly says that pages that fall under WP:NOT cannot be speedy deleted. That is clear-cut. Yes, I know WP:IAR is invoked in these cases as a carte blanche but that's not what it is (see WP:IAR?) - if policy says you shouldn't and policy is written consensus, then invoking IAR is effectively ignoring consensus for your own view. I suggest you read the current proposed principles in the SemBubenny case which is currently at voting stage: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed decision#Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed decision#Administrator judgment on issue selection.
But I seem to repeat myself, so let me say this clearly: Although you and a couple of statements and even arbitrators seem to think so, this case is not about the kind of pages deleted. It is about that he a.) did not await an ongoing discussion on AN to reach consensus, b.) used completely inappropriate delete reasons, c.) failed to communicate even when challenged that there is no consensus and d.) continued to delete pages for 12 hours after the issue was raised at AN. I asked you, please, to address the behavior while deleting this pages, not the deletion itself. And I urge all arbitrators to consider the case under this viewpoint and this viewpoint alone. ArbCom does not make rulings on content but on conduct. And the conduct by MZMcBride is the problematic thing here, not the pages he deleted. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mr.Z-man

The discussion at AN, like the secret page MFD, ended with basically no consensus as to whether to delete or keep the pages, though based on a count of the commenters, there was probably a slight majority in favor of deletion/not restoring. I've already lost pretty much all respect for the Arbitration committee after the numerous previous cockups and basically every recent experience I've had when talking with arbitrators about arbitration related things ("blood from a stone" and "star chamber" about sums it up). Before the committee decides to make an example out of MZMcBride (already voting to accept the case just 15 minutes after the parties are informed and before one has a chance to comment? Yeah, who needs due process.), I would point them toward the epic disaster that was the the last time they tried to make an example out of an admin. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@ SoWhy: You're seriously comparing secret pages in userspace to Barack Obama. Please tone down the rhetoric. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, no, see WP:IAR and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is for the difference. Barack Obama is an encyclopedia article and deleting it would be obviously detrimental to the encyclopedia, secret pages are not articles and deletion has, at worst, a neutral effect on the encyclopedia. Mr.Z-man 22:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how IAR works. "The problem lies that policy forbids deleting these pages without discussion" - No it doesn't. That's blatantly false. WP:IAR allows it, IAR is a policy and WP:DELETE does not contain any such bright-line rule. Strawmen are one thing (and its normally not a good thing to mention that your arguments are logical fallacies), but blatantly untrue statements are uncalled for. If you really believe this statement, you'll need to file an RFAR against me. I've deleted several BLPs and BLP-related articles out of process because I didn't want to waste time with an AFD, and I'm going to continue doing so. The context of the page always matters when deciding whether to delete it. This is one of the central aspects of WP:BURO - that rules aren't enforced arbitrarily, but each case is evaluated on its own merits. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@CoolHandLuke, given your implicit agreement on an external site that MZMcBride is actively working against improving BLPs, it seems you already have your mind made up about him. I have grave doubts about your ability or willingness to arbitrate a case about him fairly. Mr.Z-man 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nutiketaiel

I am not very familiar with the Request for Arbitration process, and I don't know if it is acceptable for ordinary uders to submit statements in this manner (if it is not, I beg the committee's indulgence for the impertinence of a humble editor, and implore the learned clerks to delete it without delay). As this is a thread ostensibly dedicated to deciding whether or not the Arbitration Committee will hear the aforementioned case, I will not present my opinions on MZMcBride's "innocence" or "guilt," if such terms can be applied to a matter of this nature. Instead, I draw the committee's attention to the community's response to this incident- significant acrimony at the administrator noticeboard, including extended and, at times, heated debate, which did not induce MZMcBride to halt his actions or seek a consensus. Clearly, the attempt to resolve this dispute on the noticeboard has failed and, given the previous admonishment of MZMcBride by this committee, it is well within your purview to pick up the matter again. I call upon the committee to exercise jurisdiction over this matter without delay to prevent further disruption and debate among the users. Whether you choose to endorse MZMcBride's actions or to discipline him, some action must be taken by this august body regarding his methods (with the decision on whether such articles should qualify under the Speedy Deletion Criteria being, of course, a matter for community discussion and consensus. Thank you for your time and attention. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Mr.Z-man- An Arbitrator making a decision to accept the case is not a statement on the guilt or innocense of any parties, or of that Arbitrator's opinion of the facts of the case. It is simply a statement that that Arbitrator believes the case to be in the purview of the Arbitration Committee and of sufficient gravity to warrant consideration. It is not a decision against MZMcBride, nor is it truely necessary to wait for MZMcBride's response if the nature of the request for arbitration is already evident. MZMcBride will will without doubt have the opportunity fo present his arguements should the case be accepted. I fail to see the reasons behind your concerns. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad- Since you asked, I do not believe that an RfC would have any positive impact on this situation. The discussion at the Administrator Noticeboard had many comments from a diverse group of editors, but did not result in any positive effect; indeed, it did not appear to affec the actions of MZMcBride in any way. Given that, and his prior admonishment by this body, it appears that the Arbitration Committee is the most appropriate- indeed, perhaps the only appropriate- forum for the resolution of this matter. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Coren- His failure to halt his deletion of pages during the discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard appears, to me, to be an "indication that he is unwilling to listen and participate." Individuals were raising legitimate concerns about his actions in an appropriate forum, and he did not halt his actions for the discussion or attempt to reach a consensus. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

