Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tundrabuggy (talk | contribs)
2,973 edits
my view
Franamax (talk | contribs)
18,113 edits
temp fix - overlapping TOC and case navbox
Line 661: Line 661:
----
----


==Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Adequate_framing]]==
==Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Adequate_framing|Paranormal - Adequate Framing]]==
===Statement by [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]]===
===Statement by [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]]===
In articles such as [[psychic]], [[telekinesis]], and so on, where the subject's very existence is heavily in dispute, it seems to me to be necessary, to adequately frame the subject, to acknowledge that in the lead sentence. For instance, you could describe it as a "purported ability", but to simply define it as what proponents say it is seems to directly imply its existence, which is a problem. However, it's been said that this Arbcom ruling means that such framing is forbidden. Can you clarify whether this ruling was meant to apply in articles about such abilities and subjects themselves, or whether it was intended to instead mean that it's usually not necessary to rehash such debates in every article? [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In articles such as [[psychic]], [[telekinesis]], and so on, where the subject's very existence is heavily in dispute, it seems to me to be necessary, to adequately frame the subject, to acknowledge that in the lead sentence. For instance, you could describe it as a "purported ability", but to simply define it as what proponents say it is seems to directly imply its existence, which is a problem. However, it's been said that this Arbcom ruling means that such framing is forbidden. Can you clarify whether this ruling was meant to apply in articles about such abilities and subjects themselves, or whether it was intended to instead mean that it's usually not necessary to rehash such debates in every article? [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:01, 26 February 2009

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024
Amendment request: Pseudoscience none (orig. case) 9 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

Initiated by pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:26 at 09:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Pedrito

Before getting into any specifics, I would like to make clear that this is not a content dispute, but rather a somewhat extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, edit-warring over several articles, WP:POV-pushing and Wiki-Lawyering against consensus, sources and Wikipedia policies. At the root of these problems lies a rather innocuous-looking naming issue which, if for which a binding solution can be found or imposed (perhaps along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names), would resolve the above problems.

The underlying naming issue is the use of the names "Judea", "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" for the southern, northern and entire West Bank respectively as general geographical identifiers or toponyms. This debate was started on Israeli settlement and although it flowed-over to a number of other articles, the main arguments were discussed there. For those unwilling to read the pages and pages of talk there, these are the main arguments for and against:

  • Pro Judea and Samaria: The terms are used by a number of academic and non-academic sources within and outside of Israel (for sources from both sides see Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources).
  • Contra Judea and Samaria: Judea and Samaria are not well-defined geographic entities and are not commonly used. Of the sources supplied by the Pro side, all are either Israeli or Partisan, many use the terms northern/southern West Bank interchangeably or even the term West Bank predominantly. Furthermore, none of the sources state that Judea and Samaria are standard or wide-spread terminology whereas numerous sources state the opposite, namely that it is local, partisan and political terminology and therefore violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN and should not be used on Wikipedia.

As I have said above, this is about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, edit-warring over several articles, WP:POV-pushing and Wiki-Lawyering. Although the discussions on Israeli Settlement led to the removal of the Judea and Samaria terminology from the lead (it is now in a section labeled "Terminology" and used in brackets in the section "Historical outline"), the proponents of this terminology have moved to insert and defend it on other articles using arguments defeated many times over on Talk:Israeli settlement or stating that there was no consensus on said page.

This did not happen on articles explicitly dealing with Israeli settlements or Judea and Samaria, but articles which use the terms as geographical identifiers. A good example of what's going on is best illustrated by looking at the recent edit-histories of Mount Hebron, Ma'ale Shomron, Mevo Dotan and Barkan where in the ensuing dispute over the terminology User:Nickhh got blocked.

A lot of edit-warring could be avoided if we could get a binding decision on which terminologies are acceptable and which should be avoided. To my knowledge, the different terminologies used so far have been

I personally would avoid any use of Judea and/or Samaria unless the context is explicitly related to alternative terminology.

Many thanks, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:26

Reply to FloNight

There was an RfC, as pointed out above and some unofficial mediation by User:Elonka. Both worked, as far as I can tell, for the article Israeli settlement, but failed beyond that as all the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on other articles shows. The amount of wiki-lawyering does not make me optimistic as to the chances this will have in normal mediation, which is why I am hoping for an enforced effort to achieve some kind of definite nomenclature, as was the case in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, where a deadline for consensus and a plan "B" for its failure are proposed. pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 14:03

Statement by User:MeteorMaker

  • No other online reference works use the disputed terminology ("Samaria"/"Judea"). [1]
  • No news media outside Israel use the disputed terminology. [2]
  • No official bodies outside Israel use the disputed terminology. [3]
  • No sources have been presented that say the disputed terminology is in current use anywhere outside Israel. [4]
  • Scores of sources have been presented that say the disputed terminology is not in current use outside Israel. [5]
  • WP:NCGN, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV expressly discourage using terms that are not widely used in English, used by only a small minority, or by only one side in a conflict.
  • The standard terminology ("West Bank") is not disputed and universally regarded as neutral. Both sides in the conflict use this term, predominantly or exclusively, and all neutral sources use it exclusively.


This should be enough to close any case. Not so on Wikipedia. Undaunted by the lack of sources and support in policies, the pro-J+S side has engaged in a four-month war [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and employed every type of wikilawyering in the book, stonewalling, edit warring, attempts to get other editors banned, accusations of anti-Semitism, and staggering amounts of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Needless to say, the wikiality that would result from accepting this kind of behavior from a small group of editors is detrimental to the credibility of the project in the long run.

If the disputed terms should be used at all (and there are occasional places where they make sense, for instance in the articles about themselves), they should be accompanied with a note that they are Israel-specific:

  • northern/southern West Bank (also referred to in Israel as Judea/Samaria) (explicit alternative naming with usage note)

MeteorMaker (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ChrisO

In a nutshell, this is a dispute over terminology between Palestinian and Israeli nationalists and their respective supporters (I have not taken sides, for the record, but have acted in an advisory capacity on WP:AE). While there is undoubtedly some friction between editors, I'm not convinced that it has reached the point of requiring an arbitration. 3RR blocks and discretionary sanctions under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA have already been applied. Because the dispute is fundamentally a content dispute, it is not within the Arbitration Committee's remit. It has also not undergone any prior dispute resolution as far as I am aware. I therefore recommend that the case be rejected.

