User talk:MZMcBride

May 2005 – July 2006 August 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 June 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 – October 2007 November 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – February 2008 March 2008 – April 2008 May 2008 – June 2008 July 2008 – August 2008 September 2008 – October 2008 November 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – February 2009 March 2009 –

Resigned

I've had a steward remove my administrator rights on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Though I acknowledge that the RFAr has highlighted some mistakes of judgment, I had rather hoped to avoid this outcome. I continue to believe that your actions were a net positive to the project, and am sorry that it has come to this rather than finding a more focused solution to smooth out the rough spots. Thanks for the work you have contributed over the years and I hope that you will remain interesting in working on Wikipedia despite your reduction in rights. Dragons flight (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank for you for the kind words.

Yes. The two questions that have been rattling around in my mind for the past few weeks are, "Is the project served by me resigning?" and "Do I still have the support of the majority of longtime users?" I don't believe the project is served by my resignation. And I still believe that a large majority of longtime users still have trust in me. However, others obviously disagree. Oh well. Am I disappointed in the outcome? To be sure. But life goes on.

And, as they say, it isn't over till it's over. There's still a possibility (albeit a small one) that an Arbitrator will change their vote. We shall see.

In the meantime, there's a lot of non-admin-related work to be done, especially with regard to biographies. So I think I'll focus my energies there.

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the actions you took with regards to the questionable page. I thank you for all that. I was inclined to change my vote after you voluntarily deleted the soft redirect of the questionable page and the page itself from Mediawiki. However, upon having a look at the case's talk page I found this post which really changed my mind again. The last sentence is really not my standard hoped from an administrator. My couple last questions MZMcBride... have you thought about it for a second before posting it or that you considered it to be productive? Have you thought that you could have been assessing John Vandenberg's vote inaccurately? Do you believe that it is a result of a burnout caused by the case itself? And if you believe that was wrong, would you believe that you could avoid such situations in the future? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mis-read John's intention, which I clarified in my later post. That was a mistake on my part. Did I think it was productive when I posted it? Yes. I even considered posting it on John's talk page, because I think the underlying issue is an important one.

In these cases, especially ones that focus on specific editors, it's easy to point out every mistake that they've made. (And even easier when the person has made a lot of actions or has been around for a long time.) But I'm a firm believer that all users have belly-buttons. As much talk as there is about me being a robot, I'm actually quite capable of mistakes. And, more to the point, I hate making them, so quite often I try to ensure that I don't. But I'm not infallible; I've screwed up in the past, but I've also learned a great deal from those mistakes.

I think two of the most important lessons I've learned here are: (a) that responding to talk page concerns and questions is incredibly important; and (b) that even if you try to anticipate every corner case, with a database this large, you'll always miss something. Regarding talk page concerns, there are some admins who edit and act and only respond to talk page messages every few days. Having been on the other side of this, I realize how frustrating it can be to feel as though your messages are ignored. So, I try to respond to all posts to my talk page as promptly as possible. Regarding corner cases, it goes to show that review of large-scale tasks is important. It's simply not possible for one person to anticipate every possible scenario. "Many eyes make a bug shallow," as they say.

When I saw John's vote, I tried to speak with him privately, but he wasn't available at the time. I considered posting to his talk page, but in hindsight, I think posting to the talk page was a better choice because it opened up an avenue for discussion and brought to light what John pointed out may be a serious issue in one of the findings.

You've asked if I'm burned out a few times and I've avoided the question in the past. The reality is that these cases can be incredibly draining. There were a lot of questions to be answered, the case has gone on for nearly five weeks, and yes, it has become draining.

Personally, I think I've done the best I could answering all of the questions and at this point, responding to nearly all of the requests that have been asked of me. I deleted all of the subpages that caused people concern and I filed two Bot requests for approval.

There are admins who have in the past chosen to take the easy route and simply quit or retire when faced with challenges like this, but I owned up to my responsibility to the community to accept criticism and improve.

