Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

Case Opened on 01:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MBK004 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Secret (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights)

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.

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: [1]) 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 [2][3][4] , 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 ([5], [6]) 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."

Statement by 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.

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/4/2/0)

• Accept In the light of this administrator's recent admonishment, it is appropriate to review his recent conduct, the scope of this case should be broadened beyond the "secret pages" deletion to encompass the issues raised below and elsewhere. My take is the community expects someone under admonishment to avoid controversy instead of courting it and this editor's pivotal role in various recent dramas suggests that they may not have got the message. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• comment - would like to see more stmts first, but leaning to accept per Roger. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)

Prior comments by Coren

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  • 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)

Accept; after careful consideration. There are a number of factors and developments that make me feel that, while I would have prefered to keep this to an RfC, this may not end up being the best solution.

For one, an unambiguous and clear RfC might have been the ideal solution but it now appears evident that it would be a very divided, and divisive process with no clear outcome, likely to cause more acrimony and disruption than solve much. MZMcBride himself having requested that we proceed to a case is a factor (possibly borne of a desire to avoid the very divisions I now fear would plague an RfC).

Secondly, I'm not convinced participants would be heading towards an RfC with the proper mindset; the issue is not related to this, or any other specific incident and whether MZMcBride was correct or not in what he did but about the longer term pattern of how he behaves as an administrator. I'm not convinced a RfC would allow anyone to see the forest instead of the individual trees.

For those reasons, I'm moving for a case to open in lieu of an RfC. Please note that I will have absolutely no tolerance to editors misusing the case as a platform for personal attacks, or to air a shopping list of past grievances about "bad" administrative actions. The case should focus on long term patterns, not individual incidents, and should not be used as retribution or revenge. The clerks will be instructed to police the evidence and workshop cases closely and sternly if this case opens. — Coren ^(talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Recuse. Kirill ^[pf] 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strike that. Leaning toward accepting a case about MZMcBride's use of the admin tools. If anyone believes I ought to recuse, please bring it to my attention. Cool Hand Luke 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I moved your recuse to the "other" column of the tally. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I took a look at the users who had their page deleted at User:Cool Hand Luke/Secret page. Many were apparently primarily social, but many are also committed Wikipedians. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept, with the understanding that we are not reviewing the standards for user pages, which is a content and policy decision for the community. Instead, we should be focused solely on MZMcBride's conduct as an admin and an editor. Cool Hand Luke 20:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Recuse, at Mr.Z-man's request. I do not think there's a reason I can't arbitrate on this case fairly, but in order to avoid similarly baseless accusations that MZMcBride got an unfair hearing, I will drop from the case. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Updating my comment to confirm my decline still stands, for the same reasons. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reject; premature. The actions here did not enliven the admonishment from the prior case. Taking action in the absence of consensus is a kettle of fish apart from taking action against consensus (though of course, not necessarily appropriate, nor necessarily any less damaging). As such, this matter should be subject to other steps in the dispute resolution process before it comes to arbitration. --bainer (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  On a related note, I posed a question here that some of the parties might be interested in. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Decline. Per Coren, Carcharoth and bainer. Vassyana (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per Rlevse. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per bainer. ANI is working; DRV is the next step, and RFC may also help. Also, I agree with Rlevse and Coren that a swift desysop, perhaps temporary, will be likely if the issues that Rlevse mentions are left unattended and result in a RFAR. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - per John above, who sums up what I was going to say. switch to Accept, on second thoughts an RfC I suspect will not yield a conclusion, and we need to look at conduct as an admin in general as the scope. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. MZMcBride's judgment has been questioned on a number of occasions since the Sarah Palin RFAR, and all of these episodes should be examined as a body. The scope of this case should not be limited to only one of the issues that have been raised in various forums. Risker (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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 (strikeout inaccurate fact) closed as 'no consensus' through MfD, takes it off-wiki (strikeout to clarify) off en-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)

• Change to accept. I had previously provided extensive comments accompanying my earlier vote to decline, which I had hoped might lead toward addressing some of the issues raised without the need for a case. When I wrote, the majority seemed to be leaning against taking the case. Since then, a majority of the committee has voted to accept. Indeed, the tally is now 9/6/1/0 counting my decline, which is a solid majority of the 15 participating arbitrators voting to accept, but technically could lead to rejection anyway under the "net 4" rule that we have followed for the past two years. I find this to be an unreasonable result, and would change my vote to accept in any case presenting this scenario. (Indeed, this illustrates the need for us to revise the rule, as I have suggested in the past.) I also note that MZMcBride has himself requested that in light of my views as stated, I should vote to accept the case. I will add that any views expressed in my earlier comments were tentative and, as in any case, are fully subject to revision based on the evidence that will be presented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Prior comments by Newyorkbrad

