Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence

Clarification requested

Coren stated when he accepted:

Please note that I will have absolutely no tolerance to editors misusing the case…to air a shopping list of past grievances about "bad" administrative actions. The case should focus on long term patterns, not individual incidents…The clerks will be instructed to police the evidence and workshop cases closely and sternly…

Perhaps some more guidance would be helpful as to what past actions will be allowed to be mentioned, and what would incur Coren's wrath? Mike R (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the Committee are currently working on a statement surrounding the scope of this case, which will hopefully provide the guidance that you are looking for. I regret that this statement is not currently available, and can only ask for your patience while this statement is prepared. Many thanks, Gazi moff 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scope statement is at the top of the evidence page, and has been there since the case was posted. Risker (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed it, but I think that Coren's statement, specifically the part I quoted above about how "past grievances about 'bad' administrative actions" will not be allowed, seems to paint the scope a bit narrower. That's why I asked for clarification. Mike R (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There can be subtle differences in framing between individual arbitrators' opinions and that of the committee as a whole. In this particular case, they align fairly well: what I meant (and still mean) is that discussion about whether an administrative action of MZMcBride's was correct or not is only welcome insofar as it relates to his behavior in general and not as a discussion on the action itself. The canonical example in this case is the incident which prompted the case: whether deletion of user's so-called "secret pages" was correct or not is not the point and will not be examined by the committee, while MZMcBride's handling of the issue may be.

In other words, the committee is not interested in (nor is it within its remit to) examine whether any of his past actions were "correct". — Coren ^(talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So contrasting this with the SemBubenny case, a finding including words like "SemBubenny believed in good faith that these articles were unencyclopedic, but many of them did not fall within the criteria for speedy deletion, and many of the deletions were unaccompanied by a clear rationale." might be right or wrong in relation to some actions of MZMcBride's but it wouldn't be in the committee's remit to say so? Why not? Or have I misunderstood and a finding along those lines would be possible? 87.254.80.49 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I may wind up proposing a finding very similar to that in this case, so presumably evidence supporting or rebutting its content would be within the scope. I think the point of the "scope" statement is primarily to make clear that the Arbitration Committee will not include either "hidden/secret pages are an abomination unto the wikigods and may be deleted without warning by any administrator" or "hidden/secret pages are the soul of wit, and are eligible for promotion to featured article" among the findings or remedies in this case. In other words, as always, we don't make content rulings (for the userspace equivalent of "content"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broader deletion concerns

The "secret user page" deletions that are the subject of this proceeding are one aspect of what I believe is a regrettably cavalier approach to deletions, adherence to our policies and interactions with other registered users.

On 1 March, User:MZMcBride deleted approximately 8,000 pages, deleting continuously throughout the 24-hour period. (5000-edit user logs:[1][2]) Either he was running an unauthorized bot on his main account in contravention of our bot policy or else he was drinking a lot of Red Bull. A whole lot of Red Bull in fact, since, editing around the clock, he deleted another 13,000 pages during the immediately preceding 43-hour period. (More 5000-edit user logs: [3][4][5])

I first became aware of MZMcBride's frenzied/automated deletions in an unrelated incident when he deleted a number of spammer IP talk pages on my watchlist in January. While technically within his rights in accordance with our user page guideline for deleting old IP pages, this was creating difficulties for WikiProject Spam efforts to track spammer accounts and warnings over time. After restoring spammer talk pages for several days^[6], I finally left him a message; see User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 13#Spam-tracking pages. He continued deleting pages anyway and I kept leaving him messages, puzzled as to why he would continue deleting pages and not even respond. Finally, several hundred page deletions and 3 hours later, he finally replied and you can read the exchange for yourself. This continued at Wikipedia talk:User page# OLDIP (permanent link); eventually he grudgingly conceded to not delete pages containing one of three keywords. From his comments,^[7] he clearly wasn't even reading these IP talk pages.

A review of his 2009 edits in User talk space shows little or no interaction with authors of user space material he's been deleting.^[8] His talk page deletions have not all been anonymous IP pages; see his string of secret page deletions late 23 February 2009.^[9] I see no evidence he bothered to explain the issues to the editors involved, some of whom have been useful contributors.^{[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]} I believe he's probably deleted 100,000 to 300,000 pages so far in 2009 but I got tired of loading 5000-edit log pages after looking at less than a week of deletions.