The comment on the talk page to John could have been phrased much better; for that I apologize. As I said earlier, these cases are difficult when a lot of people are judging you and assigning you motives and such. And it becomes much more difficult when people focus only on negative contributions. And even more difficult when people take positive contributions (finding and reporting biography-related issues) and put a negative tint on it. Did I feel attacked? Yes, and so I posted a note on the talk page. But I sincerely hope an off-hand remark doesn't taint the entire case.

--MZMcBride (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and detailed response. I'll be sending you a private e-mail later today if you don't mind. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What a shame. I still believe that your contributions, especially in regards to correcting the never-ending troubles with biographies of living individuals, have been a net benefit to this project regardless of the stance a few, vocal opponents take to this. Resigning the adminship rather than having it battle it out in some venue speaks volumes on your character, that you'd rather see the drama die down than string out, in the hopes that perhaps we can move forward towards a workable solution. A shame that it took your pushing to really bring this to light. seicer | talk | contribs 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to echo Dragons Flight. You leave big boots. I hope someday you put them back on. Hiding T 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dolorous. --Ali'i 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh this just sucks. In my Wiki-encounters with you, you have always done the right thing and acted fairly. I hope you will reconsider some day and re-apply for the tools. We need more good admins not fewer. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the kind words. It's been a rough couple of days and the sentiments expressed here have been much appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could You Please Restore My Page?

Hi, Could you please restore my Ohio Preteen Murders page, This time I will Cite The Sources. --Waglenic (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a copyright violation of the article listed in the deletion log at [1], not because it did not have sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

oh--Waglenic (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing red-linked files/Configuration

I see that this report is pulling up articles where the image is redirected. Is this intentional, or does it need to be tweaked?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example row from the report for me to test with? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the first one. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100,000_Dollar_Mamal links to File:$100,00 mamal.jpg, which redirects to File:Sea Scouts - $100,000 Dollar Mamal album cover.jpg. Weird thing is, it doesn't look like a redirect...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed. I'm re-running the report right now. Let me know if you notice any other strangeness. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looked good at first glance -- don't know if I'll be able to take a closer look, but the obvious problems are fixed. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Redressing grievances

With a project this large, there are bound to be people I've upset or pissed off in one way or another. This becomes especially true with the unusually high number of actions and edits I've made. I'd like the opportunity to redress any grievances that people may have.

Please feel free to post below if you have any concerns with my past behavior or actions. Or, if you'd feel more comfortable, feel free to send me an e-mail.

I promise, you won't hurt my feelings by being honest. I want to improve, but the only way that can happen is if people make constructive criticism.

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have one. Your WP:Database reports page provides me with thousands of menial but easy tasks to do, forcing me to spend hours doing them all. I demand those hours back!--Jac16888^Talk 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have only one greivance. You doubt yourself too much, and create too many outlets for trolls to vexatiously object to your otherwise good work. If you spent more time doing your job, and less time worrying about how people who have no right to be offended but get offended anyway feel, you could do a better job doing it. Rather than constantly seeking feedback, just do your job justly and rightly, and then any criticism will be seen as rediculous... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear MZMcBride: I myself do not agree with your actions, you made errors that the community at your RFA entrusted you would not make. You failed to follow the deleters maxim, "When in doubt, don't delete." IAR has its limits that must be carefully evaluated in light of community consensus and common precedents. Still, I think you handled the fallout remarkably well and for that I present you this:

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For being honest and doing the right thing in light of your recent controversy. Ipatrol (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"When in doubt, don't don't delete" would mean "when in doubt, do delete"... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the kind words.

Jayron32: In all seriousness, I want people to air their grievances if they have any. Truly. Jac16888: I'm afraid the reports will only continue to grow. :-) Let me know if there are any others you'd like to see added, updated more frequently, or adjusted. (Even minor things like making redirects not redirect or adding (edit) links are possible.) Ipatrol: Thank you for barnstar.