I will however repeat what I have said on WP:AE in response to a report of editing violations by another editor. The best way of resolving this is to agree a standard terminology that can be used across Wikipedia. I recommend that editors work on creating a new Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Israeli-Palestinian articles) along a similar style to manuals of style for other disputed placenames, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). I suggest that it be done under the auspices of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. As I wrote the original Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines to address conflicts of this sort, I'm happy to contribute to such a discussion. I'll post something later today to get the ball rolling. I hope the Committee will take the opportunity to encourage editors to resolve this dispute cooperatively. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

In a nutshell, this is a dispute over terminology between Palestinian and Israeli nationalists and their respective supporters'

Dead wrong. There are no Palestinian, as opposed to Israeli, nationalists involved. It is a clash between those (Israeli and Jewish editors) who support a restricted number of Israeli naming conventions, of a distinct and proven nationalist colouring, for an occupied territory 83% of whose population is Arab, and those who support neutral international usage. It is a conflict therefore between international naming conventions, as opposed to unilateral nationalist naming. If there are no guidelines that privilege the former over the latter, there is really no point in editing I/P articles. The only imaginable compromise excludes Palestinian usage, for it would secure parity between a specific set of words in Israeli usage (excluding as it does Palestinian/Arabic usage) with the conventional names preferred by the overwhelming majority of international bodies, academic sources, and the mainstream media, as well as by Israeli and Arabic sources. This is not a dispute between Palestinian and Israeli usage: were it so, this would have been resolved long ago by parity accords. 'The West Bank' is the international default term for the area, reflected in both Hebrew usage and Arabic usage (HaGadah HaMa'aravit/aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä) etc.etc. It is therefore an Israeli POV of a particular kind. In Hebrew there is a perfectly neutral calque for 'West Bank', just as there is in Arabic. The editors, or rather one editor holding out, holds out for a set of expressions introduced by settlers and their political supporters in the last three decades, a set of terms which define politicial allegiances in Israel itself, and which many native Israeli speakers of Hebrew prefer not to use. These expressions are intended to substitute the standard Hebrew words for 'West Bank'. These editors are pushing, in short, for 'Judea/Samaria' to replace the more neutral HaGadah HaMa'aravit phrase equally used by native Hebrew speakers, one that accords with international usage. Not so much a matter of a'content' dispute, but of what formal rules apply here to secure NPOV in wiki articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Ynhockey. This has been exhaustively discussed, in several venues, and now boasts substantial archives. In terms of documentation, we have a virtual monograph on reliable sources concerning these terms. No one in the I/P area could fail to note it, since the terminological crux affects several dozen wiki pages. We are being asked to recycle a huge amount of argument, each time, for each page, and re-undertake months and months of intensive analysis. There is absolutely no movement towards consensus. Consensus indeed seems impossible. Everything imaginable has been said, noted, discussed, rebutted. Point us to any venue, as long as it offers us the prospect of closing what is becoming an infinite stall of Sisyphean proportions. Not deciding anything is an open invitation to seduce editors into further rounds of edit-warring, accusations of bad faith, gaming the system to drive editors off, all of which means nagging administrators with better things to do etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I would appreciate you reviewing your extraordinary comment about my putatively finding fault with Jewish or Israeli editors. Most of them never even, understandably, touch these pages.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ynhockey

I have curiously been following the disputes on this topic pretty much since they re-started recently. I decided not to involve myself with it and this is probably why I wasn't listed in the 'involved parties', but this issue is close to me so I felt the need to comment.

Basically, the reasons I did not get involved in the matter in any way was because there was never a serious attempt to discuss the matter. There was no dispute resolution, no request for comment, request for mediation, or anything of the sourt. Not even a note was left at WT:ISRAEL or WT:IPCOLL as a courtesy to the editors who may wish to comment but don't watch articles on small Israeli villages. Basically it seemed like a nationalistically-motivated (and not content-based) squabble that wasn't worthy of any attention at all. One editor did leave the same comment on various talk pages for minor articles, and I think a couple of them generated limited discussions, but there was no attempt of any kind to create a centralized discussion.

Today I discovered this case pending ArbCom approval and it just baffles me why ArbCom should be bothered by such a minor incident. Let's have a centralized discussion first at IPCOLL or something. If ArbCom takes on this case, it will give legitimacy to open ArbCom cases for all sorts of ridiculously minor incidents involving more than 2-3 editors. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nickhh

I'm kind of indifferent as to which WP route should be taken to deal with this, but it does undoubtedly need to be dealt with. It's an issue which has spread across up to 30 pages now, and has generated an inordinate amount of edit warring and talk page debate over what should be a relatively simple and trivial point. There was in fact I believe at least one RfC started in respect of it, however I acknowledge the points being made that there are other dispute resolution methods that might be better looked to first. The only thing I would say in response to that is that it needs some kind of binding decision, which has real enforcement teeth, so that we can finally put this little thing to bed. And it's as likely as not we'll end up here anyway given the experience of other similar debates, for example the one over "Disputed" vs "Occupied" territories, which has been through numerous RfCs but which nonetheless gets dragged up again every six months of so, such that everyone is back to square one again. As a couple of side notes on the substance of the dispute itself -

  • I second Nishidani's point that this is not about "Israeli" POV/terminology vs "Palestinian" POV/terminology. It is about whether WP should use a narrow and minority-use Israeli nationalist terminology, as opposed to the standard international terminology used in most media, official and other sources around the world, including within Israel as it happens. None of the editors on this side of the debate are Palestinian or in any way involved in the underlying conflict, as far as I'm aware. And tellingly perhaps, what Palestinians (or the Palestinian Authority) might actually choose to call specific areas of the West Bank has never in fact even entered into the debate that I've noticed.
  • Yes there's a place for compromise here, but let's be careful of suggesting that there is some middle way on this one where we use all the terms interchangeably or simultaneously. One version is standard usage, the other is not. The page on George W Bush does not say he "also known as Dubya" as if it is an equivalent alternative name, although the article will of course note this at the appropriate point, and explain it as being a nickname. Equally if one or two editors start arguing that he is in fact a woman, we do not "compromise" and label him a hermaphrodite.

--Nickhh (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

As I noted to the Committee earlier this month in a different context, the real world situation has put additional pressure on this site's Israeli-Palestinian disputes. That makes another arbitration more likely, yet it comes as a surprise to see this particular request. Has there been edit warring, incivility, misuse of sources, or some other actionable conduct issue? I'm not necessarily for or against this proposed case so much as confused by what it is intended to accomplish. DurovaCharge! 18:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Although I am not mentioned as an involved party I consider myself at least obliquely involved. I have to say that it is quite a stretch to suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute and thus not really appropriate for this forum. Also I have to say that Nishidani comment that the conflict is entirely the fault of "Israeli and Jewish editors" is incredibly inappropriate.


Statement by Canadian Monkey

I don't believe ArbCom should be involved in resolving content disputes, which this surely is. This is especially true when very little formal WP:DR has been attempted, and when the requestor concedes mediation has not been tried and he does not seem willing to try it. As the Israeli settlement article shows, these issues can be resolved, using existing processes, when suitable compromises are proposed. ArbCom is the last resort, not the first. If the Committee decides to take this on, it should concern itself with the user conduct issues surrounding the underlying content dispute - namely, the edit warring and incivility which has already resulted in the blocking of User:Nickhh and User:MeteorMaker, violations of bans already in place by User:MeteorMaker, wikilawyering intended to circumvent restrictions already in place, etc... Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tkalisky

Hello. I have a feeling the dispute here is really not in place since both terms are widely used geographically to describe the area. A quick google-scholar or google-book search finds many internationally published academic Geography articles using both "west bank" and "Judea and Samaria". For example, some maps designate the whole area as "west bank" and partition it into "Judea" (the southern part) and "Samaria" (its northern part). I think both terms can be used interchangeably and I really cannot understand the insistence of some editors for removing all mention of the Hebrew/biblical terms. In my opinion the dispute here is a repercussion of the real world political conflict and really not an encyclopedic/academic one.

