Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence

Clarification requested

Coren stated when he accepted:

Please note that I will have absolutely no tolerance to editors misusing the case…to air a shopping list of past grievances about "bad" administrative actions. The case should focus on long term patterns, not individual incidents…The clerks will be instructed to police the evidence and workshop cases closely and sternly…

Perhaps some more guidance would be helpful as to what past actions will be allowed to be mentioned, and what would incur Coren's wrath? Mike R (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Committee are currently working on a statement surrounding the scope of this case, which will hopefully provide the guidance that you are looking for. I regret that this statement is not currently available, and can only ask for your patience while this statement is prepared. Many thanks, Gazimoff 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The scope statement is at the top of the evidence page, and has been there since the case was posted. Risker (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it, but I think that Coren's statement, specifically the part I quoted above about how "past grievances about 'bad' administrative actions" will not be allowed, seems to paint the scope a bit narrower. That's why I asked for clarification. Mike R (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There can be subtle differences in framing between individual arbitrators' opinions and that of the committee as a whole. In this particular case, they align fairly well: what I meant (and still mean) is that discussion about whether an administrative action of MZMcBride's was correct or not is only welcome insofar as it relates to his behavior in general and not as a discussion on the action itself. The canonical example in this case is the incident which prompted the case: whether deletion of user's so-called "secret pages" was correct or not is not the point and will not be examined by the committee, while MZMcBride's handling of the issue may be.

In other words, the committee is not interested in (nor is it within its remit to) examine whether any of his past actions were "correct". — Coren ^(talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So contrasting this with the SemBubenny case, a finding including words like "SemBubenny believed in good faith that these articles were unencyclopedic, but many of them did not fall within the criteria for speedy deletion, and many of the deletions were unaccompanied by a clear rationale." might be right or wrong in relation to some actions of MZMcBride's but it wouldn't be in the committee's remit to say so? Why not? Or have I misunderstood and a finding along those lines would be possible? 87.254.80.49 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)