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you still owe me $20 bucks, jerk. :P Hehe, no but seriously, I think in everything you've done you've done so with the best of intentions, and I definitely hope you stick around. =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Get back to BLPs. Speaking of which, if you're so busy you're looking for beatings, you should help me make Daniel Rodriguez a good article in the face of the crap-factory that keeps editing it, and thereby honor Jeffpw with its improvement to GA, I met Jeffpw at the article, and we fought, and we made up and became friends, because he knew it was worth it to get along with people and work for the encyclopedia. You worked for the encyclopedia. A bunch of silly people decided that harming a good editor in order to keep crap on board was a good idea--and had to work it to make it seem like more. WTF? I'm pretty sure I have a beef with you. If I remember it, let me know. Oh, by the way, I was right: allowing the secret pages was a really bad idea that led to harm for the community, and it continues to be a really bad idea. But, glad to know that there's so little wrong with en.wiki.

I don't have time to work on the DR article now, but maybe this summer. It's the type of biography that wikipedia could and should do really well: sufficient well-sourced material is available. However, the poor guy's friends (Daniel Rodriguez's) can't write worth shit and keep trashing the article. It could be an excellent example of a first rate biography of a slightly famous figure. It's a shame that so few admins pay attention to problems with BLPs, as there really are problems there. However, as long as the AN/I of the moment crap fest is open for comments why do any hard work? --KP Botany (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. We're making progress on the biography front. Slowly, people are helping out and the backlogs, well, they're not going down, but at some point surely they have to decrease.... --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't appreciate your overly broad deletions of user pages where the accounts weren't in the database. It caught some where the account was registered before the conversion to Phase II software, then abandoned, such as Mike Dill (talk · contribs). I also used your deletions of talk page redirects to advantage in finding pages that needed to be history merged, thanks to the Special:DeletedContributions feature. I very much appreciate your regular database reports and work on BLP's, and hope you stick around despite recent events. Graham87 10:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't something I was particularly proud of and it's one of the true regrets I've had (those user page deletions). I learned a valuable lesson there about trusting the database. For the most part, the data is fine; however, sometimes when querying for pages, it's simply wrong or completely misleading. (I've filed my share of bugs and poked and prodded people to clean up some of the mess that's been left behind, as well.) Hopefully, others have learned from my mistakes. All the best. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(And let me know if there are any other database reports you'd like to see—I enjoy making them. The "Redirects obscuring page content" is fantastic for finding poorly-done ("manual") page moves.)

Grievances? How about giving up adminship, which allows you to weasel out of being one of the best non-vote-counting closers that we have. I may have to find a sharp stick and start poking you (hard) to get you on the path of non-admin closures : p - jc37 05:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking below, looks like the sharp stick did the trick (and better than I had anticipated : ) - jc37 07:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a grievance. On more than one occasion I've confused you with MBisanz, and it's all your fault for having too similar a user name! Because of that, I can't think of anything specific. But I'll consider it all settled if you buy me a camera :) Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I had not previously commented in this section, nor at your ArbCom, in keeping with my comments here; but in the light of your (IMO) extremely ill conceived RfA I think that perhaps a few negative comments here might have given you reason to more fully consider your choice of action. My grievance is that you fail to interact with all viewpoints of the community - your communications are fine, but in instances where you disagree your comments are devoted in arguing your case rather than trying to find common ground or determining the consensus. Moreover, you are inclined to refer to conversations held elsewhere when faced within the community pages with lack of consensus with your preferred choice. This is good in producing robust discussion, but it is not in keeping with the sysop function. It is a struggle I often face, and not always conquer, but I do recognise it; I wonder if you do. Lastly, we do not (have not) got on, but I think your general adminship was of benefit to the project and would not oppose a future request for the flags, but would strongly urge you to consider if you have previously divorced your own bias' sufficiently when making sysop decisions. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the blunt words. Much appreciated.

    I think your assessment is pretty fair overall. In a lot of cases, I think it's easier to simply do something and call it a day rather than trying to explain it to people. That's probably a fault of mine. And, yes, I get frustrated when people arrive months late to a conversation and try to throw a wrench in productivity simply because they missed a previous discussion.