WP:IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Given that 99% of these pages served no useful purpose whatsoever (and in many cases were a distraction to improving the encyclopedia), I would say that this was a perfect example of IAR in action. As a corollary, just prior to this another admin unilaterally deleted an article which had just survived AfD. Do I see a RFAR on that one? No. Yet which is the most controversial? (Not that I'm suggesting that one needs an RFAR either - we don't need another Matthew Hoffman or Tango - it's a bit early for the new ArbCom to be making such mistakes). RfC would appear to be the obvious course here. Black Kite 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

Secret pages and other playthings are learning tools, both for the wikipedians playing and the community as a whole, and also with lessons for the software. No individual should ever so lightly judge usefulness and administratively execute his opinion. WP:CSD is deliberately and appropriately specific and restrictive. WP:UP allows considerable leeway for constructive editors to do these things in userspace. WP:MfD exists for a reason. MZMcBride needs a formal admonsihment for his rogue deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV is not a suitable venue for this complaint due to its restrictive scope. DRV is limited to cases where undeletion is the desired outcome, and where a simple request for undeletion is unlikely to be granted. For an innocuous play page, neither condition is likely to hold.

The problem here is behavioural. It a case of prominent user pushing a tad too much against an expectation that established procedure be followed. The seniority of the user and the finality of the actions (alleged bitey deletions) means that this use of our highest forum is appropriate. This is not to say that the outcome here needs to be stern, but it would be good if it were clear.

There is no case for WP:CSD to be widened to include MYSPACE pages. Such pages are usually satisfactorily dealt with by blanking. If not, there’s MfD, which is not at all overrun by SNOW delete cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that MZMcBride, having endured in the spotlight so much criticism, is sufficiently chastened with respect to out-of-process deletions, a mistaken IAR call. About MZMcBride, enough has been said. Let’s close this (add this case to Wikipedia:Village stocks), and move to WP:CSD and/or WP:UP and discuss where we go from here. Are playpages to be tolerated? Are they to be tolerated subject to conditions? Are unacceptable playpages to be spediable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Aitias

As I was one of those who asked ([6]) User:MBK004 for initiating this RFAR, I think it’s appropriate to leave a statement here. I deem User:MZMcBride’s course of action not only absolutely inappropriate, but also abusive par excellence. These deletions —more than 250 in total (cf. [7])— were clearly not covered by any policy. In fact, these actions constitute a clear violation of the speedy deletion policy. In the relevant AN discussion there was broad consent that the correct venue would have been WP:MFD. Also —given such deletion summaries: [8] and [9]— User:MZMcBride did not only violate the deletion policy with his actions, but WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA as well. These summaries towards highly valued contributors like User:.:Alex:. show a conduct entirely unbecoming to an administrator. Taking all these points into account —especially User:MZMcBride’s problematic history as an administrator— the only right course of action is to de-sysop User:MZMcBride infinitely. — Aitias // discussion 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum regarding Newyorkbrad’s question: There’s no point in a RfC here. MZMcBride has had enough chances to change his behaviour already — he failed to do so. As I’ve explained above already, the only right course of action is to de-sysop him infinitely. — Aitias // discussion 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Coren: Despite the massive concerns expressed both at AN and his talk page he did not suspend his activities — this clearly shows that he was absolutely unwilling to listen to them. — Aitias // discussion 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

No relevant user-sub page has been brought to deletion review recently. That would be the usual forum to use by people claiming that the pages actually should still exist. The discussed MFD was closed on 5 April 2008 and no DRV was filed in the month following, nor do I recall any at any time since. GRBerry 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton

I, for one, support the deletion of these secret pages; they serve no purpose whatsoever to the encyclopedia. It's the manner in which MZM deleted the pages—without consensus and against policy—that I'm concerned about. In addition, the deletion summaries were rather rude, and bordered on personal attacks. I have no opinion as to whether he violated the admonishment set in place by the Committee last year, but I do believe this needs to be looked into. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• To Newyorkbrad: You can use {{hidden}}. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Appears to be  Done by Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

After review of the section on WP:AN I see that there has been a RfAR initiated, and I have of course hurried over to plaster my opinion upon it; I strongly suggest there is no basis for a request to be accepted - MZMcBride has not acted against consensus since it is apparent from the discussion that no consensus exists, and MZMcBride has not wheelwarred over the deletion (and no-one has wheelwarred with him) of these pages. I would also suggest that it is not for the ArbCom to consider whether "secret pages" should be deleted, as deciding consensus is not within their remit. I suggest that the question of the validity of such pages be returned to the community, and the question of MZMcBrides actions be discussed within that debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RMHED

This RFAR is unmitigated shite. We're not talking about IAR deletions of articles but hidden pages in user space. Did the deletion of these hidden pages in any way negatively effect the content of the encyclopedia? Arbcom surely have better things to do than accept this nonsensical case. RMHED. 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hiberniantears

