Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MZMcBride[edit]

Final (203/67/6); Ended Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:24:25 (UTC)

  • Closing statement: This RfA is actually closer than an numerical reading of it may appear since for the most part the opposes are well reasoned and few state themselves as weak oppose. In addition, many of the supports note the same concerns as the opposition and "hope" or "think" it will be better this time. However much of the support is strong and there is an outpouring of it. In addition the community already had MZMcBride's record with the tools to consider fully. Overall, I believe this meets the type of consensus we look for to grant the tools. - Taxman Talk 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

MZMcBride (talk · contribs) – Welcome fellow wikipedians, allow me to present MZMcBride to you for consideration as a RfA candidate. The bad part first: I don't always agree with MZM, but I've learned that I can always go to him, question him, and he will discuss things through to the point that we can find a common ground to meet on. That's really about the worst of it from my standpoint, I think he's learning that "Ched is always right", but on to the "nom" statement: Since the last RfA, MZM has openly solicited the community to offer feedback on how he can better serve the project, not once, but twice Those of you who have been around a while will be familiar with him, his 61,000 plus edits (nope, not a typo), and his behind the scenes work with databases, scripts, approved bots, templates, and perhaps most importantly his WP:BLP efforts. It's difficult to shorten 4 years of dedicated service into a brief nom. statement, but here is what I personally consider his most recent strong points.:

Article work
(legal and law related such as U.S. Supreme Court articles)
Approved Bots and database work
Database work
  • (actually, it's probably best that he explain what WP:DBR is)
Meta work
Foundation work
WP:BLP work

To be blunt, MZM has been an admin here, he knows how to use the tools, and he is a trusted admin. throughout many other parts of the project, such as:

Status

Many of the obstacles that MZM has faced over the years would have driven even the most battle hardened veterans away. His intestinal fortitude is unquestionable. His dedication to our project undeniable. In all things, he has shown that his utmost concern is for Wikipedia rather than himself. In other words, I think it's time that MZM stop relying on others to do the work that he is quite capable of doing himself. After much consideration by myself, I asked him if he would be willing to do so, then after much consideration on his part, he has agreed to me putting this RfA forward. After 4 years of giving to the project, I suppose any user is entitled to a break, but I think it's time that MZMcBride get back to work here. (Besides: we need more "dog lover" admins. ;))

