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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Statement by Mr.Z-man

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nutiketaiel

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

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

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

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

Statement by Black Kite

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

Statement by SmokeyJoe

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

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

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

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

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 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)

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 () 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. )— 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: and — User:MZMcBride did not only violate the deletion policy with his actions, but WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA as well. These summaries towards highly valued contributors like User:.:Alex:. show a conduct entirely unbecoming to an administrator. Taking all these points into account —especially User:MZMcBride’s problematic history as an administrator— the only right course of action is to de-sysop User:MZMcBride infinitely. — Aitias // discussion 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by GRBerry

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

Statement by Juliancolton

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

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

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

Statement by LessHeard vanU

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

Statement by RMHED

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

Statement by Hiberniantears

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

Comment from Viridae

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

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

A modest proposal by Durova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Iridescent

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

Statement by Daniel

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

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

Statement 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)

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 Misplaced Pages pages or media without discussion. If a page has not had a deletion discussion or policy relating to it before and is outside of the usual CSD rules, it does not get deleted without discussion. IAR does not mean "do whatever you want" - these secret pages aren't improving the encyclopedia, but they're not doing any harm. Deleting pages in user space outside of these limits, some that aren't even real secret pages, is a pretty stupid thing to do.

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

Comment/Question from Conti

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

Statement by Misza13

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

Comment by Resolute

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

Statement by 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 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

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

Comment by Who then was a gentleman?

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

Statement by Tarc

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

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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  05:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment by uninvolved Jennavecia

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

LONG VERSION

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

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

SHORT VERSION

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

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages or its contributors as a result of MZM's actions. His prior admonishment was for conduct in a visible part of Misplaced Pages 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. I was concerned not so much that some obviously young (or young at heart) Wikipedians were wasting a little time and bandwidth, but that games like this had the potential of mutating and getting out of hand and causing some real damage if unchecked. At the same time, people seemed to be really enjoying this harmless fun, and I did not want to be a killjoy. In the AN discussion that followed there was a general agreement (I think) that these pages were a technical policy violation and something to discourage, but also some very serious, heartfelt argument that summarily deleting the pages would likely hurt the project by alienating some of our most enthusiastic young editors, treating them a WP:BITE-y officiousness that is the exact opposite of what we need to do to encourage people to help build an encyclopedia. Enthusiastic but misguided youngsters are to be welcomed, cultivated, and guided, not rebuffed. That was the tone of the discussion, anyway.

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

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

Comment by Seicer

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

Comment by DuncanHill

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

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

Comment by uninvolved Deacon of Pndapetzim

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

O Thou, that in the heavens does dwell,

As it pleases best Thysel',

Sends one to Heaven an' ten to Hell,

For Thy glory,

And not for any or ill

They've done before Thee!

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

We don't have WP:CONSENSUS to allow the people who come here and open accounts to do what they want with their userspace just because they can mobilise numbers in the right places. The people giving MZMcBride a hard time over this really ought to have a little think about what wikipedia is, and then try to explain why MZMcBride should be punished for a matter entirely unrelated to article content, for trying to stamp out a practice that if not contrary to the purposes of an online encyclopedia certainly doesn't help it. It seems that many users are exploiting preservation-prejudiced article-based policies like Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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

Comment by Werdna

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

Suggestion from Jehochman

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

Comment by Mailer Diablo

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

Comment by Orderinchaos

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

Comment by Regent Spark

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

Clerk notes

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

• Coren, is your vote to be considered a reject or a comment? Tiptoety 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Obviously recused. MBisanz 02:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Brad - anyway you can HAT your opinion?--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know the codes, but I suppose you can do that if you want to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but the formatting with the archive note and the small type is not really helpful. I did take a fair amount of time drafting detailed comments and I do want them to be readable. Please try again or leave it as it was. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll just leave it at is unless I can think of something suitably brilliant.--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm sure someone will come up with the right code. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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  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)
• 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  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  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  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  02:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Kirill  22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline in favour of an RfC (as suggested by several people). The periodic emergence of various "games" on Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 13:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per John above, who sums up what I was going to say. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 - 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages, and I can understand an argument that there is little if any reason to have them around. Compare WP:NOT, which instructs that Misplaced Pages is a project to create a reference work, not a social network. But there are also counterarguments, however: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, I can think of many, many higher-priority tasks.

The usual justification for deleting these types of pages is that "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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)

• Decline per what others have stated. Wizardman 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Una Voce

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

• Hithlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified

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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, of which this is the last step, most particularly Misplaced Pages: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)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. Hithlin, I'd suggest you consider filing a request at Redirects for discussion as the next step in dispute resolution here. The Arbitration Committee does not normally address cases specific to the content of articles. Speaking as a fellow editor, however, you might find some assistance by posting a request at WikiProject:Catholicism or a similar Wikiproject, where editors there might be able to assist you in locating reliable source references. Risker (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Per Risker above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Wizardman 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Risker and also per the statement by GRBerry. As indicated, there are other dispute resolution methods available for working toward consensus in this matter that will be much less burdensome for everyone than an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Kirill  04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline John Vandenberg 06:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline --ROGER DAVIES  07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Risker. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; Risker's advice is highly pertinent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - can be resolved by other means. As Sam says, Risker's advice is good. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Per Risker. Vassyana (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

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

• Xasodfuih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

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)

• Update: I've read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy carefully, and I don't see a limitation on the scope of ArbCom rulings to content, but only a caveat that you usually don't rule on it: "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." Since a prior content-related decision has been made in this area, I think that clarifying it will not violate the current policy. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to Risker: User:Good Olfactory was the closing admin for the original Category:Diet and food fads discussion, and the admin who speedily deleted (G4) my (inadvertant re-)creation of Category:Fad diet. User:Jmh649, who like me has not taken part in the (unadvertised to relevant WikiProjects) original discussion, asked Good Olfactory to reopen the discussion, but the admin declined without further commentary. I don't see how the unexpressed thoughts of the closing admin override the rationale(s) given in the original deletion discussion. As for redundancy, surely we have Category:Science, but that does not make more specific categories such as Category:Fringe science or even Category:Pseudoscience redundant; I think the reasoning same applies to diet topics. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• An example (possibly clarifying the difference between this issue and the other related request on this page): Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that the potentially derogatory term "fad diet" is attributed (to ADA) in the wiki article's text, not given as a bare fact. I don't see however a practical way to do that for Misplaced Pages categories. I assume the 2006 decision struggled with this matter too, hence the wording "generally considered pseudoscience". I'm all for discussing whether a certain diet meets the "generally considered" standard for categorization, but the deletion of the category preempts any such discussion from taking place. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Update 2: The finding I'm citing from the famous 2006 ArbCom has been incorporated into Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories. (I'm surprised that nobody pointed this out to me.) So, there's probably not much else that the Committee can do in this matter. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it was added to NPOV on Feb 12, 2009, that's why many don't know about it. Thanks, John! Xasodfuih (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

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

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)
• 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)
• 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 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. 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)

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)

To Newyorkbrad: I didn't think of that - sorry! I've done it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Strike part of the above, the case is indeed closed, and the correct link goes to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing.  Sandstein  20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They are generally treated as enforceable, even unanswerable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Clerk notes

• There is some threaded discussion above, are the arbs ok with this or should it be broken out into sections for each participant? MBisanz 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
• 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  19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)