• 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)

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)

Note: I have made a couple of edits above per the input I received from MZMcBride on my talk. It bears emphasis as well that if the case is accepted, anything that I (or anyone else, I believe) may have said at the accept-or-decline stage is provisional, and is subject to modification based on the evidence. Meanwhile, on my talkpage, MZMcBride has urged me to change my vote to accept. I have not yet decided whether to do that simply on the basis of his request, but it appears that the voting is evolving in the general direction of acceptance anyway. As I have stated before in another case, as a matter of principle I will vote to accept any case where a majority of the total committee have supported acceptance but which might otherwise be rejected due to literal application of our in-need-of-updating "net 4" rule, as I would not consider an outcome such as "9 votes to accept, 6 votes to decline, therefore rejected" to be reasonable. I will continue to watch this request with that in mind, as well as with an eye on the comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Decline per what others have stated. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think this is one of those rare times where an RfC would be beneficial.Wizardman 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • On second thought, accept. Essentially, this is the type of case I usually have no problem accepting, and while an RfC may be beneficial as i stated, it's also likely to be an immense battleground which would cancel out anything good. Wizardman 00:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• I would accept this case, though absolutely without prejudice as to its outcome. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction(s):

MZMcBride directed to refrain from using automated tools

1) MZMcBride is directed to refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion while this arbitration case is pending. This is a temporary injunction and does not reflect any predetermination on the outcome of any issue in the case. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Extension of injunction

2) The Arbitration Committee previously adopted an injunction passed on March 6, 2009, directing MZMcBride to refrain from using automated tools such as bots or scripts to delete pages while the case was pending. The purpose of this injunction was to allow time for the committee to address issues concerning MZMcBride's mass deletions of pages, which have been controversial and which some participants in this case have alleged violate policy.

Since the injunction was adopted, MZMcBride has deleted hundreds of additional pages, sometimes at a rate of dozens of pages per minute. MZMcBride has explained several times that these deletions have been effectuated using tabbed browsing, rather than by a bot or script. However, at least some of the concerns regarding the mass deletions remain the same as those covered by the injunction.

Accordingly, MZMcBride is directed to refrain from deleting pages while this case remains pending, with the exception of obvious attack, nonsense, or vandalism pages. There is no restriction against his proposing lists of pages to be deleted by other administrators, provided that the deleting administrator exercises his or her own judgment in determining that deletion is appropriate.

This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect until the case is closed. It does not reflect any prejudgment of the merits of the case. The committee shall take reasonable steps to expedite the resolution of this case, thereby producing a final decision that will supersede this and the prior temporary injunction.

Passed 8 to 1 (with 1 abstain) at 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They should lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with other editors. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes by administrators are understandable, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator communications

2) Administrators are required to explain their actions. The interface screen for administrator actions such as deletions offers a "reason" field to be used for this purpose, whose contents are logged. While all editors should reply promptly and civilly to good-faith queries about their edits or actions, administrators are particularly expected to do so. Additionally, when an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

3) The policy pages for Deletion policy, Undeletion policy, and Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion of pages, including pages in userspace. Administrators are expected to use their deletion and undeletion abilities consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete pages that lie outside the criteria for speedy deletion should usually list those pages at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, such as Articles for deletion or Miscellany for deletion, or apply a Proposed deletion tag. This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria, nor constrain application of our policy on biographies of living persons.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of deletion

4) Whenever an administrator deletes a page, he or she must specify the reason for doing so. Deletion can easily discourage editors, especially new editors, so they should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. When the deletion is of a page in userspace, the affected editor may be particularly dismayed. Even though users do not "own" such pages, reasonable leeway is accorded to userspace content. Therefore, a clear and civil explanation of why a userspace page has been deleted should always be provided.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal expression in userspace

5) Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration. Editors should use good judgment concerning the nature of this material. Administrators may delete inappropriate userspace pages, either speedily where the inappropriateness of the material is blatant, and otherwise through MfD. Before seeking to delete a userspace page, it will often be desirable for an administrator to contact the user and explain why the page is considered problematic; sometimes the user will agree to delete or revise the page and thereby resolve the issue. Editing of subpages in one's userspace (except for encyclopedic pages such as sandbox versions of articles or the like) generally should not be the primary focus of an editor's contributions to the site.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bots and scripts

6.1) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable to facilitate making multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits. The application of this policy to bots maintained by administrators has historically been controversial. WP:ADMINBOT was adopted to resolve the issue, but compliance has been sporadic and enforcement has been lax.