As someone who disagreed with MZMcBride at the AN thread, I definitely don't think his actions warrants taking away the mop. I think he could have used better process, and shown established users more courtesy while deleting things out of their user space. If a bunch of admins question my admin actions, I take that into account. He should have as well. Aside from that, I think even a large number of people who disagreed with the manner of the deletions had little issue with the deletions themselves. To be honest, I don't think MZMcBride needs to be sanctioned, but that someone needs to decide if the type of page that was being deleted should be deleted. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Viridae

Wasn't going to comment, think the whole thing is a rather pointless waste of time for all parties. However clarification for MZMcBride: The MfD decision applies to only the pages listed within the decision. The reason that MfD was messy was because of it being a mass nom with false positives (you yourself deleted at least one page that didn't fit the normal criteria, ie myspacey), therefore how you think an already messy MfD, which was closed as "decide on a case by case basis" (ie no consensus for mass deletion) can apply as an extension to the list of secret pages you amassed is a bit hard to grasp. Furthermore, since these pages mostly weren't (except for the Fake secret pages ie this) deleted through a deletion discussion, CSD G4 calso cannot apply, since they have never been deleted through a deletion discussion in the first place. (Now if they were and recreated under the same concept but without the same content - ie still a myspacey waste of time, then I would happily deleted them under the spirit of the original discussion) Viridae^Talk 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Coren, it is being asserted he didn't listen to arbcom last time, are you disagreeing?

A modest proposal by Durova

Two factors are currently propelling this case toward acceptance, and they're resolvable.

1. MZMcBride uses the tools in a controversial way.
2. He continues to use the tools in a controversial way while other people express concerns.

If he agrees to suspend controversial actions for a conduct RFC, then there would be a reasonable and structured way to find out what the community's consensus really is in these areas. And other points raised in this RFAR could get addressed there too.

If that resolves matters, so much the better. If problems resume, then a second RFAR would open and probably meet quick acceptance. I'll be posting to his user talk to suggest this; he seems open to RFC as an alternate resolution. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: MZMcBride has agreed to suspend controversial uses of the tools during conduct RFC: User_talk:MZMcBride#A_modest_proposal. Due to off-wiki commitments it'll be about 4 or 5 days before he can give an RFC much of his time. He asks for a delay in opening it as a cool-down. If people want to go ahead and start it immediately, please be understanding about a few days' delay before he becomes active there. Here's hoping this is reasonably acceptable.

For those who want arbitration now, bear in mind that policy determinations are outside the Committee's mandate. In past cases the Committee has returned policy issues to the community if there isn't clear community consensus where the policy boundaries actually are, and the Committee has been reluctant to act upon complaints that hinge on those gray areas it asks the community to resolve.

So on both sides, this looks like a workable solution. It may resolve the issues, and at least it'll clear the air. Durova^Charge! 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Having made a fair effort to pursue other dispute resolution, I have no objection to a case opening. I share a fair number of the concerns expressed by other Wikipedians, yet hoped matters could either be resolved by other means or at least with less drama. If anyone thinks the attempt to pursue alternatives colors the neutrality of this action, they are welcome to undo it. Best wishes to all, Durova^Charge! 20:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

I might phrase it differently but pretty much what RHMED said. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this, what the hell is this doing at Arbcom? This kind of situation is exactly what RFC is intended for, not the "User:X was mean to me" complaints that usually fill it up. And have any of the creators of the pages in question actually complained about this? – iridescent 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

If the Committee choose to open this case, which would be probably the worst and most pointless decision they've made since January when the new Committee was formed, I remind them to consider the behaviour of all parties - ie. they must consider admonishing the Myspacing pre-teen-acting time-wasters who have started all this mess with their incompetence, immaturity, and general idiocy. The Arbitration Committee is surely above turning a blind eye to such clowning about and disruption while providing an unjustified lynching for an administrator - or, is it going to return to the bad old days again?

The choice is yours, Arbitrators. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by xeno

I should probably point out that I restored a number of these pages where the users protested based on this permissive comment from MZM. –xeno (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest acceptance - MZM and I have certainly had our disagreements, but I think that in the end he does have the best interests of the project at heart and does a lot of good work: he just swings his mop a little too much like an axe at times; and tends to continue swinging even when others are crying "stop"!. I would urge the committee to accept this per Coren "in lieu of an RFC" as an RFC may generate more heat than light. –xeno (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Tombomp

Unilateral deletion simply is not on. As the first sentence of WP:CSD states, Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion. If a page has not had a deletion discussion or policy relating to it before and is outside of the usual CSD rules, it does not get deleted without discussion. IAR does not mean "do whatever you want" - these secret pages aren't improving the encyclopedia, but they're not doing any harm. Deleting pages in user space outside of these limits, some that aren't even real secret pages, is a pretty stupid thing to do.

As a note, I think secret pages are absolutely stupid and pointless, but the MFD quoted above was inconclusive and no clear consensus has appeared about it since. Best thing to do is start a discussion.