I also agree with user:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg that the term "Israeli and Jewish editors" used above is inappropriate and I would ask all editors participating in this discussion to keep it cool. Please remember that we are all working together to write and encyclopedia. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avruch

Just reading over the argument on some of the talk pages and in my view there is a clear conduct issue here. It may be time to reinforce to the editors involved in this area that the entire category of subjects is under sanction, that Wikipedia is not to be used as a cultural battleground or an extension of geopolitical conflict and that reasonable arguments must be made to back up desired changes.

I think Jewish and Israeli editors (I'm the former but not the latter) sometimes build up a siege mentality that causes us to overreach in combating what can be seen as biased coverage. I can understand that sentiment from both sides of this conflict, but it's no excuse for the utter lack of collegial discussion and reasonable argumentation shown on some of the pages noted above by editors who are ostensibly pro-Israel. I've encountered the same style of participation recently at Talk:Israel Shahak and Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. By and large the editors at war with each other appear to feel they can violate the terms of the ARBPIA sanctions with impunity.

It may be that a thread on WP:AE could accomplish this reinforcement, but the threads about ARBPIA sanctions have lately seen minimal administrator participation and outcomes that do not lead to sustained improvement. I think there are two or three editors who could stand for a long-term ban from I/P conflict articles (and from editing in such a way as to further engage in the conflict, even if it isn't on explicitly related articles), and I would endorse any process which is likely to lead to this outcome. Avruch T 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by G-Dett

The situation here is very basic indeed. Each side in the (real-world) Israel-Palestine conflict has its preferred geographic terminology, which it employs in an effort to confer authority, inevitability, etc. upon maximal territorial claims. So partisans on one side refer to all the land between the river and the sea using the historical term "Palestine"; meanwhile partisans on the other side refer to the land between the river and the Green Line using the Biblical terms "Judea" and "Samaria."

This might sound like an insoluble pancake for Wikipedia, but it isn't. Because fortunately for us, there is a third terminology, distinct from either of the above, and it's used by the overwhelming majority of mainstream reliable sources, academic and journalistic. According to this terminological consensus – which is truly vast and stable, as everyone familiar with the conflict knows – the territory between the Green Line and the sea is called "Israel," and the territory between the Green Line and the river Jordan is called the "West Bank." In addition to consistently employing this standard terminology, this vast, overwhelming consensus of mainstream reliable sources regularly addresses the ideological implications of both minority terminologies ("Palestine" and "Judea"/"Samaria"), explicitly describing the partisan motivations for the use of each.

So the content issue really could not be simpler. It's the behavioral issues that are truly out of hand and need to be addressed, in my opinion by Arbcom. The level of deliberate stonewalling, bad-faith editing and argumentation, and gross misrepresentation of source material is almost as poisonous and extensive as it was during the "Allegations of apartheid" hoax several years ago. Ordinarily I would say kick this over to DR. But in this case the content question is so minor and obvious, the behavioral issues so vexed, and the atmosphere of mutual trust and respect so disastrously frayed, that there would be little to no chance of successful or even meaningful mediation. Arbitration helped resolve the Allegations of apartheid mess, and it can help to resolve this.

Three important final clarifications:

  1. This dispute is mischaracterized as one between "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" editors. There is in fact no group of editors trying to normalize the partisan term "Palestine" for all the land between the river and the sea. There is however a team of editors trying to normalize the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" for the land between the river and the Green Line. Their opponents are arguing only for the use of standard, accepted terminology.
  2. A standard strawman argument – you're almost sure to see it on this page – consists of saying that editors are trying to "expunge" the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" from the encyclopedia. That's nonsense. "Judea" and "Samaria," like "Palestine," are historically significant terms, and their use was not always partisan in the past. "Palestine" became controversial after Israel was created in 1948; "Judea" and "Samaria" became controversial after Israel took control of the West Bank in 1967. There are even valid contemporary uses: mainstream sources often refer, for example, to a future state of Palestine, and the collective singular term "Judea and Samaria" is appropriate in certain technical or administrative contexts, since it is an official Israeli military-administrative term. In short, there are many, many appropriate uses of all of these terms on Wikipedia, but in its contemporary neutral voice Wikipedia should not refer to the southern and northern West Bank respectively as "Judea" and "Samaria," nor to the land between the river and the sea as "Palestine."
  3. User:MeteorMaker has been invaluable in his collocation of excellent secondary sources attesting to the partisan use of Biblical terms for present-day territories. For this constructive work he's been greeted with personal attacks, strawman arguments, and endless wikilawyering. But he has been misguided in one minor respect. He has focused in some instances on the nationality of sources who use these partisan terms – e.g. in formulations like "Israel-specific terminology." The Israel-Palestine conflict is the world's political football; though terms like "Judea," "Samaria," and "Palestine" are obviously nationalist terms (a fact MM and others have sourced to the nines), they are used by partisans holding a variety of passports. It's a minor point, and one easily corrected, but it's offered his opponents endless opportunities for obfuscatory red herrings.--G-Dett (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim

I really don't think this is a fight between one set of nationalists and another. Most educated people, even in the largely pro-Israel USA, would regard the terms "Judea and Samaria" as non-neutral. The Arbs would do well to send some emails to a good cross-section of international journalists asking them why they don't use the term in preference to West Bank; the answer they should expect is something like "mildly creepy Orwellian obfuscation". I looked over these disputes somewhat last week. In some of the discussions there is skewing of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS used to undermine Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, causing some frustration. Can I remind ArbCom that WP:UNDUE is policy, just like WP:3RR and WP:NPA. We should be careful to remember too that the side that makes the most WP:3RR violations and WP:INCIVILITY violations is not necessarily always wrong. I don't know if it's as common as is being made out, but if users are going around inserting "Judea and Samaria" in preference to West Bank in open context they would clearly be violating wikipedia policy. I have no opinion on whether or not they should, but I recommend that if ArbCom were to accept this case they look for any pattern where editors act consistently in concert to insert such terms into the encyclopedia (addressing concerns raised above), and that if they find such patterns they act to stop it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved Olve Utne

It is quite transparent that this is a content dispute, and in my opinion, taking the conflict directly to arbitration is missing that important point. I recommend that the parties in question take a deep breath, put aside all prejudice/prejudgement/fear and find good ways to include all the relevant terminology. The first step is to try to articulate your points without describing your colleagues (on either side) with words like Orwellian, nationalist or more specific religious/ethnic stereotypes. Stating whether (an) editor/s is/are, e.g., Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Jain is not going to bring a solution any closer. Wikipedia is not a war, it is an encyclopaedia. All relevant and significant, terminology in practical use in English by any academically, politically or otherwise involved party — whether you personally agree with those who use it or not — should be reflected. But once again, this is all about contents.... -- Olve Utne (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tundrabuggy

Although I am not mentioned as an involved party I consider myself involved since I did edit this subject. I too see this as a content dispute. There are many many such disputes within the area, because as Orwell so rightly understood, "He who controls the language, controls the argument." If you give in to the inclination to arbitrate these words, you will have to arbitrate many. This is the epitome of the slippery slope. You will have to arbitrate between "wall" and "fence" - between "war" and "conflict" or "massacre" and "genocide" - between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" and "militant." In short, unless you want to start arbitrating language in this conflict area, this needs to be worked out within the wider Wikipedia community.

Regarding the basic issue brought up here of Judea and Samaria. It seems to me that there are two principals involved in the I/P conflict, the I and the P. One half of this conflict refers to it in a particular way. By not allowing them to use their particular way you are disenfranchising that (half's) point of view. My understanding is that when Judea and/or Samaria was used, it was always referenced to a RS that used it in that way, and that those editors arguing for its inclusion were not trying to censor the use of "West Bank" but rather to use both terms as appropriate.