    I think one thing that has become more clear to me is that this project can be incredibly frustrating at times. Something that I imagine you can empathize with.

    You said we've not got on in the past. To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean. Regardless, I hope whatever it is I've done has been reconciled between you and me. If not, please let me know. This section is about redressing such grievances, after all.

    Thanks again for the frank comments. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Really sadden to hear about this. And to think that I was working on doing the same thing over a year ago then never did it, I think we even talked about it back then. I really think that you did nothing wrong, and that it's a shame that some people forgets all you've done here. Too bad I was too late for the RfA, you have as always my support :) See you around on IRC, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

talk page deletion

I have great respect for the work you do, and I'm sorry to hear that you've resigned. Since you no longer have the tools, whom should I contact about undeletion of this old talk page of mine, which you deleted and I'd like to get back? --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Seemed uncontroversial enough, so I've restored it. –xeno (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, xeno. I had actually just pinged someone to take care of it and you beat them by seconds. :-)

For the record, any admin who sees any uncontroversial task on this page is free take care of it, as I'm currently in exile. (Nearly all of my deletions would count as uncontroversial, or at least restoring the content per a user request certainly would be.)

Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem - feel free to ping me for any tasks you need taken care of (though I'm sure IRC is faster ;>). –xeno (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2

I'm running for adminship (again). --MZMcBride (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZM, I came here originally to say, my !vote should not be taken personally. I am disturbed by what appears to be a gaming of the system and think you made a very bad political move. I REALLY wish you had waited at least a few weeks. Oh well, the best.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was tormented by the idea of being de-adminned when I felt the community still had confidence in me. We'll see what happens. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you RfA fails, remember that being an admin is not about the buttons... it is the attitude and mentality that comes with the respect of the community. If it fails, continue to be an admin. Just do so in areas/manners that don't require the buttons and come back in a few months asking for the buttons back.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, Balloonman, ArbCom have no proposals that restrict the resysop to Arbcom, so a community vote is not, in itself, problematic. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into the debate here... I came here to be supportive despite my oppose. That being said, it's the way this was done... by starting it while the case is still pending, he is A) gaming the system ("I stepped down to jerk you guys around.")and B) declaring that he is going to attempt an end-around on ARBCOM. It's a powerplay wherein he has basically created a scenario that puts ArbCOM in a difficult position. ArbCOM clearly was going to close the case and let it die without anymore dhrama. They clearly anticipated that MZM would run in the future, they just didn't think he'd have the gual to run less than 2 days after stepping down. Now ArbCOM is put into the position wherein they can either do something and risk the wrath of the WP community coming down on their heads, or not do something, in which case MZM has successfully snubbed his nose at the committee and the community. If his RfA passes, then the snub is complete and MZM has symbolically said, "FU ArbCOM!" IMO, by starting the RfA while the case was still open, he is begging for Dhrama. He knows his actions are contrary to the spirit of the discussion and is now playing games. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. Again, I do have respect for MZM, but he lost a lot of that via his actions here today.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as you closed, I started to write:

1. Neutral. I've already commented on the candidate's XfDs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_A_Nobody and as I indicated there, two were really weak, one was good, so not enough to support or oppose. Now as far as admin actions go, the candidate accidentally blocked me as a Grawp sock all things, but immediately unblocked me. On one hand, hey, it was a mistake and rapidly rectified so it kind of cancels out. Yet, on the other hand it just makes my block log look that much more cumbersome on an initial glance. So, again, kudos for undoing the error, but how did it happen in the first place? Now otherwise he seemed helpful in our most recent interaction at User_talk:Bjweeks#wikistalk_tool, so I'm just torn here I guess. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't know if there's anything in the above that is helpful or not, but it's there as what would have been my stance for better or wrose. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E kala mai (my apologies)