Comment/Question from Conti

MZMcBride was "strongly admonished" not to take "administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus" (amongst other things) less than half a year ago. Does the arbitration committee (or anyone else, for that matter) think that an RfC will achieve what a strong admonishment apparently did not manage to do? --Conti|✉ 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Misza13

WTF is going on here? Crap is being deleted in an efficient fashion. And since when does a bunch of myspacers count as consensus? Following this logic we could have any minority (once it's built its ranks to significant numbers) establish any absurd "consensus" (this is btw one of the shortcomings of our system). Nothing to see here, move along (and let those willing to shovel the crap do their job, thank you). Миша13 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute

I've seen MZMcBride's admonishment in the Sarah Palin arb case come up a few times as a justification for this case. It says, of course, that MZMcBride is not to engage in wheel warring, or to act against consensus. Obviously this is not a wheel war, thus leaving the latter complaint. Having read the thread on WP:AN, I do not see any evidence that he has acted against any kind of consensus, thus, I do not feel he has violated the admonishment given to him by arb com. If anything, there is an admittedly weak consensus that these pages don't belong. The only question, really, is whether WP:IAR is a valid rationale for speedy deletion of these myspace pages. At this point, I think an RFC is preferable to RfArb, thus support Durova's proposals. This rush to create an Arbcom case strikes me as little more than a witch hunt at this point. Resolute 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

It appears that at least one of MZMcBride's log summaries was clearly inappropriate and therefore, unacceptable. I would suggest suspending his admin privileges for at least a couple of months for that reason. I think you could accomplish that with a quick motion instead of opening a full-blown case. Otherwise, I don't believe any of the other issues here fall under ArbCom's purvue. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Who then was a gentleman?

Much ado about nothing. Move along and write an encyclopedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Seems a bit ridiculous that this was even proposed. Those who are opposed to the actions of this administrator have glommed upon a year-old mass MfD discussion to claim that MZMcBride has taken "administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus". The problem is that there was no consensus reached in that long-ago discussion, so the present day actions cannot really be said to be in the wrong. Bypassing bureaucratic process and taking on the task of cleaning up the cruft of facebook-like social sub-pages should be acknowledged as a necessary act to get this junk gone, rather than being nibbled to death by cats at ArbCom. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I'm a stringent reviewer, whether it's in article assessment, or reviewing actions taken by administrators. My view is that while there are things that need to be discussed by the community (both in content and conduct), there is no urgency for a case or motion at this point beyond simply following the dispute resolution process - filing an RfC/U and letting it run its natural course. But for goodness sake, do not do something like "open the case then suspend it for XX days until RfC/U is done" - no more Hoffman-type cases please.

This is not caused by blocks, or protections on major areas of content. This is caused by (what appears to me) a petty dispute over whether certain user pages should exist or not. While this does involve community 'concerns', this now has more people's attention to undergo a wider community discussion. There is nothing else to think about but rejecting this request.

(NB: one doesn't just need time to listen to community input during the RfC/U, but needs to be given time afterwards to try to comply with those expectations. In this case, there is nothing exceptional to justify straying from that community-endorsed norm.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I also happen to agree with the comment accompanying Stephen's vote. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Having spoken to MZMcBride about this matter (including noting the several incidents), arbitration is inevitable. But, CHL's vote will need to be revised as I consider that the proportions found in the tally (11/4/1/0) already signals trouble, in the light of Mr.Z-man's objection (although I'm not sure of the details myself).

And as a general point, perhaps particularly for those arbitrators who conveniently cited 'battleground at RfC' as a reason for accepting, if it did turn into a battleground, it would've been as much to do with content as it did with conduct - ArbCom are not doing any favours if they have convinced themselves that they're reducing drama by skipping RfC. To be blunt, doing so is a net negative for the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved FT2

MZMcBride is strong-headed and impetuous, and greatly follows what he believes over what others might feel. However despite all that, he has a clue, and to be honest Wikipedia is not about secret pages, it's not MySpace and sometimes strong action isn't a bad thing. I've also noticed many times myself, that he is strong willed and has often got strong views on wiki-matters. In the past this has led to contentious situations. However on balance he is an experienced, committed, and valued member of the community, and I personally have no doubt his actions are all in good faith.

It's a difficult balance. If nothing is done then surely others will point to it as "overlooking blatant problem conduct" or to justify WP:OTHERSTUFF, and it may be seen as encouraging snarky comments and bull-headedness -- but equally we don't want to neuter administrators who do make reasonable judgement calls on big issues. Wikipedia is premised on the idea that people with a clue who can work together, need not agree on everything, and may indeed act BOLDly to improve the project. But some listening is needed, and this is an admin who sometimes doesn't listen to others - and being part of the community and listening, is a critical part of the admin role.

This is probably a case where reaching agreement is better than hitting with a stick. MZMcBride needs to hear from his colleagues in the community if there is a consensus that his actions were markedly good or bad, or how they are seen. He probably needs to say what regard he will pay if his future actions are seen as too unilateral or give rise to concerns. On that basis, this seems like a classic case for declining in favor of RFC.

However if the case is accepted, I'd urge the Committee and MZMcBride to take the unusual step of engaging in email dialog before any other step, to see if a common understanding of acceptable bounds can be reached. While not the punitive or judgemental action some will desire, it has the advantage of being a genuine attempt at dispute resolution. It would also clarify whether more stringent measures are needed, if no agreement can be reached going forward.