I can only think that it has to be "battled" out (using the expression as an analogy not in terms of WP:Battle) among the participants, with outside participation, and working this out might indeed be a good exercise for the IP Collab group. We understand that there will never be a 100% consensus on any of this, but eventually compromises and understandings can be reached. It is way too premature to be looking to impose a solution, if ever. As for the archives, 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is already at 37 in only 2 months. Still, an article is being written, however bad and however slowly. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/1/2)

  • Comment Awaiting more statement before voting. I want to hear the reason that this dispute needs ArbCom attention. Why will the existing methods of dispute resolution or prior remedies available for this topic not work to settle this specific dispute? Have they been tried and failed? FloNight♥♥♥ 13:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; to look at the behavior of both parties and examine ways out of the dispute. I've seen the wide-ranging repercussions of this dispute, and many of the participants (on both sides of the issue) appear unwiling to compromise or even discuss the issue seriously. I have little hope that dispute resolution would to much more than delay the return of this dispute in front of the committee, and we might be able to provide guidance for a workable way forward. — Coren (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am strongly inclined to decline this request. Currently, I see no indication that this is beyond the will or ability of administrators and the community to resolve. There are still quite a few options available for both the content and conduct aspects of this disagreement. Due to the nature of the area, I will wait for further comments before making a final determination. In particular, Elonka has intervened in the course of this dispute and has been very helpful in dealing with conflicts in this topic area. Her perspective of this situation would be very valuable. (It's been noted to me that Elonka is on wikibreak.) Vassyana (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride

Initiated by -MBK004 at 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MBK004

I do not undertake this filing lightly. After having thoroughly reviewed the circumstances and been urged to do so, I request that the Committee investigate whether MZMcBride has violated or gone astray from the admonishment he received from this very committee in October 2008 at the conclusion of the Sarah Palin wheel war case. His admonishment was "to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee." I allege that he has blatantly disregarded established on-wiki consensus in his out-of-process deletion of approximately 100+ "secret" user pages without warning the users (as noted by arbitrator Newyorkbrad: [17]) and not applying a correct CSD criteria or a valid and current XFD result. He claims that an inconclusive MFD from April 2008 has established that consensus is that these such pages are unacceptable [18][19][20] , when the actual result was that each must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and not by batch deletion or delete on-sight. I do not have an opinion as to whether these pages which have been deleted should or should not exist, my opinions are solely with regards to the method and circumstances of their deletion.

I also call into question his usage ([21], [22]) of an inappropriate deletion log entry for these deletions "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less". (It is difficult to find the deletions in his deletion log since MZM's WP:OLDIP deletions as of this writing have made me go back over 5000 deletions to just find one "secret" page deletion with this log entry.) The reason I say inappropriate is because he did not discriminate as to who's secret page received this deletion message, and even established content contributors with multiple featured articles to their credit and a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject received this deletion log in their watchlist when their secret page was deleted.

I ask that the committee either accept this as a full case or to deal with this by a desysop by motion since I feel that MZMcBride has clearly run afoul of his admonishment which stated that "any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges."

@NYB: I seriously doubt an RfC would accomplish anything since MZM has previously been before ArbCom and was issued the admonishment which led me to file this request. But also, as stated by others below, that he was continuing to delete these pages for hours after he started to receive complaints and after the AN thread began. If the standing admonishment from this Committee did not work, I don't see how an RfC would. -MBK004 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Yes, there have been complaints. Three of the diffs in my statement are MZM's response to complaints on his talk page where he alleges the false consensus. Also, one of the commentators below (the_ed17) was a creator of one of these "secret" pages. -MBK004 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

(@ 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)[reply]

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[23] 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[24] He continued deleting , not even waiting for the discussion to finish.
  • Despite a discussion still running that started on February 21[25], he started on February 23[26] 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 [27].

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]
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]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

A little background would be helpful here.

On April 1, 2008, using a crude regex, I compiled a list of subpages in the User: namespace that contained the word "secret" (see here). Riana posted to AN/I several hours later describing the various pros and cons of "secret" pages and asking for community input on her idea to delete most, if not all, of them (see here).

Equazcion decided that it would be a good idea to use MFD, and so he nominated the pages on Riana's behalf (see here).

The MFD was a clusterfuck (as most batch MFDs usually are). The list had never been intended to be nominated as a whole (it contained a number of false positives). Additionally, people took the date as a joke (it was April 1). After five days, the debate was closed by Secret in a confusing manner. He said, "I'm deleting the fake secret pages, as consenus [sic] was formed here," but added that other (non-fake?) pages would need review on a "case-by-case basis." Secret deleted a number of user subpages himself.

In the course of data mining for BLP violations, I developed a number of scripts capable of scanning page text for particular phrases (things like "cunt," "slut," etc.) Using these tools, I generated a list of pages that contained the phrase "hidden page" or "secret page." I also used the list available here.

As far as I'm aware, there is no expiry for when an MFD (or other deletion discussion) can be applied. In fact, given the existence of things like WP:CSD#G4, it would seem to me to be quite the opposite. (That is, that there's never an expiry for applying a deletion discussion.) Due the very nature of "secret" pages, many of these pages were not listed at the original MFD, however, their content was nearly identical to those pages that were listed at the MFD.

I believe I was implementing a consensus formed months ago regarding these pages. A number of comments at the AN thread and on my talk page support this belief (see, for example, here and here).

I offered to restore and bring to MFD any pages that individual editors object to being deleted (see here, here, here, and here). I even filed an MFD last night upon request (see here).

I was questioned about why I deleted the pages of not only new users but also longtime editors. This Committee and the broader community have consistently held that having VestedContributors is not a Good Thing and should be avoided. It's important that if we implement a practice of deleting these "secret" pages, that we do so regardless of the user. That's the only way to be fair about it.

I have no idea why this case was brought here. It seems to have mostly resolved itself at AN and on my talk page. I urge the Committee to reject this case, as I believe its time is far better served elsewhere. As far as I'm aware, all Arbitrators are admins. I'm open to recall, outlined here. If members of the Committee (or other administrators) feel I should be recalled as an administrator, I urge the use of the recall process. There are a good deal of legitimate issues that need to be resolved, some of which impacts real lives and real reputations. Focusing on the deletion of "secret" pages is unnecessary.

--MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Newyorkbrad: No objection from me for an RFC, though I'd prefer if people waited a week or two. (The passage of time seems to nearly universally be a good thing in cases like this; puts things into perspective, etc.)