Aloha, MZMcBride. I just wanted to apologize if my vociferousness in your request for adminship in any way dissuades others from supporting your request. I (and I probably shouldn't say this, but whatever) just have a hard time believing that we as a community can be so fucking stupid that this is even a question. I suppose I'll step away for a bit. I just wanted to let you know that I'm sorry if my actions hurt your chances in any way. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about defending a friend... you did so with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, defending people at RfA's often allow others to build cases... and solidify what might have been a less developed stance.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's not really a "friend" (sorry, MZ), but for the reasons you outlined above, I felt I should apologize for any (however minimal) harm I may have caused. Mahalo, Spartacus (as if that is your real name). ;-) --Ali'i 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Basketrabbit and the bot policy

Would you be willing to have the above bot account renamed to fit with Bot policy? Namely the part that states "bot" must be in the account name?--Rockfang (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the issue? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that your bot account's name does not comply with policy. According to current policy, bot account names must have "bot" somewhere in the name.--Rockfang (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you started a discussion at WT:BAG. I'll comment there in a bit. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read your reply there. Thanks for giving input on that issue. But on that page you didn't answer my question I asked here. Would you be willing to rename both User:Whip,_dip,_and_slide and User:Basketrabbit to conform to bot policy?--Rockfang (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I boldy updated the policy page to better reflect current practice. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank for letting me know about your change. It doesn't appear to have consensus though at the moment. And since current policy states that "bot" must be in the account name, and the fact that I see no reason that ignoring policy in this case helps Wikipedia, would you be willing to change the above account names to conform with bot policy? A Yes/No answer would be preferrable.--Rockfang (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Always has been. Discussion is ongoing with regard to bot names. Do you have some sort of vested interest in these particular accounts? You seem incredibly interested in a specific answer, but I have no idea why that is. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2cents from the TPS'er: these bots are operating only on database reports. The handful of people that actually look at these database reports will know they are bots. –xeno ^talk 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockfang, et al.: If you come up with clever names for the bots (there are currently two: "Basketrabbit" and "Whip, dip, and slide"), I'll gladly find a bureaucrat to rename them. Examples of un-creative names: "DatabaseReportBot," "MZMcBot," "BoringBot." --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in the accounts other than the fact that they are currently against policy. If, for example, xeno got 2 bots approved with names that didn't follow policy, then I'd be asking him/her to be changing them as well. I haven't seen any reason to ignore policy in this situation other than "I just don't feel like following policy". I'm not saying you used those words, but that is the impression that I get. With regards to any possible renames, if you just put "Bot" on the end of the account names, then they would be fine. "BasketrabbitBot" and "Whip, dip, and slide Bot" for example. Would those be ok with you?--Rockfang (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are rather lame names. And you're missing the much larger point. Imagine for a moment that no policies exist. What's your issue with the current account names? And, looking at the current list, User:R. Hillgentleman, User:CommonsDelinker, User:Wikipedia Signpost, User:Pearle, User:CanisRufus, etc. Will you be posting to those user talk pages next? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My additions aren't very imaginative, I agree. :) But they are a possibility. About the hypothetical situation of no policies. If there was no policy regarding the names of bot accounts, then I would have no problem whatsoever. There are other editors that may still have a problem though. Some examples would a few of the opinions stated here. About those other accounts. I'm probably not going to do anything because I don't know what the policy was (if there even was one) at the time of their approval. I do know what the policy was at the time your bot accounts were approved.--Rockfang (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

/me nods. I understand what you're saying. I don't see a need to rush anything right now. I think the current discussion about whether to force "bot" into user names (and for which types of bots) is a Good Thing. In this particular case, there's also the issue that if a name like "MZMcBot" is chosen, there's the issue that that account already exists and that you'd be merging two bots into one (or maybe not). Needs some further thinking. I thought about "MurrowBot" for the database report bot (after Edward R. Murrow).... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll chill for a bit. Just please don't archive this section in the mean time. :) Rockfang (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was actually thinking about "BernsteinBot" and "WoodwardBot" for the pair of report bots. Is there any guideline / practice / policy regarding using (famous) living people's last names in bot names? Seems like there shouldn't be an issue; it's a honor, no? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• MZMcBride (talk · contribs) resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while the above arbitration case was pending. Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or approval of the Committee.
• MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions.
• MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.
• MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions.
• MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Break

Whether or not my current RFA passes or fails (I still have hope that the community will find forgiveness), I'll be taking a break the minute it closes. I've been active on this project day after day for a very long time. It's taken a toll and Durova is completely right that I need a break.