On a side, this is almost a defining case for the community:- to what extent is only a consensus decision allowed, and to what extent is BOLD and IAR still valid for improving the encyclopedic focus at a stroke (even if it may upset other users). That balance needs some thought, it's the underlying question behind the matter. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment to TomStar81 -- Every process can be reviewed and appealed; WP:DRV for deletions, for example. I don't agree with your comment ("no editor on wikipedia should be deprived of their content- encyclopedic or otherwise - without due process of the system"), since 1/ it isn't "their" content, 2/ "Just any content" has never been appropriate, 3/ we aren't a court and we don't do "due process" in the sense it is done by courts. Due process here is governed much more by WP:CLUE, a somewhat more informal process based much more on case-by-case judgement than the expression would usually imply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jennavecia

Stopping by between reading my book and tending to my garden... Ya know, those things people do after they retire. ;) I'll head back out here in a moment, but I just wanted to point out how stupid I think this is. Walking away from one's self-appointed responsibilities on this project brings great perspective. A few weeks ago, it wouldn't surprised me to see such an incident being brought to ArbCom. Now, however, it's sad.

LONG VERSION

I frequently got categorized as "MySpacey" — partly because of my "better than a myspace" userpage; and partly because of my desire to socialize, including hosting a joke cabal, between making improvements to the project, of course — but I was never the kind of "MySpacey" editor that didn't edit with the understanding that this is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a social networking "fun" site. That said, when it comes down to it, what is being argued over here? The deletion of some "secret" pages. Well, guess what? The secret's out. The secret being... wait for it... this is stupid. Pay attention to the next sentence: This project is about building an encyclopedia. With that in mind, why are we (and by "we", I mean "you") arguing over the deletion of some silly, secret pages that do nothing to improve the project? Why are some calling for the bit of an admin that's been prolific in clearing backlogs? Can any of you really, upon thinking rationally, say that MZMcBride's "controversial" admin actions, amongst all of this admin actions, render him a liability to the project if he's got the admin bit?

I'm all for humor and socializing, but these secret pages, like those pointless guest books and "signature pages", serve absolutely no meaningful purpose whatsoever. This project is plagued by a BLP issue. It shamefully kicks experts and academics to the curb while allowing long-term, abusive admins (and MZMcBride doesn't even come close to being "abusive" in the sense I mean) to continue on misbehaving. There's a long list of unresolved issues that this project needs to be spending time fixing. Unfortunately, as I've previously noted, it's practically impossible to gain consensus for anything significant on this project, particularly when it comes to policy making. That is a problem in and off itself and, ironically, the "MySpacey" editors, in my opinion, often contribute to that problem. But I digress. Any editor who is seriously here to build an encyclopedia shouldn't be concerned with the deletion of such a page. Seriously. Think about it. With no policy or guideline to go by, it seems to fall into the realm of common sense that these pages are not helpful to the project. And given the modern reversibility of all administrator actions, it's really a waste of time to invest this much effort into requested the bit of a hardworking and dedicated admin.

SHORT VERSION

I understand, especially given my history of having been thrust into similar situations, that some editors fear such bold administrative actions that deal with issues outside of any current policy. However, given the nature of the encyclopedia and its technical abilities, I am increasingly finding that excessive amounts of attention are being placed on easily undoable actions, while at the same time, decreasing amounts of attention are being placed on, what I feel, are more pressing issues. For example, while a handful of deletions can be undone, a handful of missteps in our BLP policy are significantly less undoable.

RFAR, at least to me, seems like a venue of last resort in issues that truly have no other resolution, and, at least in my opinion, I'm not sure that this is the case here. If someone feels that their page was mistakenly deleted, then DRV has traditionally been the route to go. Perhaps if there were numerous DRVs, a significant majority of which resulted in overturning deletions, then there would be something to talk about; however, as it stands, I don't think that's been shown. لennavecia 07:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved TomStar81

I have never in my time on wikipedia concerned myself with the arbcom process, however in the wake of the comments left by RMHED (talk · contribs), Daniel (talk · contribs), and Misza13 (talk · contribs) I am compelled to break my silence at arbcom and voice in the loudest terms possible a plea for arbcom to accept this case. This goes beyond the issue of secret pages, we have hear an issue of power without oversight. In all respects this encyclopedia has made for its users an honest and open attempt to provide each person, be it an anon or a tenured user with the checks and balances to ensure that ever process can be reviewed and every action can be appealed. In a disturbing move away from this trend I now find that the users I have mentioned above are embracing a policy devoid of any check or balance to ensure fairness under our policies and guidelines.

This is inexcusable in all respects; no editor on wikipedia should be deprived of their content- encyclopedic or otherwise - without due process of the system. If the deletion of Esperanza was brought about by that one organizations unwillingness to be open and transparent to all members at all times, then the same standards must also be held to all other aspects of the encyclopedia, regardless of there encyclopedic value. Open and transparent does not mean mass deleting user-pages without an afd, those deprived of due process will demand that such actions be undone, and if not reversed in due course then disgruntled and angry users will leave. Once those user leave, we can discover for ourselves exactly how the deletion of the pages negatively effects the encyclopedia.