Passed 9 to 1 (with 2 abstains), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility of bot operators

7) Like other holders of special access or privileges, bot operators and script users have a heightened responsibility to the community. They are expected to respond promptly and reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bots, and to be available to do so promptly when the bot or script is editing. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have this privilege restricted.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

8) Substantially improving the level of compliance with our policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) remains the most urgent ethical issue facing Wikipedia. Efforts to enhance and ensure compliance with the BLP policy are commendable, even though editors may disagree in good faith about the best means of doing so.

Passed 10 to 0 (with 4 abstains), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

9.1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content and policy disputes among editors.

Passed 12 to 2, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

10) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of access levels

11) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule.

Passed 12 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact

MZMcBride

1) MZMcBride has edited Wikipedia since May 2005 and has been an administrator since May 2007. He has made more than 50,000 edits, has taken more than 800,000 administrator actions, and has shown a high level of dedication to the project. His administrator work has, among other aspects, focused on the use of automated tools, such as bots and scripts, to identify categories of pages that he believes require administrator action, such as deletion or unprotection.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's prior arbitration case

1.1) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, MZMcBride was formally admonished by this Committee and was directed 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."

Passed 13 to 1, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's deletion of "secret pages"

2) On February 23 and 24, 2009, MZMcBride deleted a total of more than 250 userspace pages from the userspaces of more than 100 editors. He located the pages by using a script to find userspace pages with names including the word "secret", and then he deleted the pages. His intention was to delete "secret" or "hidden" pages used for what he perceived as frivolous or "social" purposes (for example, "find my secret page and win a barnstar" types of pages).

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of communication regarding the deletions

3) MZMcBride did not notify or warn the editors with "secret pages" before he deleted them, nor did he place notices on the editors' talkpages when he deleted the pages. As a result, many of the editors first learned of the deletions when they noticed that pages had become redlinks, or went to work on pages only to discover that they were no longer there. Several of the affected editors who objected to the deletion of their pages were especially upset that they had not been notified in advance or given an opportunity to defend their pages before they were deleted.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's deletion summaries

4.1) MZMcBride's deletion summary for many of these deletions was "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less" (example), which upset some of the editors whose pages were deleted. Moreover, the implied assumption that all or most of the users hosting "secret pages" were spending an undue proportion of their wiki-time on non-encyclopedic activities, while understandable, appears inaccurate. (See: User:Cool Hand Luke/Secret page.)

Passed 11 to 2 (with 1 abstain), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of "secret" or "hidden" pages

5) "Secret" or "hidden" user pages do not fall clearly within any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Despite some extensive community discussions, there is no policy or precedent clearly establishing whether such pages are an acceptable use of userspace. Reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of this question. See User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages for one summary of the competing arguments.

Passed 13 to 1, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Justification for the deletions

6) In making and defending these deletions, MZMcBride relied on an MfD discussion in April 2008, whose scope and applicability to the recent deletions is disputed, as well as language drawn from the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. MZMcBride has explained his reasons for deleting these pages on the workshop page and we accept that the deletions were made in the belief that they benefitted the project. However, even while MZMcBride was still deleting pages, a thread was opened on the administrators' noticeboard in which many editors objected to the deletions and the way they were being made. At least as of that time, MZMcBride should have stopped deleting these pages until a consensus was reached.

Passed 11 to 1 (with 2 abstains), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to complaints about the deletions

7) Several editors whose pages had been deleted posted to MZMcBride's talkpage. Some protested the deletions, while others asked the reasons for them or expressed concern about potential loss of the data on the pages. At first, MZMcBride's responses to some of the queries from the editors who hosted "secret pages" were cursory, although his responses to other editors was more detailed. However, MZMcBride agreed to provide any affected editor with an e-mailed copy of his or her deleted page(s) to avoid data loss. He also agreed to reinstate any of the deleted pages upon request by the affected editor, although he added that he would thereupon nominate the page for deletion on MfD.

Passed 14 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of adminbots

8) The status of bots run by administrators on their primary accounts, particularly bots capable of administrator actions such as deletion or protection/unprotection, was controversial for several years. For a time, formal policy was that such bots were impermissible, although it had become clear that several well-respected administrators were running "adminbots" as "open secrets" and that some of these bots were doing important work for the project. In September 2008, this Committee declined a request for arbitration on this subject, in which MZMcBride was named as a party. Several arbitrators observed at that time that whether and when to permit adminbots was a policy matter that should be addressed by the bot approvals group (BAG) and the community as a whole. Subsequent community discussion led to the addition of a "Bots with administrative rights" section to the bot policy, which regularized the status of such bots. Administrators running previously unapproved adminbots were requested to submit requests for BAG approval of their bots within two months.