  • (apologies for the extended read, but I believe an editor of such tenure and dedication deserves no less) — Ched :  ?  18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I don't have any plans for any substantive administrative work right now. I imagine I'll mostly use the tools to do routine maintenance (looking up broken redirect targets for people, etc.). My activity levels have been reduced lately due to meatspace and the psychological drain this place can have.
See also: Question 17 below.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are the Database reports I've created and Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. The database reports allow people to actively improve content (removing dead image links, managing redirects, finding bad BLPs, etc.). The template was something I re-worked a long time ago to standardize U.S. Supreme Court-related article infoboxes. I've seen others learn to use the template and I've seen it pop up in the real world (in printouts and on computer screens), which is pretty cool.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I generally try to keep any wiki-related stress to a minimum. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride was probably the most stressful part of being here. I found it very helpful to respond calmly and clearly to all the questions that were asked (both on-wiki and off-wiki). When it wasn't rushed, the answers were better and helped both sides (Arbs and me). Those who burnout seem to be the ones who can't manage the stress well, so I try to do my best to keep my levels in-check.
Question from Ched
4. Could you please explain that "LaraBot" is, and what it does to improve the WP:BLP situation? — Ched :  ?  18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: LaraBot is a bot that primarily deals with BLPs. One of its tasks is looking up all the new biographies of living people that have been created the day before and going through each to find unreferenced biographies. It notifies the authors of the biographies about the importance of sourcing and then outputs them to a list. Additionally, LaraBot looks at older biographies and checks them for certain traits (presence of external links, "References" header, etc.) and outputs them to a list for human review.
Additional optional question from Vicenarian
5. How do you feel your contributions since your last RfA and your ArbCom case will be able to satisfy your previous oppose !voters? Please be specific (perhaps choosing an oppose reason and explaining how you believe you have overcome the problem). Vicenarian (Said · Done) 18:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: A lot of the opposes from my second RFA were concerned with the timing of it. It's been over four months since that RFA, so I believe enough time has passed for people to re-evaluate my work here. Other concerns included running unapproved bots (all of my bots are now approved) and not listening to community concerns (see the links in Ched's statement about "Redressing grievances"). I realize that some individuals will never support (I acknowledged this when withdrawing my second RFA); that's simply a reality on this project. The concerns from my first RFA were mostly related to a lack of experience. After over four years here and countless edits, I don't see that as a lasting issue.
Additional optional question from Sky Attacker
6 Consider the following situation. You've just blocked a vandal who then creates another account that includes your username in theirs eg. "MZMcBrideisgay" or "MZMcBridesucks". Would you block this account yourself or would you prefer an uninvolved admin to step in?
A: Well, from my past admin actions, I think it's pretty clear that generally speaking, I don't do user blocks. :-) Or at least I don't do them very often. When you have a vandal who is deliberately trying to poke the bear, it's best to have someone else block the accounts. Otherwise you simply feed the vandals and the accounts will continue to be created. (Completely tangential to this, one has to be careful about "isgay" in usernames. I remember Misza telling me how DennisGay was a false positive for him.)
Question from Looie496
7. In the ArbCom result, you were "strongly urged" to do several things, and "urged" to do another. Could you address whether you have complied, and intend to comply in the future, or do you believe the "advice" was misguided?
A: I'm still hoping for a better forum to discuss wide scale actions of any kind (whether it's article creation, deletions, user blocks, etc.). Sometimes a noticeboard or a Village pump is used, but they don't ever seem to "feel right." I've tried to provide an opportunity for any users who feel they've been wronged to contact me (and a few have). (See also: the "Redressing grievances" links in the nomination statement.) My bots have all gone through the appropriate approval process. In addition, my user space was purged of most of the concerning content before the Arbitration case ended. I was strongly urged to discuss with users whose pages I've deleted. I wouldn't call this advice misguided, but I do think there is a lot of evidence that I was responsive to nearly every user who posted to my talk page (which, surprisingly, not all admins are). That doesn't necessarily mean I restored their page, but I responded to them in a civil and clear manner about the deletions. (And in some cases, I did restore the pages.) The BLP-related urging seems to be more of a moot point at this point, though I'd strongly encourage any Arbs who still wish to discuss it to do so on my talk page or via e-mail.
Question from SoWhy
8. In the months before your ArbCom case, you have repeatedly been the target of criticism, both for running unapproved bots and for deleting pages outside policy. Have you changed your approach to and your views about those issues and if so, can you please explain how?
A: Well, to be honest, I never realized how simple and straightforward the bot approval process is. I created separate accounts for various tasks and got all of them fully approved. That was a major point of contention. My views toward deletion have changed a bit over the past few months. I realize that AFD, while more time-consuming and sometimes very obvious, usually has a far more definitive outcome in a lot of cases, which can be very helpful. Speedy deletions are faster, but AFD seems more resolute, which seems to be what the community is often after. Esp. in cases where the subject of the article is involved, this is often a major positive. I think I've addressed your question, though there's quite a bit more that could be said on these topics. If you have follow-up questions, feel free to post them.
Follow-up: Thanks for your answer. Please allow me a follow-up to clarify: Assuming this request is successful, do you plan to do deletions outside policy again as you did in the events before your ArbCom case (i.e. deleting pages outside the strictly defined criteria for speedy deletion or special exemptions like WP:CHILD where there is no pressing need to ignore the appropriate processes)?
A: No. While it's rare and often difficult for me to do, I will say definitively that the the secret pages deletions were a mistake of mine. They were a mistake on a number of levels: the pages, no matter how much I don't care for them, should not have been speedily deleted. And they certainly shouldn't have been deleted using the language that was used in the deletion summaries. Not only was it disrespectful, it caused far more anger and ill-will than should have ever occurred. And for that, I apologize. The reality is that, at the moment, I don't have much intention of doing nearly anything substantive with the tools, should this request be successful. I realize that this may sound strange given my history, but the past four months without tools have simply pointed out all the other areas that are in desperate need of attention. ("Hey, look at all these articles that need improving!") As I said, my views toward things like AFD have shifted and I have a greater appreciation for processes that can come to a clearer conclusion. Is there a time when I would summarily delete a page that might not fit exactly within the criteria for speedy deletion? Possibly. Egregious BLP violations come to mind (I saw one just yesterday where someone had been making pure attack articles about an entire family). However, I will not be doing mass actions or batch actions without community discussion. Any benefit from them is far overshadowed by the detriments—the speed simply isn't worth the drama. And if it's so urgent for a particular page or set of pages to be deleted, I'm more than happy to let another admin do it.
Question from WJBscribe
9. If this request is successful, will you run deletion scripts from your account?
A: No.
Question from @harej
10. Should you become an administrator once more, what actions will you take to prevent yourself from being a defendant in an Arbitration Committee ever again? What have you learned not to do? This is notwithstanding all the other things you have done since your latest arbitration case; namely, seeking formal approval for your bots, which is commendable. This question largely relates to future things that have not happened yet but very well could.
A: I don't believe characterizing people in Arbitration cases as defendants is helpful or constructive. I believe some of my actions were too rash and involved too little discussion. I have promised to rectify these issues and I believe I've made noticeable efforts in that regard. That said, you seem to be asking about hypotheticals; if I knew what the future held, I'd be out playing the lottery, not answering RFA questions. :-) I believe I've learned the lessons that needed to be learned and I believe that I'm a better person from my experiences.
I guess what I should have asked was: what would you have done differently?
There were a few people who were quietly trying to urge me to do specific things who I should have listened to more. I was stubborn in some instances, which seems to have hurt me a great deal. They say "hindsight is always 20/20." That's a particular aspect where I would definitely agree. If I had it to do all over again, I wouldn't have speedily deleted the secret pages. As I discuss above, it was not the right thing to do, regardless of merit. I still wish more forms of dispute resolution had been tried or that people had approached me more directly on my talk page or via e-mail. However, the past is the past and I've learned (hopefully all of) what I can learn from it.
Question from S Marshall
11. In return for my support, will you agree not to close contentious AfDs, not to close DRVs at all, and only to speedy delete under criteria G4-G10 inclusive, G12, A3, F1-2, F9-11 inclusive, and U1-3 inclusive?
A: No. I have never believed in limited adminship in the way you describe it. (In fact, automatic re-adminship was offered to me during my Arbitration case and I refused it.) Adminship is a position of trust. I agreed above to not run automated tools under my main account, but I see that as a largely different set of worms than what you're proposing. I believe that this type of quid pro quo deal that is proposed here sets a very dangerous precedent for future RFA applicants. It opens up the possibility of direct coercion and manipulation through RFA questions (not that that was your goal or intention, obviously). That is, people asking questions could use RFA as a forum to restrict an unlimited set of behaviors (and candidates might feel obligated to accept the conditions in order to pass or in order to not receive an additional oppose vote). Other issues to consider are enforceability (a major component of contracts): if I say, "yeah sure" to your restrictions and then do whatever I want, what would happen? And of course the specifics: what is and isn't a contentious AFD could cause significant problems in the future. I realize you may not have agreed with some of my past admin work; that's why I encourage people to post to my talk page (or even e-mail me). And unfortunately, I don't believe enough people do. However, I cannot accept this deal; if this causes you to oppose this candidacy (or adds other opposes), I'll accept (though not agree) with your decision.
Question from Cool Hand Luke
12a. Mass deletion. To follow up on your concise answer to 9, what do you consider to be a deletion script? You argued at arbitration, for example, that certain mass deletions were not actually scripted. Would you engage in any mass deletion?
A: The Arbitration Committee is the body that tried to ban automation without ever defining it. To my knowledge, there isn't any agreed-upon version of what does and doesn't constitute automation, so I imagine I have to err on the side of caution. Obviously starting a Python script and walking away is clearly automated. But as you're surely aware, things like pre-filling in the deletion reason become far murkier. Would I engage in any mass deletion (like going through Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages and clicking all the "delete" links)? No, I don't think so. Simply not worth the hassle. Someone else can take the heat for doing routine maintenance like that. I've done my fair share.
Thank you, I found this answer very helpful. On related:
12b. Mass unprotection. Would you engage in any mass unprotection?
A: In a lot of ways, I see your use of "mass" as a straw man. There isn't anything inherently wrong with a lot of actions, for example, we can look at the logs of ProcseeBot or the logs of particular administrators during certain periods (e.g., closing this AFD). The issue is mass (or batch) actions without clear consensus for them. I think it's vitally important we constantly revisit indefinite protections of our articles and other pages. It is the only way we can ensure that we keep the encyclopedia open. That said, do I have a plan to go on an unprotection spree? No, not particularly. I would like to see some of the indefinite protections placed on User talk pages revisited, but I'm more than confident that other administrators can do so. (See here for a list of protections that should be revisited at some point, if only for the sake of reducing the noise in the reports, though other reasons apply as well.) On a somewhat related note, I would like to comment on your role for a moment. I think a lot of users would say that Arbitrators are (in at least some ways) the leaders of this project. I find it highly disturbing that issues like, as an example, what defines an automated process, are only examined on occasions like this, rather than having Arbitrators lead proper community discussions in appropriate forums. Rather than be proactive, Arbitrators have taken a far more reactive role, and I hope to see that change in the future.
That's true. At any rate, you haven't always had a good track record for judging whether your administrative acts would be controversial. I suppose what I mean to ask is:
12c. Finding consensus. How will you avoid performing mass actions without clear consensus?
A. As I discussed above, there still isn't a good forum for discussing large scale changes to the wiki (whether it's article creation, article editing, or page deletion). Generally I've seen the proposals Village pump used or sometimes even CENT. I think this is another area where the leaders of the project could be taking an active role in trying to establish a new forum or clarify existing procedures.
12d. Protection standards and BLPs. You support open editing. In the past you have batch unprotected pages for the reason "this is a wiki." What criteria would you use for deciding whether articles should be unprotected? Do you support wider use of flagged protection on BLPs than is currently tolerated for semi-protection? Relatedly, what do you think of User:Lar/Liberal Semi?
A. I believe one of the core principles of our site is open editing. If a page has been locked for months or years, that protection should most definitely be revisited occasionally to reassess its need. Sometimes pages are vandalized for a matter of hours, locked indefinitely, and thousands of users are unable to edit for years. To me, that's unacceptable. As you note, however, it gets more tricky when dealing with biographies of living people. In those cases, I wouldn't say being a biography of a living person is carte blanche to apply excessive (indefinite, 5 years, etc.) protections to an article, unless there is a clear and demonstrable issue with the article that can't be solved through other means (namely blocking).