Looking at MZMcBride block log, he's had a Red Bull problem for some time, having been blocked before for running unapproved scripts on his main account.^[19] Given the fact that previous blocks and admonitions from fellow admins have had no effect on his behaviour, ArbComm needs to consider how to deal with this, hopefully short of de-sysopping MZMcBride:

putting an editing rate restriction on edits with his main account to ensure he's not running an unauthorized bot:
1. an edits/minute or per hour restriction
2. mandatory 8 or 12-hour blocks per day)
requiring he communicate with any registered user whose user space material he wishes to delete (if nothing else, a polite template message explaining his actions).
requiring strict adherence with our bot policy with the understanding that desysopping will follow any further transgressions.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to propose that MZM should seek a bot approval for the OLDIP deletions, but perhaps you can go ahead and so. And it's over 750,000 last time I checked. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have put this material on the evidence talk page rather than the evidence page; I think it's relevant background, but I am unclear as to how narrow a scope the ArbCom wants on the material posted to the evidence page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it there, they can always ignore it. Viridae ^Talk 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to A.B., this would be appropriate for the evidence page from my perspective, as it deals with administrative behaviours. Risker (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not commenting on the merits of the evidence at this stage, but in my view it's a legitimate subject for the case. I would welcome MZMcBride's comments on this and all other issues as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it more of a workshop-ish thing than evidence-y? The observation that MZMcBride did X before, accompanied by appropriate diffs and analysis, is evidence. The argument that it is a problem that ought to be solved via this ArbCom case (hopefully with a constructive suggestion as to how) would be a workshop proposed finding, right? Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, raw data and evidentiary narrative go on /evidence, and specific proposed language for principles/findings/remedies goes on /workshop. However, for those participants who don't live much of their wikilives on the arbitration pages (who are to be envied), just put your material in the location that seems reasonable, and we will deal with it (or the clerks will move it if appropriate). The key is that the information we are presented by readily understandable, not that it be in some perfectly prescribed format. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for folks' advice. I copied the descriptive material to the evidence page and I haven't done anything with my recommendations for corrective action -- it's probably premature. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by uninvolved party Yellowweasel

MZMcBride has been running a bot script on his main account

User:A. B.'s above evidence is very strong, but User:MZMcBride/Adminbots is a confession of User:MZMcBride running bot scripts despite being blocked for it several times already. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride believes himself to be except from the bot policy

One the above page about MZMcBride's adminbots, one of the ones listed is a script that deletes broken redirects. MZMcBride has commented on the Bot Requests for Approval for User:BrokenRedirectBot and User:Thehelpfulbot 5. Both of these were for a bot that deletes broken redirects. MzMcBride commented on both of these ([20] and [21]), stating that both of these were not nessesary, implying that they were already taken care of by his unapproved script. Clearly, MZMcBride believes that WP:BOT applies to other people, not himself. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you go look at the rejected arbitration cases for September 25 2008, I think you will find that Arbcom believes that WP:BOT applies to no one and admins blocking unapproved bots should be subjected to admonishment or worse.198.161.174.194 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if so, I hope the Committee will clarify their stance on unapproved bots. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my comments and request for information on this subject on the workshop page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mailer Diablo's evidence, precedent, and Betacommand

Mailer Diablo says, "Bot-deletions at high speeds whilst not following policy or/and communicating in a timely manner has previously been problematic, and has resulted in revocation of administrative privileges, as illustrated in RfAr/Betacommand." I don't know how arbcom members who were around at the time feel about this, but that summary of the Beta case strikes me as simplistic. Arbcom specifically cited blocks as well as other issues in their decision. I do not believe anyone has ever been desysopped solely for deletion, absent wheel-warring, total failure to communicate, or other issues. The just-concluded SemBubenny case is as close as Arbcom has come, and after considering desysopping they chose a strong warning not to make further deletions of the same sort instead. Chick Bowen 02:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence" presented by Anonymous Contributor

Should this really be left in? Its hardly evidence. There isn't a single diff, the second and third sentences are assumptions by the user. Much of it refers to actions on another project with different rules and far less focus on process. The rest seems to be mostly unsupported assertions. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it shouldn't be removed. The Arbitrators are intelligent enough to give it no mroe than its due weight. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the evidence presented, as far as I know, MZMcBride does not delete IP talk pages for IPs that have been blocked. –xeno (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to discuss this would be here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by A Nobody is useless

So MZMcBride voted to delete an article that was kept, and nominated for deletion a template that will likely be kept. If it were possible to desysop or admonish admins for this, nobody would survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.7.125 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much that some evidence sections are better than others. I think we can count on the Arbitration committee members and clerk to sort out what evidence they will consider, and what credibility and weight to give it. They can also come down against, or remove, impertinent evidence sections if they see fit.Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given that the TFD linked is still in progress, this really looks the kind of thing that Coren and the clerks specifically warned against posting. Its not an abuse of tools by any definition, its a difference of opinion, and given the wording, possibly canvassing for the TFD. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence" by Shoemaker's Holiday & A Black Kite

These aren't really "evidence" at all, they're opinions. Doesn't that belong in the workshop as "Analysis" (or something of the sort)? –xeno (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved those sections here, thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion

Just an opinion: All the above views seem highly overblown and inflammatory, for what is, at worst, merely a single lapse of judgement. Is this really worth all these overblown-words and calls for his head? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Black Kite

Open for eight days, half a dozen pieces of evidence, much of it trivial. Is that tumbleweed I see? Seriously, there are a number of issues which could probably done with more discussion, but I don't see anything sanctionable here. The phrase that springs to mind, however, is Storm in a Teacup. Black Kite 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

It has come to my attention that a IP that presented evidence is a sockpuppet if a indef blocked user User:Sunholm. As such I have removed their evidence. This is simply noted for transparency reasons. Tiptoety ^talk 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]