I'm announcing it in advance to make sure that I don't leave anything unattended. There's little around here that others can't handle, but if there's something in particular that you need from me, put it below and I'll try to take care of it before taking my break.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How long do you intend to break for? Majorly talk 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know for sure. "Until it feels right," I guess. I can't imagine it will be less than two weeks. I can't imagine it will be more than two months. So somewhere between those two, I suppose. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up to my comment on the RfA. The whole thing was a really bad idea but kudos for withdrawing the RfA and doing so with a thoughtful closing note. And whether your break lasts a day, a month or a year, just make sure you come back. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That was a graceful closure. It's sad to see things headed in this direction, especially in light of your prolific record. If you feel like discussing life after adminship, I'd be glad to talk either onsite or offsite. Best, Durova^Charge! 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A genuinely classy move. Best wishes to you.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes as well. As indicated above, I would have been neutral although might have just given you the benefit of the doubt with a weak support on reconsideration. Anyway, take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A very well written closure, have a nice break, and best wishes. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I add a {{wikibreak}}, or will you?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed your RfA. :( I don't know how I didn't see it, I've been watching the new RfAs for the past few days. Was it transcluded properly? Anyway, I hope you come back to us soon, my friend. GlassCobra 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shovel

I buried you two feet deep in the archives, I think you can claw your way out. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 06:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you MZ for closing your RfA early. Like I said, my stance was not against you personally, but rather against the action which I saw as only having the potential to damage the community. As I said in the RfA, I firmly believe that opening it while the ArbCOM case was open was a huge mistake... and honestly think you might have had a chance if you had waited just a week or two. I am all for reinstating the bit to former admins... I really wish we had a system that allowed for people to move in and out of adminship easier and with less drama. Again, I am posting this here because while I was a very vocal voice in opposition, I wanted to make it absolutely clear, that my opposition was against what I perceived as forumshopping and gaming the system---not against you. I do not believe that harming the community was your intent, I believe that (as you said) you honestly felt that you were a victem of an injustice, but the consequence of your action sowed discord in the commuity. Your closing the RfA early helped redeem you in my eyes. I wish you the best and hopd that this doesn't become too much of a downer for you. I know from my personal experience, how hard it can be to be rejected by your peers on a project you've put a lot of time into. I can also tell you from experience, the hurt does go away, and there are enough areas on the project that I hope you can find something new to be pationate about. I also wanted you to know that if (down the road) you chose to run again, *I* will not hold this against you. IMO you made a mistake by opening it, but you fixed the mistake by closing it. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to say, being an admin is not about the buttons... but about your attitude and commitment to the project. I firmly believe that you can be an admin without the tools or passing an RfA. An RfA is just the means to confir what, IMO, should already be evident through one's actions. If one is acting like an admin, one is an admin, regarless of whether or not they have a globy thingy on their page.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've spent the past few days thinking about your comments, especially the final one about adminship and buttons. You're quite right. Thank you for the kind note. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned talk page redirects

That a page is an "orphaned talk page redirect" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please do not delete talk pages that have content on them or in their history, but instead make sure that you're using CSD-G8 (or another specific reason for speedy deletion). —Toby Bartels (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(Actually, glancing over the rest of this talk page, this may be moot now. Sorry if my comment is irrelevant.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an old practice that is now discontinued. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Aria Wallace

Since you were the admin who protected the page, could you please remove the page protection for Aria Wallace. Info is out of date.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That was Daniel who protected the page, you may ask him to reduce to semi for the remaining of the protection. Or make an {{editprotected}} request if he doesn't want to. Cenarium (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Thanks for responding, Cenarium. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Database reports