Flagged protection seems like it could be a very good step in the right direction, though I've seen some who have been openly conspiring on other sites to take any new features and apply them to large swaths of the encyclopedia, with or without consensus. At the moment, flagged protection is still vaporware in my mind. As I've commented elsewhere, nearly anything would be better than the current draconian hack that is semi-protection today. Nearly any change would be a positive one. And I believe firmly that, no matter whether it's FlaggedRevs, Flagged protection, or some other software, (limited) testing is what's needed right now. We get approximately 200,000 edits to the English Wikipedia each day; we cannot possibly flag all of them, that's simply the reality. However, there are other methods and means that we can try; and we won't know their efficacy until we do. That said, we must be very careful not to scare aware new or potential users with headlines like "Wikipedia no longer open to the public," etc. Things like that could (and would) do serious long term damage to the project.

For such a process-driven project, I find it fascinating that Lar has essentially been able to rewrite the semi-protection policy in a user subpage and enforce it. In general, I would strongly argue against such a thing, however, to be honest, in this case I don't have any better solutions for the BLP problem currently. Until I can say "don't do X, do Y instead," I suppose we'll have to live with X. Though as I noted, the fact that the broader community is not up in arms over this has surprised me quite a bit.

On a more trivial note, "relatedly" doesn't come up in my dictionary.

Try Webster's.
To clarify, if this vaporware becomes a reality, do you think flagged protection should be applied more widely on BLPs than is now tolerated for semi-protection on BLPs?
A. I think it simply depends on the circumstances. As far as I know, the last time I looked, the English Wikipedia gets about 20,000 edits to BLPs each day (approximately one-tenth of all edits, from my calculations). Depending on the number of flag-protected articles and the rate of edits to them, we can't know right now whether we'll be able to reasonably manage the volume of edits. If it's "only" 1,000 edits that need to be reviewed each day, it might be manageable. If it's more, we could start to see a backlog that turns into a significant problem. And, of course, it depends who's doing the flagging and what they're looking for (whether it's autoconfirmed users, admins, reviewers, etc.). FlaggedRevs has dozens of configuration variables, and even the various on-wiki proposals regarding "Flagged protection" have slight changes that could make a substantial impact. I think it's most important to focus on BLPs that have a demonstrable history of issues, but I wouldn't say a solely reactive approach is appropriate. Perhaps we should take page views per day into greater consideration (or other means of evaluating traffic and impact of vandalism).
From my research Oxford most definitely does not include "relatedly." I think Webster's decided that tacking on an "ly" would automatically create an adverb; I suppose this is why I stopped using Webster's.
12e. AFD closures. There's some chatter about the 50/50 AFD you closed as delete that was overturned at DRV. Do you still believe that this closure was correct due to NPOV? In what circumstances should an understanding of our core principles determine administrative outcomes?
A. The article was titled "Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict." In and of itself, that seems to be very problematic for an encyclopedia that strives to have a neutral point of view. Looking at the specifics of the vote, I think if people really wanted a true vote, we would have implemented a voting extension and left administrators out of the decision entirely. We have administrators in place to look at and read the vote, so chastising one every time they exercise discretion seems a bit out-of-sync to me. Many voters viewed it as a "POV fork," something that those voting keep found difficultly defending against (in my reading, at least). Those voting keep pointed to the fact that it contained sources, but I don't think that kind of claim alone is enough to merit inclusion (and our general inclusion guidelines seem to agree). AFD can be manipulated by outside forces (another reason we don't allow direct votes), so it's important for administrators to look at our core principles in cases where there is a possibility that the vote was impure.
Thank you. I agree that it does look like there may have been other motives in that vote.
12f. Recall. Is your administrative recall pledge still valid?
A. Yes. (Incidentally, I noticed at some point that my recall criteria are shockingly close to an ArbCom motion / proposed decision vote.)

With so many questions, I feel like the wiki's press secretary. This is kinda fun.

Question from Lankiveil
13. What is with this revision, and the talk pages for your other bots? Do you think it's appropriate given that some of your bots (particularly LaraBot) are likely to have lots of dealings with newbies?
A: The page is intended to tell users clearly who the account belongs to. The "abusive sock" bit is obviously a joke. This is, similar to below, a situation where you can approach me on my talk page and ask about such things there. I think it's fairly obvious it's a joke and people don't seem to have an issue with finding my talk page (clearly identified ownership of the bot, I'd say), however, you're free to edit the page if you wish (this is a wiki, after all). I do ask that if you change one of them, that you change the other three for consistency, though.
Question from Pgallert
14. A few days ago I stumbled over this edit. I might not have the right sort of humour... would you want to comment on your intentions awarding this "barnstar"?
A: That would be an in-joke between Lara and myself. "Anus" is a reference to WP:ANUS (Alleviate negative unsourced statements). I think most people who have done a lot of BLP-related work would say the comparison of BLP-related work to an anus is pretty fitting. (If there's any doubt that I hold anything but respect for Lara's BLP-related work, think about the origins of the name "LaraBot." :-)
Question from Athaenara
15. One of your statements above is contradicted by at least two April 2009 arbitration findings:

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

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

Please clarify what you meant by "automatic re-adminship was offered to me during my Arbitration case and I refused it." — Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, MZMcbride opposes a proposed remedy to temporarily desysop with an automatic return of the bit—but in this section he seems to be opposing any desysop whatsoever—not just an automatic resysoping. Moreover, because the Committee unanimously rejected the remedy, it's unclear how this could have been "offered" to him. Therefore, I would also appreciate an answer to this question. Cool Hand Luke 03:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I was referring to this section and this section. If you read some of the talk page discussion, it seems reasonably clear (to me, at least) that if I had not strongly urged against the passage of both of those measures, one of them would have succeeded. CHL was not involved in the case and not all of the conversation about the remedies is public. In addition, as some frequent observers of ArbCom-related work will note, votes can often quickly change (which I think would have happened here, given slightly different circumstances). Perhaps I'm simply mis-reading history; however I don't think I am (and I'm in a decent position to assess the case, I think).
15[b]. The "automatic re-adminship" was the second part of a two-part proposal under discussion in which ArbCom would first have de-sysopped you for three months. It would have been more honest to say, "In fact, [a three-month de-sysop followed by] automatic re-adminship was offered to me during my Arbitration case and I refused it." Why did you disclose only the second part in your 02:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC) response to question 11? — Athaenara ✉ 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm sorry, but you're playing semantics. Inherent to the phrase "automatic re-adminship" is a "de-adminship" of some sort. I didn't try to hide or obfuscate anything—the links are available for all to read. If there was some sort of confusion, I apologize, but it certainly was not my intention.
Question from RDH (Ghost In The Machine)
16. Do you think that had you not resigned, you would have been desysopped by the ArbCom? Why or why not?
A: This is an interesting question, though I'm not sure I totally see the relevance in this forum. When I resigned the tools, the motion to de-admin was passing, I believe. As anyone who watched the SemBubenny case (or even the Aitias case) will be aware, that doesn't necessarily mean it would have passed, but it seems likely. I think it would've been a close vote.
Thank you for the candid response. The relevance is (to employ the Napoleon analogy discussed below); That you chose abdication and Elba rather than Waterloo and Saint Helena. Just remember, if this RFA is successful and you are granted your Hundred Days, you could still face the hazard of the latter two should you fail to learn from your past mistakes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Doug
17. So, to reiterate question 1, above, What administrative work do you intend to take part in? Most admin work isn't substantive, it's procedural. If I delete something using a speedy criterion, I'm applying a procedure, no matter how much material I delete, or how fast or how automated I do it, I could say that my deletion was not substantive.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and yes, I saw Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_3#Oppose by "It Is Me Here.", I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion by the nominator as to what is substantive and what is procedural, but more importantly, I think we need to hear from the candidate not the nominator as to why he wants these tools back.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm glad you asked this question. To be frank, I'm in an incredibly awkward situation right now regarding this particular question. I can't say "I want the tools back so I can go a crazy deletion spree muhahaha"; conversely, I also can't say "I have no plans to do anything with the tools." Either response gains me a lot of opposition—a classic lose-lose situation. I've mostly stuck to {{editprotected}} work and deletion work in the past, I imagine that won't change. I usually refer to my watchlist for ongoing pages that need admin attention. I'm one of the more proficient template programmers on this site, so I think any help getting non-controversial template changes pushed live would be appreciated by the people who are currently doing them. If you look through most of my past editing history as an admin, you'll see dozens, possibly hundreds, of edits that say "fulfilled editprotected request" or something similar (e.g., "disabled editprotected request, +reply"). There are a few areas I can almost guarantee you won't find me, namely anything involving user disputes, sockpuppets, or user blocking.

Why do I want the tools back? To make life easier on those around me. At the moment, others have to monitor my talk page for requests for unprotection or requests for a broken redirect look-up or whatever. I don't think that's fair to others to expect them to do my work.

17.b. Thank you, I found that helpful. Although it was a long answer, I take it to mean that you intend to continue to do mostly edit protected and deletion work. In view of the emphasis on deletion work, consider the following: Much has been made by some of your supporters of the fact that you still lead the admin stats overall. This is mainly because you have made more than 3 times as many deletions as the next highest admin in that area. Presumably, this is in large part due to the use of admin bots (used in broad sense as the Arbitration Committee used that term in your recent case). Can you comment on the relative importance or lack thereof of your standing in the admin stats in light of the fact that the most recent ArbCom case relating to you dealt in large part with inappropriate deletions and misuse of automated tools to accomplish them?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: The stats are interesting, but I don't believe they're particularly important. Most of the top ten users in a given section used some sort of automated or semi-automated process. This applies to protections, unprotections, deletions, and undeletions and encompasses perhaps two dozen users. I think my high rank in the stats has only become a topic of discussion on this page due to the seemingly contradictory claims that I wouldn't use the tools (see, for example, Gmaxwell's comments below). I don't have hard numbers in front me, but I've done about 800,000 deletions; about 300 of those were secret page deletions (I think) and about 600,000 were old IP talk pages. The other 200,000 or so were mostly different types of speedy deletions (blank single-author pages, broken redirects, orphaned talk pages, etc.). I'm not sure if these stats help answer your question or provide any insight.

Just as with edit count, as time has passed and this project has grown, logged action count is less and less important and relevant. It's fairly trivial, as we've seen with both edits and logged actions, to rack up thousands in a matter of days or weeks, and I believe that most people in the community recognize this. As I said, the statistics are interesting (if you're into that kind of thing), but largely unimportant.