Regardless of the outcome it is the job of arbcom to look into this: all members of this committee were elected to deal with exactly this type of controversial editing. Content is not the issue here, the issue is the complete disregard of due process on wikipedia. If this case is not accepted by arbcom then I for one will have lost all faith in due process on wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Protonk

Unrelated to the content mess (secret pages, no secret pages), Arbcom must take up the administrative problem. Administrators simply CANNOT delete pages which do not meet a speedy deletion criteria because they feel like it except in extreme and obvious cases. Period. End of story. Where an administrator does so in the face of obvious, vocal and varied opposition, Arbcom has a duty to step in. Even if there were no previous MfD's (the ones that exist offer no blanket provision to delete "secret" pages on sight, by any reading of them) and even if there were no dissenters, unilateral deletion is a clear violation of the deletion policy and an abuse of the tools. To avoid action would leave us with a class of users whose opinions about a certain class of content are much more important than anyone else's opinions. That is contrary to the spirit and letter of WP:ADMIN and cancerous for the community.

An RfC is unlikely to be helpful here as the community has a habit of conflating content issue with conduct issues and it would simply devolve into pro and con. Regardless, the RfC process presents no real teeth--it serves as a good way for people to talk through things but it seems to be more therapeutic for the speaker than instructive for the listener.

Response to various comments on DR and DRV

I'm seeing a refrain that DRV is the proper venue to contest the legitimacy of the deletions. I agree that taken piecemeal, DRV is a great way to determine whether or not a deletion was within policy (or otherwise sensible). However the implication here is that I would be forced to take all of his speedies to DRV and determine the propriety of all of them at once (either through multiple threads or through a bundled nomination). This is a poor use of the DRV process if I presume that all of his deletions were meritless and I want to argue that the stated assumptions behind them generated all of these deletions. DRV is not designed to handle that question. And even if we could have a DRV without forcing that discussion, the outcome in DRV doesn't match the process. Let me explain. DRV judges process, not outcome but can impact only outcome. In other words, the nominator requests relief from an out of process deletion but the remedy is to reverse the outcome. So I can have a discussion at DRV for each of those secret pages and overturn each of those deletions but the outcome is just that--the pages now exist. Arguably MZMcBride would receive some quasi-formal signal from the community that his deletions are out of process and unwanted, but don't we have that already? Didn't we have that at the original moment of decision? And fundamentally, the state of those pages is the least important part of this request. No one is arguing that Arbcom should step in and only reinstate all of these secret pages. We are asking arbcom to do what the community cannot--specifically what DRV cannot do, rein in the actions of an administrator. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fritzpoll

My summary:

• Clearly the deletions were controversial, since there have been so many complaints from uninvolved parties
• Clearly administrators are meant to be subject to oversight by others
• Clearly the community is handling this process: the AN/ANI discussions and the fact that pages are being undeleted on request is a sign that the damage, such as it is, is being undone

I submit that normal community process has functioned correctly - we have the prospect of an RfC that will provide an opportunity for grievances to subside, and there is no lasting damage to Wikipedia or its contributors as a result of MZM's actions. His prior admonishment was for conduct in a visible part of Wikipedia that could perceivably impact on its reputation, and this just doesn't compare.

To conclude: prior dispute resolution hasn't fully been explored, and arbitration seems very premature when the issue itself has been managed.

Comment by befuddled Wikidemon

Perhaps I have some standing because I posted the original notice to WP:AN that precipitated this mess.[10] I was concerned not so much that some obviously young (or young at heart) Wikipedians were wasting a little time and bandwidth, but that games like this had the potential of mutating and getting out of hand and causing some real damage if unchecked. At the same time, people seemed to be really enjoying this harmless fun, and I did not want to be a killjoy. In the AN discussion that followed there was a general agreement (I think) that these pages were a technical policy violation and something to discourage, but also some very serious, heartfelt argument that summarily deleting the pages would likely hurt the project by alienating some of our most enthusiastic young editors, treating them a WP:BITE-y officiousness that is the exact opposite of what we need to do to encourage people to help build an encyclopedia. Enthusiastic but misguided youngsters are to be welcomed, cultivated, and guided, not rebuffed. That was the tone of the discussion, anyway.

Under the circumstances, the mass deltion of these pages was utterly inappropriate, and carried about with a rude haughty glee that is just wrong. I don't see how anyone can read the WP:AN discussion to decide that there is a consensus for a mass speedy deletion. IAR means doing uncontroversial things for the better of the encyclopedia - it's ignore all rules, not ignore all concerned administrators. Anyone who breaks rank like that, and refuses to stop, is essentially going rogue on us. That doesn't mean they're an unfit administrator, it just means they did something we can't afford if we're going to have an orderly project.

I don't see what good an RfC is going to accomplish. The comments have already been made at WP:AN, and the RfC is going to produce the same result. A majority will say that some or all of these pages should be deleted, but that it should be done with civility, caution, and respect. A majority will say that administrators should not take matters into their own hands in the middle of an active deliberation by other administrators, should listen to each other, should not taunt those at the receiving end of administrative tools, and that MZMcBride specifically should be more careful. It's really up to MZMcBride. This could all be handled better, and if he/she is amenable to being more careful next time I think the whole issue goes away. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seicer

Seriously? This is at RFAR? Per IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Given that there was no consensus upon the deletion of the "secret" pages, and that these "secret" pages served no useful purpose and were a distraction towards the improvement of the encyclopedia, then I am in agreement with others in that this was a good example of IAR in action. What will this accomplish? What good will this serve? To allow any and all editors to post whatever garbage they want on their respective page and to use it as a web-host? seicer | talk | contribs 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