Statement by Aitias

As I was one of those who asked ([28]) 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. [29])— 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: [30] and [31]— 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ViridaeTalk 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ 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, DurovaCharge! 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. DurovaCharge! 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement from 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Secret

  • I guess because I closed the original MFD a year ago, and that was being used as the "policy" in this case, I'm forced to comment. The issue here is that MzMcbride deleted these secret pages out of process but it's not entirely his fault. The MFD was that it was supposed to be on a case-by-case basis, and all these Secret pages should have been sent to AFD. If the editor doesn't contribute at all in mainspace, than a speedy deletion is appropriate to warn the editor that WP:NOT#MYSPACE, but many of these editors had some mainspace edits at least (not much though). Those Secret pages are retarded, and just doesn't contribute to namespace participation at all. It gotten to the point that these pages (and sig books) has become harmful to the project because it keeps focus away from the project, and brings some users that believe that wikipedia is the second coming of myspace. I urge ArbCom to accept this case, not only on MZMcBride behavior (we seen much worse out-of-process deletions and he shouldn't be desyropped, but a strong admonishment seems to be the case here), but like Daniel said, admonishment for all those myspacers, with a remedy of a block if they don't contribute to namespace, and deletion of pages that doesn't contribute at all to mainspace. It's a case that can't be solved by consensus on MFD/DRV, but here. Secret account 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I added myself to the involved parties, as the deletions were because of the MFD I closed a while back. If I would have closed it a different matter, we likely wouldn't be here right now. Secret account 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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;[1] 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)[reply]

  1. ^ According to a UK radio station.

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)[reply]

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.

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.[32] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

Comment by Werdna

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [33] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/8/2/0)