I've done my best to answer this question, though I admit it was a bit unclear what the exact aim is / was. If you have further questions or want more clarification / detail, feel free to post below.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MZMcBride before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Does anyone else find S Marshall's choice of words in his question a bit... inappropriate? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. If I were the candidate I would just ignore that question. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the question... you can ask... but I have to agree, MzM did a good job answering it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answering on the talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the Cbrown comments are exceptionally insightful here. I truly respect those oppose !votes which express concerns of actions past, but I honestly believe that they are based "in the past". I also respect the views of CHL in that each and every !vote is simply a single voice of an "equal" editor here. I do however believe that Julian's observation is relevant in some respects. Those who are and were closest to the RFAR situation have offered their opinions, and I believe that while their views should not be given any undue weight, it is a factor for consideration. I honestly believe that the bottom line needs to be: "What is best for Wikipedia?" I would not have encouraged MZM to undertake this "trial by fire" if I didn't believe it was the best thing for our project. Again, the deciding factor should be "what is best for this project", and all things considered - I ask that all editors put aside personal "feelings" and consider that very fact. The change in MZM edits is obvious, and I stand by my nomination, and my "support". — Ched :  ?  21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You previously gave your support in both your nomination statement and as a !vote in the support section. Your comment above looks like a third !vote. Do you really think your view should carry three times the weight of anyone else's? It would be more appropriate to move the comment below the 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Cbrown post which you linked. — Athaenara ✉ 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies if my discourse is misplaced, I didn't realize that the "Discussion" section was considered a "!vote" area. Please feel free to repair my efforts if I am in error. — Ched :  ?  16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought: maybe if you hadn't bolded the word support, the comment wouldn't have drawn an accusation of double voting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactored - would that be acceptable to put it in quotes? — Ched :  ?  16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although its not really my place to tell the closing bureaucrat what to do, I would advice giving a thorough explanation as to how the decision was reached. This is (obviously) a fairly unusual RfA and the decision is likely to be controversial whichever way it goes. Of course, the 'crat is free to ignore this advice, but I'm sure the community would appreciate an explanation in this very close, likely controversial case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely what I was thinking. :) Due to the nature of this RfA, I was fully assuming that the closing crat would leave an explanatory statement. JamieS93 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the page, this closed at 7:15 UTC, however there have been 2 votes for support added after this time. Should they not be removed? Alan16 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stated closing time is the earliest time the RfA should be closed. Any votes made before a bureaucrat adds the closing template are valid. ~ mazca talk 19:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, missed that - sorry for the drama of my late support. That said, has someone pinged a bureaucrat about this close? Even if discussion is in order, there is a "RFA in the process of being closed, so don't vote anymore" template for situations like this. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy whatsoever that !voting has to stop after the time is over. Stop making a fuss over this people, please. A few hours longer are perfectly fine and there is no need for panic at all. Our crats are perfectly capable of noticing if an RFA is overdue and taking the necessary measures. Just be patient people and wait... Regards SoWhy 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No! We demand action NOW! :) ......Seriously - there's a note at WP:BN and SoWhy is, of course, quite right that a few hours over end time is no biggie. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you just love irony? SoWhy, there was no fuss, I was just asking if the closing time really was a closing time. The number of comments has been doubled by people telling us to stop making a fuss - and by us I mean one person asking, and another answering, a question. Alan16 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think MZM must have paid off the 'crats to wait till it hits WP:200. –xenotalk 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing User:SockOChed would be pretty easy to spot. ;P — Ched :  ?  21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SockOChed? Reminds me of Blast O' Butter ;) Until It Sleeps Wake me   23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support Its about time. MZMcBride's database reports are the main way I know of him, they're fantastic, and Wikipedia will be btter off if he has the tools again--Jac16888Talk 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay, first support--Jac16888Talk 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support — MZMcBride and I didn't get on so well when we first met, but since then I've worked with him quite closely on a number of projects, including User:Xenobot/6, where his patience and expertise were instrumental in completing my task. His ongoing tutoring of me in matters related to regex is what enabled me to complete User:Xenobot/6.1, my most ambitious bot task to date, almost entirely without outside assistance. His database reports have been invaluable in supporting our 5 pillars and have also helped the Video games wikiProject keep their project space and member list clean and tidy. He is an expert on technical matters and restoring his administrative tools would be a net benefit to the project. I'm sure that he has learned from past experiences and would not repeat the same mistakes. –xenotalk 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Reading through everything, I am convinced MZMcBride is sincere that he has learned from his past mistakes, and the work he does is simply outstanding. Take back the mop, my friend, and get back to work! Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. After good cpnsideration, I feel MzMcbride has learnt from the mistakes of last time, and they are clearly a dedicated user, and so deserve the mop back, as I trust MzMcbride not to misuse the tools. AtheWeatherman 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. An otherwise excellent administrator, MZMcBride screwed up badly. However, since a) he's not made any mistakes along those lines since and b) is, I'm sure, aware that any screwups in that area this time around will make it almost impossible for him to regain the tools, I see no reason why he can't be trusted with them again. Ironholds (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I echo Ironhold's statement. I trust that MZ has learned what the community expects from an administrator, and he'll be a positive force in the project again. Killiondude (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I believe MZM has acquired a better sense of what is expected and has shown a dedication to helping the project and would benefit and continue to help the project if granted the tools. MBisanz talk 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Although it was out of process, I did actually support your mass userpage deletion, although I think in hindsight that you could have managed the both the leadup and the fallout better. Wikipedia sometimes seems to be divided down the lines of the MUDDers and the writers, and while I appreciate the attraction of wikipedia as a social networking site, sometimes its nice to know that there a couple of people out there capable of acting as though that's not a particularly desirable long-term outcome. I hope that you have learned from the experience though, and can see the damage even the appearance of cabal-like actions behind the scenes can do. AKAF (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Unqualified Strong Support Let bygones be bygones. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (upgraded to strong support based on answer to q11 Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)) [reply]
