Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop

Some actions to consider
Trust but verify: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Put an editing rate restriction on edits with MZMcBride's main account to discourage his running an unauthorized bot:
 * 2) an edits/minute or per hour restriction
 * 3) mandatory 8-hour editing breaks every 24 hours
 * 4) he may make no more than 5 edits or administrative actions after receiving a message on his talk page until he has responded to that message with at least a brief acknowledgement. Failure to do this will indicate the possible use of a bot.
 * 5) Require he communicate with any registered user whose user space material he wishes to delete (if nothing else, a polite template message explaining his actions).
 * 6) Require strict adherence with our bot policy with the understanding that desysopping will follow any further transgressions.


 * Really. An edits-over-time restriction? Really?  Are we going to appoint someone to watch Special:Contributions/MZMcBride, stopwatch in hand?  Egads. Tarc (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Although I'm willing to bet that if it meant the removal of MZMcBride's tools, we would have volunteers. --Ali'i 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to hang out with a stopwatch -- just check his edit histories and logs every week or two. This beats removing his sysop privileges while still assuaging some of the concerns folks have expressed. It also is a bit more concrete than just an admonishment. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the above is fair to MZM. There's no question he's running adminbots (so no need to tiptoe around the issue), and in general they do the job well, it's just best to put all the cards on the table when doing something like this and run it through BRFA for transparency. It's no longer the old days where getting an adminbot approved was like pulling teeth. – xeno  ( talk ) 02:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted a page
Almost absentmindedly, I deleted a user talk page of someone wishing to invoke their right to vanish. I had previously blocked the user indefinitely as a compromised account and I had previously agreed to delete the page for them. (In fact, they wanted it deleted earlier, but for some reason it hadn't been.) Anyway, posting here as I'm sure the cavalry is mounting. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, I believe this is referring to this. Personally, I think talk pages should be blanked and protected in such cases, not deleted. Alternatively, other editors should be permitted to retrieve their deleted contributions to such pages and archive them somewhere else (the difference between user pages and user talk pages being that user talk pages normally have contributions from multiple editors, while the user pages usually have contributions from only the user in question). Indeed, in general, any page with multiple contributors should be treated with more care than a page mostly edited by only one person. If the name of the person is what needs hiding under RtV, then that is what renaming and page moving is for (and these methods preserve the contributions made by others). But this action is way outside the scope of this case, at least as far as I'm concerned. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)