  • Accept In the light of this administrator's recent admonishment, it is appropriate to review his recent conduct. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment would like to see more stmts first, but leaning to accept per Roger. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept, given the new stmts, I vote to accept now. The real issue here is not whether wiki should have secret pages or games (not an arbcom issue anyway) nor out of process deletions, but that those actions coupled with refusal to get his admin bot approved (at least twice), snarky edit summaries, out of process deletions, not listening to concerns of community, etc show a pattern of behavior and action by admin that is of concern and within arbcom purview. So we are left deciding whether to let RFC have a shot at it or not, considering that he's already been admonished once during the Palin case; given that and that concerns have continued, I'm voting to accept and deal with this now. If RFC is the outcome of this particular RFAR, MZMcBride needs to be fully aware that if these issues bring him back to RFAR, acceptance of the case or a desysop by a quick motion is virtually guaranteed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit I'm more than a little worried at MZMcBride's apparent recent tendency to ignore all rules a little to much, and of his seeming unwillingness to consider suspending activities when concerns are expressed. Nevertheless, I think this current dispute would be better served by an RfC or a similar method since there is no indication that he is unwilling to listen and participate. — Coren (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider this a comment stating my preference on how to resolve this, but I will wait to see how things develop before I formally accept or reject the case. — Coren (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A further note; I do notice the previous lack of responsiveness, but I'm also willing to accept the possibility that MZM has just now realized that the matter is more serious than he originally estimated and is willing to sit down and listen for an RfC. Solutions are invariably more effective when they are borne of community effort than by fiat from ArbCom; and if there is still a reasonable chance that everybody's concerns are addressed without a full case, then I will tend to prefer this. A statement from MZM that he will participate in an RfC with diligence and take heed of its results will do wonders to defuse the situation. — Coren (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline; at this time, in favor of an RfC. While I understand the skepticism from some of the commentators on this request, I feel that MZM should be afforded the opportunity to adjust his behavior to better fit community expectations before the heavy artillery is brought forth. I should point out, however, that Rlevse is correct in stating that much of the points brought forward point to a pattern of behavior that is deeply concerning and that, especially given his previous admonition, MZMcBride should expect that a return to RFAR about these issues is likely to lead to a swift desysop. — Coren (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Kirill [pf] 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline in favour of an RfC (as suggested by several people). The periodic emergence of various "games" on Wikipedia is something that does need to be kept under control (there was an MfD for various game pages at some point), but it should not be cracked down on as it was here. More discussion was needed, probably followed by gentle phasing out of secret pages when a clearer consensus was reached. In general, MZMcBride does do this sort of thing a lot (mass tidying ups by bot or script actions), and does need to listen more to objections raised by sections of the community (I recall long discussions over talk pages and certain classes of redirects). It would also be good if he would suspend his actions in the face of such objections, or would let discussions finish before doing this sort of thing. If he continues doing this sort of thing, even after an RfC, then at some point this year he will likely end up back here and the pressure will grow to do something. Also strongly suggest MZMcBride compartmentalises his deletions and organises them better so it is easier to review his deletion log, and document what actions he has been taking. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept There are two faces to this case. On one hand, we have an administrator who is intending to help with the maintenance of Wikipedia. I am not judging the ligitimacy and legality of the administrator's actions because that is left to the community as that is debatable. Up to here everything is great. However, there are users who are unhappy with the way and attitude with which those actions are being performed and this is probably where ArbCom has to look at. On the other hand, we have a user who, after having a subpage belonging to him being deleted through MfD, takes it off-wiki and publishes it as a tutorial. The content of that page contain elements which incite any portential reader to do harm to Wikimedia and potentially/subsequently to Wikipedia. I see that user:Durova has already proposed a resolution but I see things differently since a) this administrator has already been to ArbCom before for some similar reasons b) his off-wiki action doesn't help this project at all and may not be corrigible. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a close decision for me, at this stage. On balance, decline for now, but very tentatively and with very concerned comments, as follows:
In a couple of recent instances, I have voted on a request or a motion on this page, with the note that I was going to surprise people by not posting extensive comments. This time, I am going to lapse back to my customary form, as I have a fair amount to say, both to MZMcBride and to the parties to this request and to those whose pages were deleted. I apologize if these comments are slightly rambling, but I want to get them on the screen now, before everyone's attention moves off of this page.
For me, this request raises two issues, one dealing narrowly with MZMcBride's deletion of "hidden pages," and the other sweeping more broadly over his overall performance as an administrator. As to the former issue, the facts are relatively simple: in the course of a couple of days, MZMcBride conducted a sweep for "hidden pages" or "secret pages" and deleted all of them that he could find. Typically, a "hidden page" is advertised on a userpage or talkpage with "find my secret/hidden page and win the contest", or a barnstar, or some such. They can be analogized in some ways to "guestbook" or "signature book" pages, which are also controversial. (Actually, my own practice is to sign guestbooks when owned by users I know or when I am asked to, just as my barnstar page from when I maintained such a thing includes a couple of "yays, you found my secret page" notes, as it would have struck me as churlish to omit them. Typically, I sign secret pages and hidden guestbooks with the comment "I never sign guestbooks. Signed, Newyorkbrad", thus introducing editors who may be lacking in philosophy background to the Epimenides Paradox. But I digress.)
Needless to say, these pages do not, in and of themselves, contribute to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia, and I can understand an argument that there is little if any reason to have them around. Compare WP:NOT, which instructs that Wikipedia is a project to create a reference work, not a social network. But there are also counterarguments, however: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is being written by a community, and we must allow for reasonable socialization within the community. As I have written in many of the ArbCom decisions I have drafted, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors." There are plenty of pages around that only indirectly contribute to the creation of the encyclopedia, although "secret page contest" pages are concededly at the outer margin. And there are non-frivolous arguments for allowing such pages to be retained, including that they allow new users to experiment with wiki-formatting (as an extension of the sandbox) and with the intra-project search capabilities, and so forth. (For a comprehensive discussion of the pros and cons of allowing these sorts of pages, see User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages; see also, of course, the various comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages, and many of the comments above, and the AN discussion.)
Moreover, even if hidden pages (or guestbooks or the like) are not desirable (and I certainly would not create one myself), that does not mean that it is worthwhile to set out to delete them. The effects on a user whose page is deleted must also be considered. Here, the deletions were made without warning, and the deletion log summary (written in lolcat), though undoubtedly intended as an attempt to communicate with the user on the level of the typical hidden page and express a sense of humor, could certainly have been taken amiss by many who logged on to find their pages suddenly gone. In general, editors whose long-standing pages are deleted without warning suffer a blow to their morale. This can be rationalized as "tough love": "We are glad to have you here, but this particular type of page is unhelpful; please contribute more substantively instead"—but the comments on MZMcBride suggest that this is not how the deletions were taken. There are hurt feelings when a page is deleted even for the most valid of reasons, and all the more so when the deletion is arguably unnecessary and is not seriously explained.
And another reason that, at a minimum, warnings should have preceded the deletions, is that some of the deletions were incorrect even by MZMcBride's own criteria. It appears that the hunt for hidden pages yielded some false positives that did not fall within the classic definition of "hidden pages" at all, and that some of those users were particularly upset. Posing a "are you really sure you still need/want this page?" query could have averted this result. To be sure, posting such queries and waiting for the replies, rather than just unilaterally deleting lots of pages, would have taken much more of MZMcBride's time than simply deleting them. I anticipate the response that this is time that was not worth taking. But in that case, the whole project of seeking out these pages to delete them was probably not a good investment of the time of this technically skilled administrator. We are all volunteers here, and none of us is empowered to tell another where he or she should concentrate his or her efforts; but whether or not these deletions were a net positive or a net negative for Wikipedia, I can think of many, many higher-priority tasks.
The usual justification for deleting these types of pages is that "Wikipedia is not Myspace": that is, we do not need or have use for editors whose sole contribution is of a social-networking nature. But someone has done the math, and it turns out not to be true that most of the users with these pages fall into that category; a fair proportion of those whose pages were deleted have significant mainspace work to their credit. I would think that these users, at least, are entitled to an occasional bit of fun, or at a minimum, to a warning before a page is deleted from their userspace. The potential morale damage from failing to accord them this courtesy could be substantial. And as for those users who are spending too much time on hidden-page games and sig-books and the like, they too should be accorded a gentle admonition or two before harsher methods are used. I can think of at least a couple of editors whose first edits consisted of excessive prettying of their userpages, and signature-pages or hidden-pages or the like, who are now administrators. One can't prove a negative, but who knows whether they would still be here if someone had deleted the pages with which they were learning, experimenting, even socializing, early in their tenure here. Maybe they would have learned the lesson that the project is about the encyclopedia, a little bit sooner. But I am not convinced.
Insofar as many of the users with "hidden pages" or the like are newer users, they are unlikely to have realized that some people frown upon such pages. They are equally unlikely to have ever read or heard of WP:NOT or the equivalent, and they are likely to have been genuinely bewildered why their pages suddenly disappeared without warning. This confirms that unilateral and sudden, unwarned deletion was not the best way to handle the problem of hidden pages, if indeed it is a problem. MZMcBride's talkpage is littered, as I have mentioned, with a host of queries of "why did you delete my page?" I suspect there are many other users wondering with the same question, but who aren't sure how to find out who deleted their page in order to ask the question (and who won't have known to check the deletion log for the deletion reason, either). Some are argumentative; some are apologetic; but some seem genuinely unsure about what happened. In particular, Don't bite the newcomers is a very important precept.
A fact barely alluded to in the sea of comments above, but which is almost certainly true and in my mind is at least slightly material, is that "hidden page contests" and signature book pages and the like are most often—although certainly not invariably—associated with our youngest group of editors. There is, of course, no minimum age requirement for editing Wikipedia, as long as one has sufficient ability to make valid contributions and comply with policy. There is also a consensus that all editors regardless of age are to be held to the same standards as everyone else, as regards both their editing and their overall standards of behavior; indeed, it is a sign of respect for the youngest editor cohort that we apply the same editing standards to them as to everyone else. It is empirically true, and probably predictable, that spending too much time "socializing" to the detriment of substantive contributions (whether those contributions are content creation, or other work such as vandal-fighting and the like) is a mistake, or a pattern of behavior, that is most often associated with the youngest editor group—although I hasten to add that this is a generalization, and I do not suggest in the slightest either that only the younger editors have this tendency, or that this tendency is shared by all or even most of the younger editors, or even that, within reasonable limits, youthful exuberance is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, in each and every one of these respects. But there are certain indicia that are more characteristic of our most youthful editors than of other groups, and administrators are surely aware of them. (I have thought for awhile that there is a need for a page to which these editors can be pointed, as a primer and as a caution against some of the mistakes that experience teaches they are somewhat more likely than the older teens or adults to make. As it happens, I have drafted that page, and hope to post it for comments sometime in the next day or so.)
Administrators should hold all editors to the same standards of behavior, regardless of age or other characteristics, but at the same time, they should be sensitive to morale issues and to WP:BITE as they do so. Here, it was predictable that the sweep of MZMcBride's deletions was likely to fall disproportionately on younger editors, who might be unaccustomed, through inexperience or after having participated on non-encyclopedic websites, to Wikipedia's standards (even if we all agreed in this area as to what they are) and who simply meant to poke around and meet fellow editors and have a bit of fun. When it becomes necessary to stomp on this sort of thing, whether borne of inexperience or anything else, then so be it; but with patient explanation of why it is necessary and what the rules are. And my own preference would be a for a dollup of extra patience in this sort of instance. Instead, the approach was delete-with-snarky-summary and on to the next.
Another question is whether the pages met the letter of the speedy-deletion criteria. They did not clearly fall within a specific CSD category, and the fact that the pages are non-encyclopedic within the meaning of WP:NOT is usually not, by itself, considered speedyable. Deleting things without appropriate cause is a significant misuse of administrator tools. And yet. The criteria for speedy deletion can never be absolutely foolproof or ironclad, as evidenced by the proposed principle regarding deletions (contained in the proposed decision posted by Wizardman, but adopted from the workshop proposal drafted by me) in the pending SemBubenny case. A mistaken deletion, or group of deletions, calls for a DRV, not an arbitration case, and while I consider these deletions questionable at best, the prior MfD discussion and results arguably provide a sufficiently colorable basis for them that I cannot say they call for arbitration at this stage. The manner of the deletions—without warning and unexplained except through lolcatty log entries—is more problematic, as I have explained.
However, two facts convince me, by a narrow margin, that the better course to decline this case at this time. The first is that MZMcBride, while defending the propriety of these deletions, has discontinued making them, and has agreed to restore (albeit in some cases, with the stated intent of then MfD'ing) these pages where the affected users have so requested. The second is that MZMcBride has stated above that he has no objection to an RfC being opened in this matter, which I take as an implicit commitment to participate in the RfC and take the results into account in the future performance of his administrator responsibilities. And so, I conclude to vote to decline the pending request, without prejudice to taking the current incident into account in the event that there are further problems.
But I also cannot close these comments without noting that this is far from the only incident in which questions concerning this administrator's performance have been raised. In the Sarah Palin protection wheel war case, we were required to admonish MZMcBride for twice unilaterally overriding consensus regarding protection for a high-profile BLP (albeit also a high-attention BLP), in the course of which he, apparently knowingly and deliberately, disregarded this committee's prior decision in the Footnoted quotes case requiring that BLP-enforcement measures taken under the aegis of that decision must be respected until a contrary consensus emerges on-wiki. The present round of deletions does not appear to fall within the specifics of the warning given MZMcBride by that decision, but it is nonetheless part of his overall record.
MZMcBride recently used his toolserver access (a user status or type of access with which, I must admit, I was until recently unfamiliar) to access a list of uses of the recently enabled revision-deletion-and-unviewable-except-by-oversighters capability. (I hasten to stress that the toolserver access does not allow the user to see the content of the oversighted or deleted edits themselves. I am told that the ability of toolserver users to review this information is inadvertent, and that as soon as he became aware of this unintended access, he immediately alerted the developers to it.) MZMcBride noted in his review that one administrator, who is also an oversighter, had used the revision-deletion capability on the oversighter's own talkpage in six instances. He concluded that this was a pattern of misuse of this userright, and without requesting any further information or seeking any form of dispute resolution or even speaking with the oversighter, created a page in his userspace urging that the oversighter's rights be rescinded. I approached MZMcBride privately about this matter, and advised him that of the six deletions of which he was making such a big deal, two were "test" edits to test out the new functionality (where better for an administrator to do that than on his or her own userpage?), and the other four deleted edits were—well, I've just taken out my description of what exactly they were, but it wasn't pretty. (My colleagues on the committee know just what I am referring to, as does MZMcBride.) I emphasized my view that there was no conceivable rational basis for objecting to the deletion of these edits, whether by the administrator whose page they were made on or by anyone else. I strongly recommended that he immediately delete the page in his userspace and find some other issue or example to crusade about. I will not repeat MZMcBride's response in our conversation without his permission, but it is public information that the page in his userspace which characterizes the deletion of these repellent edits as "data suppression" and an "abuse of privileged access" is still there, more than a week later. I find that under the circumstances, this continued accusation reflects a serious lack of sensitivity and sense of proportion. After this request closes, I will delete the page in question as effectively an attack page, unless MZMcBride has the courtesy at this point to do that himself.
Within the past few weeks, MZMcBride has very laudibly undertaken an initiative to locate article content that may violate our policy on biographies of living persons. BLP problems are the most serious problem affecting Wikipedia and it is the responsibility of every administrator to contribute toward addressing them, and I appreciate the contribution that MZMcBride is making, which should be continued in some form and whose general method could profitably be adopted by others. However, as reflected in a question I have asked him tonight in another location (and to which he has been kind enough to respond in detail), I have a serious concern about the manner in which he has chosen to go about his chosen task.
Several weeks ago, MZMcBride created a particular page, whose contents are most troublesome. Its identity and nature are known to my fellow arbitrators. When this page—which, incidentally, was just as "un-encyclopedic" as any signature page or guestbook ever created—was nominated for deletion, MZMcBride's flippant response was that the page was only made dangerous by the publicity given to it on the MfD itself—and presumably, now, the publicity given to it on another website (which is the only reason I mention it here, because the cat is likely out of the bag). Presumably, MZMcBride figured that the page was harmless so long as no one ever read it—which is scarcely consistent with his having published it on Wikipedia, which we all know is one of the most popular websites in the world. While the MfD was pending, MZMcBride, fearing that his master-work might be deleted here, re-created it on another website. All of this strikes me as, to say the very least, unhelpful. I anticipate the response here that the best response to the page was to address the issues raised in it; but that could not be done overnight, and would not be done at all unless the issues were raised with the relevant individuals (who, MZMcBride assures me, do know of the page) rather than random people who might come across the page. I am at a complete loss to know what purpose was supposedly being served by this conduct.
MZMcBride is clearly dedicated to Wikipedia, and having strong views as to how the project should be administered is hardly a vice. Any one of these issues or incidents on which I have criticized MZMcBride's actions or opinions, individually, could be taken as a simple matter of one person disagreeing with another. I am also cognizant that most of these issues, other than the deletion spree that led to this request, are not directly raised by the request for arbitration and therefore MZMcBride has not responded to them here.
Nonetheless, in view of the record as a whole, I am impelled to state that I have grave doubts concerning whether MZMcBride has displayed over the past several months the quality of judgment worthy of an administrator. I am often the most lenient member of the committee (there is an essay claiming that that makes me the worst arbitrator, to which I plead nolo contendre), but in view of everything I have discussed I find myself appalled. Having said that, the fact that I have taken the time to write this long essay by way of a vote should demonstrate that I am trying to preserve MZMcBride's undoubted competencies and channel them for the benefit of the project rather than see him cast out as an administrator; if I had voted to accept the case, the format of arbitration decisions is summary rather than discursive, and unless something unexpected were to develop in the statements or the evidence, I or another arbitrator could readily write a decision desysopping him on this overall record in about half an hour. I hope matters might not come to that. But to avoid exactly that happening, sooner rather than later, I very earnestly recommend to MZMcBride a most careful consideration of and reflection on the points that have been made to him here and will presumably be further addressed in the RfC.
My decline is a tentative vote and subject to change pending further statements and developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MZMcBride has advised on my talkpage that in his view, "many parts of [my] statement at RFAR were inaccurate or misleading." It obviously was not my intention that any part of my comments be inaccurate or misleading. I will carefully review his response when it is available and will certainly modify or annotate my comments if there is anything that needs correction or clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for appeal: Una Voce