Ignoring concerns raised by several editors and at an appropriate venue, and carrying on with controversial admin actions while those actions are being discussed by the community is a really, really bad idea, and in my opinion does nothing to help encyclopædia building. I am no fan of secret pages, but it seems to me to be somewhat Gradgrindish to insist on their deletion on sight, as MZMcBride appears to have been doing. Editors are human beings, and human beings need venues to let of steam and relax - this is true whether you are in a paid job or doing something voluntarily. Wikipedia needs to recruit and retain volunteers - and it is impossible to do that if volunteering is not, in some way or at some times, fun. I think MZMcBride displayed very poor judgement in continuing his deletions in the face of community concerns, and I also think (a seperate issue) that the over-emphasis on enforcing WP:NOT is damaging to the community and thus to the encyclopædia. ArbCom have encouraged an examination elsewhere of reasons for incivility and discussion of how to improve the editing atmosphere - and it strikes me that one way to improve the atmosphere and improve civility is to waste less time on stamping on people's toys, and spend more time talking to them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re: RegentsPark's statement below (and I think several others below and above) - the ends justify the means eh? No, they don't. They don't ever. In this particualr case, MZMcBride has caused disruption far beyond any caused by the secret pages themselves, so even if we did accept the morally bankrupt claim of ends justifying means, he has in fact not achieved the alleged aims. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim

Not that the arbcom are God, but the result hoped for by MZMcBride's opponents is would be punitive, vengeful and arbitrary, and such a scenario brings the following verse from Holy Willie's Prayer to mind:

O Thou, that in the heavens does dwell,

As it pleases best Thysel',

Sends one to Heaven an' ten to Hell,

For Thy glory,

And not for any or ill

They've done before Thee!

It absolutely drives me bonkers that enforcement of WP:IAR is always so risky to the person doing it, and that there's no meaningful pattern behind who gets praised and who gets punished besides how much opposition is aroused. Well, let me remind everyone that WP:CONSENSUS is one of the policies WP:IAR overrules, and so when it does so this is exactly what is expected. Think. MZMcBride has nothing personally to gain by doing this. Think. MZMcBride only took on personal risk by doing this. Think. Punishing MZMcBride for doing this would undermine WP:IAR. An admin is trusted to override WP:CONSENSUS, as any other policy, when he thinks doing so will benefit the encyclopedia. If ArbCom can do anything about this, they should clarify the rules on the user page issues in question, without undermining WP:IAR. At worst, they should restrict MZMcBRide from deleting user space pages if and only if they have judged his deletion of these pages damaged the encyclopedia (and thus that MZMcBride misinterpreted the policy).

We don't have WP:CONSENSUS to allow the people who come here and open accounts to do what they want with their userspace just because they can mobilise numbers in the right places. The people giving MZMcBride a hard time over this really ought to have a little think about what wikipedia is, and then try to explain why MZMcBride should be punished for a matter entirely unrelated to article content, for trying to stamp out a practice that if not contrary to the purposes of an online encyclopedia certainly doesn't help it. It seems that many users are exploiting preservation-prejudiced article-based policies like Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, leaching wikipedia's resources, in order to facilitate the growth of a myspace-type culture that does little save undermine this encyclopedia. Just because groups of people gather together in particular pages exclaiming the correctness of this doesn't mean it is correct, and frankly it is a good thing they have a guy like MZMcBride overruling them. Looking at this as an outsider, MCMcBride has a clue, his opponents in general don't. This often happens on wikipedia. Experience and understanding is possessed by some more than others, and one of the reasons we have WP:IAR is so that good experienced users can do clue-ish things contrary to meaningless periodic consensuses. So good luck to him. Please, ArbCom, if you decide you have to vote on this then use your unlimited powers to help further the goals of this encyclopedia, not undermine those who in good faith try to further them. If MZMcBride has other issues, then deal with them when they are properly raised, not to invalidate actions which a larger number of respectable wikipedians regard as acceptable than don't. And also harken to the wise counsel of FT2. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to NYB's megapost

I don't think you are correct that the level of sensitivity from new users to such pages being deleted is quite that high, nor if it were that we should respect it beyond the normal friendliness and politeness that should always accompany explaining rules to new users. People learn in life that organizations have rules and processes and expect to get corrected on such things when they are new. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Llywrch

IMHO, the working consensus on secret pages, autograph pages, userboxes, & other Wikigames appears to be as follows. If this is all you do on Wikipedia, your account will be banned & these contributions will be deleted. If you make some useful edits, but also participate in this foolishness, they will be tolerated (which is different from "allowed"). If you make a lot of useful edits &/or contributions, while participating in this foolishness, other Wikipedians will be very puzzled. Otherwise, these pages are tolerated because editors & Admins have better things to do than to worry about this kind of otherwise harmless activity. Making an organized effort to delete them -- either thru WP:AfD or WP:IAR -- results in more wikidrama & trouble than they are worth.