Hi. Thanks for share your source code in Database reports. I'm going to use them in Spanish Wikipedia, and I'm going to learn a bit more about SQL queries. Thanks and happy programming. Emijrp (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :-) The source code on-wiki is a bit out-dated. The most up-to-date source code is available here. Let me know if you have any other questions, suggestions, etc. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring Pankration2008's talk page

Hi. I realise that you are on a break, but hopefully either you get this when you come back or someone else spots it. I believe that your bot deleted User talk:Pankration2008. Would it be possible for it to be restored? The reason I want it undeleted is that the user tried to accuse me of racism on a number of occasions and I want my response and the reason for the subsequent blocking of the user to be visible. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. It was Z-man's bot, FWIW. –xeno (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for getting the wrong editor! I spotted a link to MZMcBride's arbitration page at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:CAT:TEMP_deletion_bot and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gastrolith

Hi MZ: I'm curious as to why you deleted the talk page for Gastrolith; I don't want to recreate it if there's a problem with the article, but right now it's not hitting any WikiProject article listings because all the project templates have been deleted! Can you please shed some light? Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a single edit to the page by an anon, consisting entirely of

Gastrolith

(an obvious test edit) Feel free to add the appropriate wikiproject templates to the talk page (there weren't any before). –xeno (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! MeegsC | Talk 17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sam Songo Living

Hello. I noticed that you categorized Sam Songo as a living person. I haven't been able to find out much about him after his initial burst of popularity when the Mission School works were in vogue in the 1950's and early 60's. Needless to say, the records for that part of Africa aren't exactly great. Do you have any sources to verify that Mr. Songo is indeed alive? Thanks!! --LoverOfArt (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, things work the other way around: if someone is plausibly alive at the time, and there is no verifiable confirmation of death, then we must presume that the person is indeed living and extend the protection of WP:BLP to articles discussing them. — Coren ^(talk) 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Thank you for responding, Coren. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Body1 page

Can you unprotect this page? I would like to write an entry but cannot due to protection status. Monday20 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Body1 page was created numerous times and deleted as it was always created as either a copyvio or blatant advertising. Go ahead and write the article in you user space--Eg click here to create a page in your user space. After it is completed, let me know and I'll confirm that it isn't a copyvio or blatant spam. At that point, I will unprotect/move the article to the mainspace. I generally recommend writing articles in your user space anyway as it allows you to write without fear of a CSD'er tagging and deleting a work in progress.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Andersonlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Andersonlogo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi MZMcBride I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Whip, dip, and slide has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about user deletion

Today you deleted my user acccount(see notes on helpdesk page) What is the reason for deletion and how do I rectify this? TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Permalink. I've already restored it. There's probably some lesson to be learned here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the user page of an (apparently) abandoned account with no encyclopedic contributions. Apologies for the inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Using interwiki templates

Hello. Is there any way to use templates specific to one Wikipedia version on other wikis? What I would like to do is to create a template on Turkish wiki that uses {{Template:Numberofarticles}}. Is that possible? --Superyetkin (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way is usually to copy and paste the content of the template to the Turkish wiki and cite the history page in the edit summary (or copy and paste the page history onto the talk page. Let me know if you need further help. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update but what I would like to clone is a special template. It is called Template:Numberofarticles in English wiki and outputs the wiki-specific constant {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. Is there any way to use this figure in other wikis than what wiki the constant actually belongs to? --Superyetkin (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is a Magic word. It's part of the software and is available on any Wikimedia wiki. It doesn't require the use of a template. If you look at the content of the Template:Numberofarticles (here), you'll see that the template is just a wrapper for the magic word. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Superyetkin, you can have a look at {{NUMBEROF}} which is apparently updated via bot. --Amalthea 21:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I am going to contact the administrators on Turkish wiki about how to clone this template. --Superyetkin (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