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Hithlin

The information from the article Una Voce has been removed, and the article itself made to redirect to Tridentine Mass#Opposition to the latest revisions of the liturgy, which does not mention the Una Voce movement. This has been done under the pretext of 'lack of notability'. However, the International Federation Una Voce is the world's largest association of lay Catholics attached to the Tridentine Mass, having a history since 1964, present in more than 30 countries, including dozens of chapters in the United States, and recognized by the Holy See. The vast majority of independent sources (see Talk:Una Voce) provided in order to support this assertion has been dismissed by User:Hrafn because of being linked to web sites interested in the same matters as the Una Voce movement - i. e., traditional Catholicism, though in no way dependent on, or bound to, the structures of Una Voce. This does not seem to be a fair criterion of dismissal. Therefore I request the restoration of the relevant information in its original appearance.

Statement by GRBerry

This is a content dispute following bold redirection (and maybe a merge). Prior discussion appears to be limited to Talk:Una Voce, and to only the two parties here. The filer should read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, of which this is the last step, most particularly Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Turn to others for help. At this time, this does not merit consideration by the committee. GRBerry 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Due to be archived in 24 hours.--Tznkai (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' views on accepting this matter (0/10/0/0)

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024
Amendment request: Pseudoscience none (orig. case) 9 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Xasodfuih

It has been recently pointed out to me that "ArbCom does not rule on content". Is this a newer policy that invalidates/vacates the pseudoscience decision which allows for the categorization (and presumably sub-categorization) of pseudoscientific claims and theories?