About the only reason I can think of for the ArbCom to take notice of this matter is whether they want to start enforcing WP:CIVILITY with this complaint against MZMcBride. It could be argued that he was incivil here. But if the ArbCom wants to decide in this matter, then every time someone is brusque or is bold on this project, they will be hauled before the ArbCom, whether doing that is mere harassment or is justified. My advice is that you guys really don't want to open that can of worms -- unless you want more cases to read thru & make decisions on. Tell everyone to wait until at least one RfC has been completed. -- llywrch (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Werdna

Why do we care? Can we do something useful, now? — Werdna • talk 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion from Jehochman

I suggest we implement a requirement--donate $50 to the Foundation--for anyone wishing to post further comments. I am paid up. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mailer Diablo

What's next, Userpage Wars? Doesn't this remind us of the Userbox Wars and the subsequent carnage that we ended up with years back? Both parties should think if these kinds of wars are even worthy to wage in the first place. Whatever the outcome of this filing turns out to be, I urge for calm between all parties, and please don't escalate things elsewhere. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

This RFAR is a manifest waste of the community's, and the Arbitration Committee's time. I have no concerns about the actions MZ has undertaken on this occasion - I think that he has been proactive in dealing with the issue, that no discussion on "secret pages" and other such things will ever resolve them as people get needlessly protective of what they think is "theirs" irrespective of its (lack of) value to the encyclopaedia (see e.g. [11] under the "deleted cabals" section), and similar lack of consensus backed up the removal of WP:BJAODN around 18 months ago and no calls for people's heads were undertaken then. We have few enough volunteers willing to work in cleanup tasks, especially more controversial (!) ones. As I'm tired and grumpy (mountains of college work with no end in sight do that to you :), so read my comments as agreeing with Seicer, Jennavecia, FT2, Deacon, Werdna and Seicer (and likely others of a similar view) in their entirety. Orderinchaos 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Regent Spark

This is likely too late but this is precisely the kind of case that should be rejected by arbcom. A bunch of pointless user pages that have the possible side-effect of turning wikipedia into some sort of game site; an admin who takes decisive action and deletes them out of hand; only to end up censured and possibly punished. You can't run a vast semi-anarchic organization like this one without a bunch of people who are willing to act quickly and decisively. Punish this admin and the next time someone runs across a bunch of 'secret gamers', they'll just say 'why bother' and move on. The net results of MzMcbride's action were only positive, that a pointless activity was nipped in the bud, and it's best left at that. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 02:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved MickMacNee

Maybe MzMcbride needs to rethink his recall requirements. I can see just on this page alone, five of his fellow admins who might be willing to sign it, over something that clearly the majority see as a no harm no foul situation. And I haven't even looked at the ANI page, nor as he suggested, actually counted arbitrators (I doubt they would ever do something as simple as sign a recall page - way too controversial). MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

I got asked about this yesterday, and I replied something to the effect that I wasn't really following the drama. I've had a bit of a think about it since. Generally speaking, MZM isn't a bad guy. Sure, he is rather obtuse and jumpy, and often over-reaches, but I think he has the project's best interests at heart. He's just human like the rest of us. And he has made a few mistakes, in the form of false positives in his regex (e.g. User:Dr. Blofeld/Blofeld's Secret Note Pad). Secret pages as they stand... I'm kind of against them. There's the good type of socialising on Wikipedia—for example, I often talk to thedemonhog about each week's Lost because we both edit Lost articles—and the type that's not that good; I'm not really convinced that secret pages are the best way to spend time on Wikipedia. The only plus I can think is that it stimulates the grey cells, which makes Wikipedia a little bit smarter. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MBisanz

Well mathematically this case will be accepted, so this statement probably doesn't mean that much, but after several days of thinking about this whole situation, I decided to comment. It is known that MZM and I don't get along on many issues, but do work together despite our differences. If there was an RFC, I would probably urge him to communicate more, seek consensus more, and respond in a gentler manner. I would suggest Arbcom not take this case as this time as it distinctly looks like the following sequence "Admin annoys large group of people; large group of people go from AN to Arbcom; Arbocm acts". Even in highly controversial cases like Badlydrawnjeff, there were at least DRVs before Arbcom took the case. So far, there have been no DRVs on this matter, no RFCs on MZM or on the concept of secret pages, and a distinct lack of efforts to resolve the situation at lower levels. I fear that if this case results in sanctions on MZM, more users will bypass the lower levels of DR and come straight to Arbcom. While people say RFCs never accomplish anything, I have in my time seen several editors reformed through constructive criticism at RFCs. Given the lack of urgency with this matter (if it was urgent, I would expect to see a temporary desysop pending resolution of the case), I don't exactly see the rush here.

Also, from the below comments it appears Arbcom is interested in examining all of MZM's behavior. If the Arbs could explicitly define whether or not they are interested in the behavior of people who created secret pages or MZM's behavior prior to the Sarah Palin case, that might aid in evidence presentation. Also, further defining the concepts touched upon in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Struggle, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Karma, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Guidelines with regard to MZM's activities on the MediaWiki sister site might be useful. MBisanz ^talk 08:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved 140.247.38.208

I am not an active Wikipedia contributor but I do spend time reviewing the articles and issues internal to Wikipedia. This is a rare time that I comment. I feel that MZMcBride makes lots of useful contributions to Wikipedia and has, up until now, been a valuable asset. However, it appears to me that he has either burned out or is deliberately causing problems. A mandatory vacation from administrative duties, up to and including desysoping for a period of time, would serve both him and Wikipedia quite well. I wish you a swift resolution to this issue. 140.247.38.208 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)