Passed 12 to 2, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's adminbots

9) MZMcBride has repeatedly acknowledged that prior to this arbitration case, he regularly ran bots and scripts on his administrator account. He has stated his view that these bots perform important maintenance tasks for the project. A few users have questioned whether some of these tasks are in fact beneficial. MZMcBride has declined to request BAG approval for his bots. He has detailed his reasons for not doing so on the workshop; in substance, he suggests that any such requirement is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. However, discussion of the value and nature of tasks to be assigned to a bot may be especially valuable where, as here, there has been disagreement regarding whether some of the tasks are desirable or what the parameters of the tasks (e.g., deletions) should be.

Passed 13 to 0 (with 1 abstain), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-segregation of logs

9.1) Because MZMcBride has run automated, semi-automated and manual tasks affecting a very large number of pages, the logs of his account contain tens of thousands of such actions making it difficult or impossible for most other editors to verify the accuracy or propriety of those actions.

Passed 8 to 2 (with 4 abstains), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's deletion of redirects

9.2.1) MZMcBride has repeatedly deleted redirects without consensus. There was previous disagreement and concern expressed about MZMcBride doing large volume deletion runs, including re-directs, without prior discussion. MZMcBride was apparently aware of these concerns that his approach was not in keeping with the emerging community opinion regarding repetitive admin actions. He failed to engage in discussion before the deletions, disregarding these concerns and neglecting the opportunity to resolve any misunderstandings before the deletions.

Passed 8 to 0 (with 3 abstains), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's userspace

10.1) MZMcBride previously had certain pages in his userspace whose content was problematic. He then voluntarily deleted these pages several weeks ago after no consensus was reached at the Miscellany for deletion debate, and has not created any new ones. One page had been transferred and soft redirected by MZMcBride to MediaWiki.org where he got no objection from MediaWiki sysadmins or developers. The Arbitration Committee still considered that page problematic and potentially harmful to Wikipedia. The page was then deleted from MediaWiki.org on April 5, 2009 as an initiative from MZMcBride.

Passed 8 to 3 (with 1 abstain), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's BLP initiative

11) MZMcBride has commendably developed a methodology for seeking to identify articles that may contain certain types of biographies of living people (BLP) problems, and worked with another user to develop a script to carry out this task. Issues for discussion remain concerning the best means of listing and addressing the issues raised by the output of the script.

Passed 10 to 0 (with 2 abstains), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's participation in this case

12) MZMcBride has responded cogently, promptly, and in detail to questions posed by the arbitrators concerning the issues in this case.

Passed 7 to 3 (with 4 abstains), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's administrator status

15) MZMcBride resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while this arbitration case was pending.

Passed 13 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MZMcBride strongly urged

1) MZMcBride is strongly urged:

(A) To consult with other members of the community and seek consensus before undertaking major administrative projects such as mass deletions of pages;

(B) To adhere more closely to deletion policies and the considerations outlined in this decision before deleting pages, and particularly before undertaking programs of mass deletion;

(C) To enhance his level of communication with editors affected by his administrator actions; and

(D) To use good judgment concerning the content of his userspace.

Passed 12 to 2, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's administrator status

1.4) The Committee takes note that MZMcBride has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending. Any request by MZMcBride for restoration of adminship privileges will require either a new request for adminship or the approval of this Committee. MZMcBride is urged to give careful consideration to the principles expressed in this decision in his future editing, and especially if he reattains adminship at a future date.

Passed 13 to 0, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride directed

2) MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions. Appropriate consultation is also in order before undertaking patterns of mass edits or mass deletions, even if fully automated tools technically are not employed. The relevant issues in any such discussion should include the value to Wikipedia of the particular bot task proposed and whether the bot is the best means of accomplishing that task.

Passed 13 to 1, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride commended and urged

3) MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.

Passed 11 to 2, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tasks to be segregated

4) MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions. All such accounts must be approved as bots using the usual procedure, but may be reused for consecutive tasks as appropriate so long as the various task may be clearly identified in the edit summaries and logs and have been individually approved.

Passed 12 to 1, 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride restricted

5) MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

Passed 9 to 4 (with 1 abstain), 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.