Diets making pseudoscientific claims are often described as fad diets by scientific associations; for instance, the American Dietetic Association has a list here. In a recent discussion however, the fad diets category has been deleted with the main argument that it's "not NPOV because what is fad is inherently POV" (not an exact quote). Surely, the same argument can and most likely was made about the more general pseudoscience category before the ArbCom previously. So, does the pseudoscience decision still stand? Is it WP:NPOV to have Category:Pseudoscience? Is it WP:NPOV to have sub-categories for pseudoscience, such as Category:Fad diet if major scientific organizations use them? Thank you for your time. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Other current discussion related to that CFD exists at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23#Category:Fad diet. GRBerry 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment to Xasodfuih: Have you discussed the closure of this CfD with the administrator who closed it? The closure of that CfD may have nothing to do with the term "fad" and may be related to the fact that the articles within the now-deleted category were all present in Category:Diets, as noted by one of the other participants. Risker (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment below in the context of the previous request for clarification of this same decision, is also generally applicable here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two clarification requests at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience that may be helpful to read. 1 2 Following the most recent of those clarification requests, the Pseudoscience section of NPOV was lifted from the FAQ. Note that a similar section was moved from the NPOV page to the new FAQ subpage in mid-2006, and the Arbcom ruling was included there in March 2007. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversial category names are tricky. The specific example of "fad diets" should be left for deletion review to take care of (though is it not possible to use another name for such things, or subcategorise diets another way?). The general approach to controversial categories should be to improve the articles first so that it is clearer (with source) as to whether the articles should be in such categories. And if the category is deemed appropriate, to come up with a category definition to keep things under control. Not quite sure what diets have to do with pseudoscience, though. They may claim to have a scientific basis, but that doesn't make them a science or pseudoscience. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, I feel this is no longer a matter for the Committee to clarify or handle. The "pseudoscience" section of policy predates the arbitration case. The reference to the principle formulated during the case was added to official policy almost two years ago by normal policy editing.[34] It appears the community has taken ownership of the principle, or rather that it has been incorporated into policy by normal means. Thus, it should be handled like any other point of policy. (Additionally, I am concerned that remaining open to ArbCom clarification on the principle turns the Committee into a content adjudicator for disputes surrounding it.) Discussions about its appearance and application in policy should be discussed at the neutral point of view talk page and/or policy village pump. Requests for input and clarification regarding its application to specific cases should be discussed at the NPOV noticeboard and the appropriate article talk pages. Dispute resolution should be used to help resolve any impasse. Vassyana (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Paranormal - Adequate Framing

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

In articles such as psychic, telekinesis, and so on, where the subject's very existence is heavily in dispute, it seems to me to be necessary, to adequately frame the subject, to acknowledge that in the lead sentence. For instance, you could describe it as a "purported ability", but to simply define it as what proponents say it is seems to directly imply its existence, which is a problem. However, it's been said that this Arbcom ruling means that such framing is forbidden. Can you clarify whether this ruling was meant to apply in articles about such abilities and subjects themselves, or whether it was intended to instead mean that it's usually not necessary to rehash such debates in every article? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad: I didn't think of that - sorry! I've done it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Fred: Please forgive me, I'm not quite sure I fully understand your point. It seems to be that, all things being equal, it's not necessary to rehash, say, the psychic debate in every article, but that instead we can just include individualised criticism to frame it, but I'm not sure how that applies in articles where the subject is, say Psychic, Parapsychology, Ghost, and so on. How would you see, say, Psychic's lead sentence or paragraph, if adequate framing is to be provided? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

Just as one need only identify a narrative as being based on a dream in order to frame it as not real, in many instances simply identifying a subject as being "paranormal" serves to frame it as not being based on scientific observation. Thus, it is not necessary to include extensive disclaimers in order to satisfy neutral point of view. The same principle can be applied to alternative medicine. Identifying Homeopathy as alternative medicine defines it as not being based on standard medical trials of effectiveness. It is not necessary to throw the word quackery around in the introduction. Likewise with respect to the paranormal, simply stating that telekinesis is a paranormal phenomenon is generally sufficient. It is not necessary to carry on at length regarding lack of scientific evidence. The example given about Jeane Dixon, a notorious humbug who held herself out as a psychic, is illustrative. Fred Talk 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not forbidden to point out lack of evidence of a subject's existance in close questions; it is simply bad form to continually edit war and fuss over such language when simply stating that a phenomena falls into a generally rejected category offers more than sufficient information to the reader. Fred Talk 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is not actionable and should be closed, because it pertains to a decision that has not yet been made. This discussion belongs on the proposed decision talk page. Also, on the merits, is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision#Adequate framing, a principle enunciated by the Committee, even part of the binding arbitration decision? I was under the impression that the only operative part of arbitral decisions are the remedies. If that is so, the principle at issue is not enforceable through arbitration enforcement and the request is moot anyway.  Sandstein  19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike part of the above, the case is indeed closed, and the correct link goes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing.  Sandstein  20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are generally treated as enforceable, even unanswerable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those attempting to understand one part of an ArbComm case should also look to other parts. In this case, it appears to me that to understand principle 6.2 "Adequate framing" and finding of fact 12 "Paranormal as an effective tag", it is necessary to also review at the least principles 6.1 "Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content" and 11 "Generally considered pseudoscience", findings of fact 3 "Status of parapsychology", 5 "Cultural artifacts", 6 "Subjects without referents", and 9 "Flat statements of fact". The numbering indicates that principles 6.1 and 6.2 are related replacements for the rejected proposed principle 6. Personally, I would expect that in articles such as Psychic or Ghost principle 6.1 would be of more relevance than 6.2, while in the case of an individual claiming to be a psychic or a claimed particular incident/location of haunting by a ghost 6.2 would be of more relevance than 6.1. However, the amount of framing to appear in an article's lead is always going to be constrained by other standards applying to article leads, so the framing in the lead is likely to be succinct with extended discussion of epistemological status in the body of the article. GRBerry 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator comments

  • Please give notice of this thread to the former arbitrator who wrote the decision. I would welcome his input on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thank Fred for his input. I believe that in past discussions concerning principles in the Pseudoscience case, the conclusion has been that they represent general background observations on the issues, and are not meant to unduly constrain the usual process of article development (i.e., there is a difference between the role of principles and the role of remedies). In this case, I think the principle suggests that it is well to avoid undue weight on a negative characterization of a subject or topic in the lead, but I do not think it would be valid in a content to dispute to expect to be playing a trump card by stating "your wording violates a principle handed down by the ArbCom two years ago." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpretation of past rulings are always, as a rule, a difficult endeavor. In this particular case, I share Shoemaker's Holiday puzzlement over the examples given since it would seem to me that describing someone as a "psychic" without qualification, for instance, begs the question of the existence of psychics in the first place. If the article on our founder began "Jimmy Wales, a 700-year old vampire", then it appears to claim not only that Jimbo might be a vampire, but that vampires do in fact exist (since he would be one). It would appear to me that the only neutral way of framing claims of belonging to a category whose very existence is disputed requires attributing the claim.

    However, I am not about to guess at intent without giving the drafting arbitrator the opportunity to clarify it themself. — Coren (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My view here is that editorial discretion is key, and ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on this sort of thing, other than to uphold the principle of editorial discretion. If there is disagreement over how best to write a lead sentence, or get the balance right in the lead section, then look at how other encyclopedias (or other Wikipedia articles) have handled this. Aim to get the balance right between a suitably worded description and one that is readable. In other words, don't tie things up in knots if the end result is an awkward and clumsy sentence or paragraph. Better to have a good piece of writing that gets the point across, than a standard approach that is clumsily imposed on all articles in this topic area. And do trust the readers more. Some of them are perfectly aware of what the issues are and don't need to be (metaphorically) beaten over the head with clarifications and disclaimers and glosses to explain things. Sometimes a link and a few judiciously chosen words alone is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=273370177"