List of wikipedians by articles started

Hi. I was wondering if it would be possible to draw up a list for this. I have absolutely no idea how many articles I've started and there doesn't seem to be any tools to find it if you surpass 45,000 edits. WOuld it be possible to generate lists by articles started (excluding redirects and dab pages of course)? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I did. I generated a list of all pages in the article namespace that aren't redirects that you created:

SELECT DISTINCT
  page_title
FROM revision
JOIN page
ON rev_page = page_id
WHERE rev_user_text = "Dr. Blofeld"
AND page_is_redirect = 0
AND page_namespace = 0
AND rev_timestamp = (SELECT
                       MIN(rev_timestamp)
                     FROM revision
                     WHERE rev_page = page_id);

Then I manually excluded all pages in Category:Disambiguation pages. The results are available here: dr-blofeld-pages-created-2009-04-27.txt. (Warning, large-ish file; 48,812 results.)

Creating a list of all users by articles created would be pretty difficult and intensive. Though it may be possible if you're really interested. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see that on some database report (not one for wp:database reports though, obviously). It would be interesting to see a list of our top article creators. Synergy 22:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a list of Wikipedians by articles created from November 2007 at User:Bryan/List of users by pages created. The query used to generate that page took about 30 hours to run. Graham87 01:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi there. Please remember to notify users if you tag their pages for speedy deletion and please remember that "no encyclopedic" value is not a valid reason for speedy deletion and that such userpages need to be deleted via WP:MFD if needed. Also, please remember that criterion G2 does not apply in userspace. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification seems a bit unneeded when the users haven't edited in months or years. As does an MFD for "i rule u and u wish u were me" copied and pasted over and over again. It saddens me that you think it's a valuable use of the community's time to debate the merits of what is obviously vandalism. But off to MFD I go. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the page content is (was, soon enough):

User:Ryanhannold

'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me'i rule u and u wish u were me--Ryanhannold 16:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Try as I might, I'm failing to see what part of that is appropriate for a user page. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Unneeded or not, it's just courtesy to do so, so the user's understand what happened to their creations. As for vandalism, it is always a difficult thing in userspace because vandals usually target places where people see their "work", so I would not make this bad-faith assumption on a userpage - inappropriate maybe, but vandalism carries a much stronger implication than just inappropriateness. That leaves a test page and that cannot be applied in userspace. If it's as clear as you think, it can still be SNOW-closed at MFD. But it's much less harming in the long run than to imply bad faith for a user who just wanted to test on his userpage. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of perception (and I don't really know the origin) that we're some sort of test wiki. We're not. The goal here is to create an encyclopedia. It's fine if people use their user space to test wiki syntax and such as long as they're contributing to the encyclopedia, but (a) that doesn't mean we need to retain those test edits for eternity; and (b) it doesn't mean that if that's the user's only contributions that we need to keep the test edits (or vandalism) around years later. Alternate outlets lists places where people can create test and vandalism pages or even create their own wiki. This attitude that it is appropriate to use Wikipedia as a dumping ground for test edits really needs to be adjusted, whether it's in the Category_talk:, User:, or article namespace. This isn't directed at you, really. Just a more general rant. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to try and change it. But as long as we have a criterion that says "userspace is excluded" from test page deletions, we need to follow the policy. Personally I think you are creating problems out of thin air. Some obscure userpages that noone will ever see are not threatening the goal to build an encyclopedia, rather all the time spend to tag those pages, discuss their merit, delete them, restore them, ANI about them (you know how it goes from your experience) is much more damaging to this goal than just ignoring them. Seeing that deleting them all would not stop people from creating such pages in the future, it's like trying to empty an ocean with a teaspoon. That time could really be spend more wisely improving articles. Just a general thought. Regards SoWhy 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, when they use real names of people or companies, they're pretty easy to spot in Google's (and other search engine's) search results. The amount of spam, vandalism, and attack pages that we freely host for the world is staggering. But, you're right, until there's a page with a green check at the top of it saying that vandalism and attack pages aren't going to be tolerated here, what's the point of removing some of it? Right? ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)