  10. Per everyone else. – Steel 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Ironholds in particular. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this appears to be entering the discretionary range, I'd like to extend this to a "strong support" in light of the admirable way MZMcBride has carried himself through this controversial RfA (as well as the previous ArbCom cases). I'd also like to add that while his use of the admin tools was occasionally questionable, he never misused them in the mainspace, which is what really matters. Instead he has worked diligently for years on improving poor-quality BLPs. Therefore, even in the highly unlikely situation MZM returns to his mass-deletion of IP talk pages or whatnot, the mainspace will continue to benefit from him being a sysop. Additionally, if he does indeed use the tools in an inappropriate manner, he will likely be promptly desysopped, and as others have pointed out, it will be nearly impossible for him to re-attain adminship. It's a win-win. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, Ironholds said it well. An awesome BLP editor, dedicated user who's here for the long-term, and generally an over-qualified candidate for adminship again. The big point of concern is MZ's past mistakes; however, I believe he has learned from them, and I think it's time that he be trusted with the tools again. JamieS93 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I particularly agree with Julian's statement just above: even if MZ does get into trouble again (although it's my belief that he has improved in the area of listening to the community/norms/consensus), it will basically be the end of his adminship, and the current opposers won't have any future worries. After reading through most of the opposes, and as this RfA is drawing to a close, I still firmly hold the opinion that he will be a +net positive if resysopped. JamieS93 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - Has always been a great asset to the project (particularly in an administrative role), and over the past several months seems to have handled himself extremely well regarding pretty much every single concern that was brought up at that time. Couldn't have done much more to alleviate any lingering concerns by this point, and I think he will go back to being one of our most productive administrators if given back the tools. VegaDark (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Ironholds, VegaDark. NW (Talk) 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support thank you for answering the question.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Changing to oppose--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support MZMcBride is clearly here for the right reasons, is totally dedicated and works slavishly to help WP. Minor mistakes may have happened, but self evidently the wiki has not blown up. The guy is a major asset and regranting these extra bits only helps the encyclopedia. If you don't want to help the encyclopedia then oppose..... Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you are not saying the converse is also true? i.e. you aren't saying that if you oppose, you don't want to help the encyclopedia? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The lengthy string of double and triple negatives is too much for me I'm afraid. My opinion is generaly in low regard with our current crop of 'crats Floquenbeam (and indeed most active editors) - so I suggest if you want to badger someone then you badger someone whose opinion will make a difference. I have made my comments. If you wish to discuss them use the talk page of this RFA or my talk if you will. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support removed per request from Floquenbeam. I will revisit. Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC
    removed strikes. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. That anyone would be foolish enough to accept adminship is reason enough to question their judgement. However, MZM's commitment and dedication to doing what is right are almost impossible to dispute and his recent activity demonstrates that he still has the skills required to cooperate with others. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Bleh. Give him back the tools already. DS (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support. Of course. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support MZM made mistakes, learned from the mistakes, and has become a better editor for this. I am glad to support MZM. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I supported last time around and am happy to support again. MZMcBride is an immensely helpful editor and a very friendly person. He does great work for the project, and giving him back the admin tools will allow him to do more of what he already does. I think he's learned from his past mistakes, and I have no worries about any misuse of the tools from him: MZMcBride is fully aware that, should this RfA pass, he'll have to take extra care than last time. Just remember to take a break should you get stressed. ;) Good luck. Acalamari 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support. Brandon (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This is a no brainer. After past experiences with MZMcBride, I had thought that I would not support him in a million years. Us two have not had the best of relationships. I have changed my mind. Ever since MZMcBride was desysopped, I have constantly told him that it's a mistake. I feel that Wikipedia lost a great admin a few months ago, and I have always wanted him back on the team. (Additionally, I am spending my only 10 available minutes on the computer right now to support this RfA) (X! · talk)  · @925  ·  21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. support I'm not sure I agree with the description of the user being an "awesome BLP editor". He has done a lot of work that has been very helpful in that regard but he does sometimes have an overly deletionist stance. However, disagreeing on such issues is a distinct issue from whether or not he will use the tools well. There were prior problems with his deleting things out of process in regards to the secret pages but that is only marginally related and it seems clear that he isn't going to repeat that sort of event. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I guess, tho somewhat less enthusaistically than the others here. I recall agreeing with you on most of the tasks you were criticized for, disagreeing with some, but being struck by your continual antagonism to discussion and tone-deafness to criticism. You're saying all the right things now, but they're fairly common sense, and were common sense before, when you weren't doing them. Ultimately, I'm in this section because I believe in second chances, because the ArbCom remedies are fairly non-gameable, and because someone with your dedication and work ethic is just too useful to not to have as an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support You certainly possess the knowledge, and I don't see any particularly good reasons not to support you. -- Atama頭 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support iMatthew talk • take my poll at 21:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Majorly talk 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support  Strong technical user - previous major error was comitted in an effort to improve the encyclopedia - believe editor has learned from this, and should be allowed to regain the bit. --StaniStani  22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - per me. Last time. Several months ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Obviously. The only reason he isn't one already is because some people had a weird idea of what does & doesn't constitute "abuse". – iridescent 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, MZMcBride seems to realize that this is not true. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. He still knows what he's doing. ceranthor 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support We lost one of our best admins when MZM was de-opped, and it's high time he got the tools back. GlassCobra 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Ironholds. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. It's about time. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support - I think the time off was needed as I could see MZM was getting burnt out but I think now is the time to give him back the tools. He does invaluable service to this project with his technical knowledge and his work with BLP's is excellent - He can once again be one of our best administrators. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Per Gmaxwell. Mr.Z-man 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on my support: MZM is one of the most clueful and experienced users we have. Even the majority of the things he did with zomgadminbots were obviously useful to the project (else he would have been desysopped a lot sooner). Some of the oppose comments are, frankly, baffling to me. MZM was always one of the most active admins, but people are ignoring his history and using the answer to 2 questions here to suggest he won't do anything with the tools (without even explaining why that would be a bad thing). Additionally, we need more admins willing to work on BLPs, not fewer. Mr.Z-man 16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, but with some reservations. You've done good work and are clearly familiar with admin procedures. I'm inclined to give you another chance. Majoreditor (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I remember quite heated arguments with the candidate a few months back, which I suspect he also recalls - however recently I needed help involving creating some script and made a request in some dusty part of WP; within hours MZM had created a sub-page for me with the information I wanted in a format even I could use. Indeed, most of my impressions of MZM's recent activities have been positive. While I doubt he and I will agree on a particular bone of contention I have no concerns that he would not use the flags for the betterment of the project. Time he had them back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I went neutral last time because I felt that, while MZMcBride was a hard-working administrator, it was just too soon after the ArbCom case against him. Now it's been four months since, and I think it's time he got his sysop buttons back. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Always been a good editor and admin. I trust him not to run scripts on his account. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. He pushed some boundaries too far. Should have been slapped for deleting outside the rules. Perhaps punished at the stocks for upsetting so many editors. However, there was never a question of “deliberate abuse” or loss of trust of good intention. He responded to complaints, altered behaviour, and contributed to the relevant policy discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support essentially per iridescent. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Despite the arbcom desysop, I feel comfortable giving him back the tools. He's grown from the issues and he'll be fine as an admin. Wizardman 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to be a pedant about it, but remember that you guys didn't "desysop" him; he resigned "under a cloud" during the ArbCom case, and you ruled that he must go through RfA in order to get the tools back. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Per everyone else. Well...perhaps not everyone else, but most of them. A good user, no concerns that he will abuse the tools. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Sure. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Stephen 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - I wanted to neutral or oppose based on some reason about resigning and stuff like that. However, I probably have harassed you enough since then so that you probably wouldn't make the same comments. I guess dealing with me can be some form of penance. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - no brainer (even for a non-brainer like me!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Nobody's perfect. Please avoid rampaging crusades or get community support first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support No statement for now. Before this closes I'll be back w/ more info and justification. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Small update. Answer to Q11 is fantastic. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly larger update. during the 'cloud' which provoked MZM's resignation, I argued strenuously that his individual interpretation of the deletion policy was overreaching. During the RFAR which directly resulted in his resignation, I supported opening the case and desysoping him. I did so because it seemed to be the only method available to stop what I saw as incipient disruption (out of process deletions, adminbots running without approval). All appearances would lead me to believe that it has worked. He abused the tools (in my view), but did so out of a serious and good faith desire to improve the project. The community reacted and access to the tools were removed. We are at the final step in the de-adminning process. The step where we determine if the breech was so fundamental that the subject should be denied access forever. I think that we can take this step and re-confirm a pretty good administrator. Protonk (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support One of the complaints I've seen is that he's overzealous about BLPs. How that can be a bad thing escapes me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Was a great admin, has satisfactorily addressed problems that came up earlier, will be a great admin again. RayTalk 02:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. The time off was good for MZMcBride; it gave him perspective and hindsight on how he messed up as an administrator. It's inevitable that someone who was an admin for as long as he got carried away, resulting in undesirable behavior. (I have noticed this in myself and try to restrain myself wherever possible). MZM is ready to resume his duty as an administrator. @harej 02:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing with your vote, but one thing you said in there worries me. Do you really mean it when you say that MZMcBride's actions that led to his resignation were "inevitable" just because he was an admin for a while? Do administrators have an expiration date of under two years? rspεεr (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that all admins have an "expiration date", but that time off does justice for admins when it gets to the point that adminship has to be all but taken from them. @harej 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    MZM was an admin for 22 months (from May 2007 through March 2009: see user rights log).
    It is not typical (and certainly not "inevitable") for admins to get "carried away" and engage in "undesirable behavior" in that span of time. — Athaenara ✉ 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I like the answer to questions 1-3 there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I take a nice nap and this is what I get? To be support #57? How cruel. Keegan (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support per all of the above, my comments last time, and more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. I'm confident in this user's integrity.--ragesoss (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Good answers to questions. I believe he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MZMcBride. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: Pas de doute, il ferait bon administrateur..South Bay (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Absolutely no reservations, although in part per Ironholds. Welcome back, we need you. Badly. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. More than Weak but less than full Support In the past I have definitely disagreed with MZM's CSD work as I've found him to be over eager to pull the trigger. But agreeing with my position is not a requisite. I am a firm believer in redemption and in the notion of moving in and out of adminship. I think it should be easier to take the bit away and easier to restore it once it is taken away. Thus, I support largely on philosophical grounds. But that is not the only reason why I'm going to ignore my concerns about CSD here. When MzM lost his bit, I told him, "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 think coming back here and redefining himself like he has takes incedible fortitude and strength of character and that is why I am supporting him. I won't lie, I have some fears, at his last RfA some people called him one of the worst CSD'ers out there---and most of you know how I feel about sloppy CSD'ers. But I am going with my guts here and support him. He did what I hoped he would do.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to weak support due to arguments made in oppose section. While they are convincing, I am keeping my !vote in the support section for two reasons. 1) The philosophical reason that I think it should be easier to move in and out of adminship than it currently is. It is too much of a pain in the butt to remove the bit because people know that once it is removed it is virtually impossible to get back in most cases. 2) MzM did what I wanted him to do... redefine himself as a wikipedian without the tools.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Moved to more than weak but less than full support... MZM did what *I* asked of him at his last RfA. While I recognize the concerns of the opposers as valid concerns, I find myself in a forgiving mood and willing to give MZM a second chance. This isn't without concerns, but it is without reservations.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, assuming that he has a navel. MZMcBride made a mistake, and learned from it. I have confidence that he will not betray our trust. –blurpeace (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong Support After looking through MZMcBride's contributions, I must say that he has done quite an impressive amount of contributing in Wikipedia. He strongly deserve a successful RFA this time round. BejinhanTalk 04:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, sexually attractive and also the best admin we ever did see. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - Every time someone opposes this RfA, God kills a puppy. Please, think of the puppies. The previous vote says MZMcBride is sexually attractive. I need to see a picture. "How you doin?" APK that's not my name 05:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. While it's tempting to be amusing or flippant in this RFA for someone whom I personally like, I'll try to refrain. MzMcBride has shown over the years a dedication not only to doing a lot of work to improve Wikipedia, but also a deep understanding of its principles as a wiki and as free content, which guides his actions. That puts him way over my standard for being an admin, which is basically "don't be a vandal". kmccoy (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Concerned about mistake but learned from it well. Good luck. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, per Ironholds and many of the above. --John (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - I've seen this editor around (quite a bit) and they've got what it takes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Weird, I thought I'd already voted. MZMcBride has been an asset to the project before, and no doubt he will be again if this RfA passes. It is evident to me that he has learnt from his mistakes, and will not repeat them. — neuro(talk) 08:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support The events leading to the ArbCom case were unfortunate and a mistake but I am happy to see that MZM has seen this as well. The work he did was never thought to be anything but valuable to the project and only unfortunate decisions led to tarnish his contributions up to said ArbCom case and the unsuccessful second RFA. At that time, I would not have trusted him with the tools (anymore) and I have explicitly stated so multiple times. But in the last months, I have seen MZM at various places and he has, as far as I can see, really reflected on his mistakes and changed his approach where necessary. Trusting that he will not do anything as drama-prone again as he did half a year ago, I have no reason not to support this request this time. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support --Chris 09:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - has clearly worked hard in responding to the grievances expressed against him at the time of his resignation. We need him back working on BLPs in an admin capacity, and I absolutely trust his judgement in not straying into further needless controversy. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong support. Valid questions about MZMcBride's judgement have been raised in the past, but even at the time of the arbitration case there was never any indication that he was doing anything other than what he believed was best for Wikipedia - the issues primarily revolved around him being too independent at times, as well as the widespread debate about automated admin scripts. He's amply demonstrated that he understands the concerns raised, and I am very confident that a user as knowledgeable and dedicated as he is will once again make excellent use of admin tools. ~ mazca talk 09:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - I'm convinced that MZM has learned from his mistakes. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 10:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Because, quite simply, it's the right thing to do.  public GARDEN  10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. --Giants27 (c|s) 12:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Candidates answer to question 8 and its follow up satisfies me, and I 100% agree with MZM's strong refusal of Q11. I'm willing to forgive and forget the secret page debacle. Just take CoM's suggestion above and you'll be a fantastic admin (again). The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 13:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Time to move on. William Avery (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Moved from neutral. --Pgallert (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support A good canidate with lots of experience. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - per Fritzpoll ponyo (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Weak support, please don't make me regret this. Tan | 39 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - please note, this comment is made in my role as an individual and an administrator on this proejct, not as a Foundation employee or on behalf of the strategy project. With that said, my very strong recommendation is that the community support MZMcBride in this RfA. My interactions with this user have been professional (if sometimes complicated by the user's strong voice and my unwillingness to get their generally very helpful advice through my own thick head), and to say that MzMcBride has been helpful would be the most severe understatment of the year. MzMcBride was instrumental in the creation of the Strategy Wiki, even when xe wasn't totally sure xe agreed with the project and/or the project goals. I can not state strongly enough my level of respect. It is my hope that the community will see fit to move forward with this. - Philippe 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Deleting 'secret' pages should never have been the straw that resulted in a desysop. ♣ Ameliorate! 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support No question. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support No one with this many edits, and this strong a personality is going to have a spotless history. The positive contributions to this place are seriously impressive. Some of the non-so-positive contributions are troubling. Fair or unfair, negatives outweigh positives, in the sense that nine good edits followed by one bad edit is a net negative. I see recent positive signs helping me to discount some of the troubling history. The rethinking of the role of AFD is a positve. The acceptance of the need for bot approval is a positive. On the less positive side, the answer to question 1 was extremely offputting. OTOH, the answer to question 11 was excellent.--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Golden Anus Because that's just funny. Keepscases (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Well hello Marybelle, good bye crap. Nick (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Stronger support. MZ does great things on the BLP front. Between database reports, various queries, and the BLP bot, MZ has proven instrumental in this area of the project. He also assisted in the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Living people, a project that needs all the admins it can get. Lara 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrading to "stronger support"? Haha. Mostly just want to expand upon my support, as I really don't get some of the opposition. Those opposing over the ANUS thing... well, that's just silly. Looking into what WP:ANUS was would be a good first step. Consider the intentions of the project page rather than exhibiting a complete lack of anything resembling a sense of humor. As for the Golden Anus discussed in Q14, it is indeed an in-joke, as MZ explained, and I'm certainly not one to be offended by such. MZ and I deal with some of the nastiest BLP problems. As ugly as it may be, the comparison of this work to an anus is apropos. Last, for those who oppose over him not exhibiting a need, please realize that he is ranked as the #1 most active admin by number of logged admin actions. Lara 04:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - I supported your first RfA, and made what can fairly be described as a leap of faith and supported your second as well, despite an ArbCom about you still being open at the time. As I said last time, the ArbCom cases represented a serious lapse in judgement, but you have experience and have clearly learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt from your past, an important trait for an administrator. Your work with WP:BLP and in particular User:LaraBot, should also be commended. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - I mean, duh. Black Kite 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Strong Support — Jake Wartenberg 18:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Paid his dues, proven to the community that he deserves a second chance. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, and I hope I don't come to regret it. Prodego talk 18:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Duh, and because no one waits until 21 anymore, 69 was already taken, and 420 takes too long. Cbrown1023 talk 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like JC, I'd like to expand my comment here. MZMcBride is a very helpful and nice guy with a good sense of humor. Although he proclaims he's lazy, anyone who looks at the dedication to the projects he's shown over the last few years wouldn't believe that. He is the most active admin ever in terms of logged actions, so I am a bit confused how the claims of "no use for the tools" make sense at all ("no specific plans" ≠ "I'm not planning on using the tools"). After the Arbitration cases, MZMcBride could have just left but he stuck it out and has kept working hard out on the battlefront. I can personally attest that MZM has shown a need for the tools, often looking for admins to help with BLP-related actions. I have also definitely noticed a change in him, if he says he won't make rash choices without community consensus again I believe him. If his word is not enough to trust him, the patience he's shown throughout this RFA, especially in answering the huge number of questions in a timely manner, should be. Cbrown1023 talk 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. One off from 100 While the ArbCom stuff is quite worrying, I'm sure that he's gotten over that. That, plus answer to A11, calls for a support. Cheers, I'mperator 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. A helpful editor, and appropriately forceful and credible answers to the questions. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  102. Support, excellent user. Triplestop x3 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. 'Rainbow Support ¡ʞɔnן pooƃ ɹǝsn ʇɐɥʇ ɥsıʍ ı ˙ɹǝdןǝɥ punoɹɐ-ןןɐ ʇɐǝɹƃ ɐ puɐ ןןoɹʇ ɔɹı 'ɹoʇıpǝ ǝɯosǝʍɐ --Mixwell!Talk 22:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support With the hope that good sense and judgment will come through experience...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support --Chasingsol(talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Per nom. J.delanoygabsadds 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Back in April I joined in urging MZMcBride "to give careful consideration to the principles expressed in this decision in his future editing, and especially if he reattains adminship at a future date". My status may have changed since then but that is still the relevant measure. I find it quite clear that not only has he done so, he has done so more comprehensively than I would have thought possible. I vote to support without any reservation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support My main concern was the deletion scripts, which seemed controversial enough to warrant a discussion. I'm not saying that I opposed or supported them, just that they seemed controversial. MZ's word that this will not happen again is enough for me. Royalbroil 00:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. MZMcBride? The eminent twenty-first century Wikipedian adminship applicant? Sceptre (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Sure. :) --Az1568 (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Shows the ability to learn from experience = Strong Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boon (talk • contribs) 05:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Per nom and becaus I'm sure that MZ will be thoughtful of the community when performing potentially controversial operations. -- Luk talk 08:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. User has a clue, and my interactions with him over the years have been very positive. --Mask? 08:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Let him have the tools back. I supported his last RfA, despite my misgivings about its timing. I felt then, as now, that his adminship was a net positive for the project, despite some lapses in judgment. I also think he's learnt well from his errors. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - I don't like the idea that questioners request pledges from admin candidates and then oppose based on their refusal to agree. That sets a dangerous precedent in RfAs. Beyond that, I think MZM will reign it in, no reason to not trust. Shadowjams (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. I saw someone wanting to support, but seeing one area of concern. Sufficient concern that it would turn a support into an oppose. If the candidate were willing to voluntarily promise to avoid that area, then the person was willing to support. I cited the rejection of the offer as part of my support, but I agree that the person was right to oppose. Indeed, a subsequent support would have meant the question wasn't serious. I'm not a fan of the concept of limited admin, but if it makes a difference between community support of not, I could understand someone accepting it. I can equally understand the all or nothing response. I thought it was an intriguing exchange - a fair question, an excellent response, and an appropriate !vote given the response.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some further discussion of that question on the talk page of this RfA if you would like to participate there. You are free to continue here, of course. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Helpful user, trustworthy. Shappy talk 13:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Fine. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support (redundantly) per the second best nom statement ever presented here. ;). Seriously though, 5 months ago I was one of the most outspoken, and harshest critics that MZ had. As an IT guy, I do understand the satisfaction in relating to databases, scripts, programing languages and computers in general. You only get back the information you put in. With people, especially via the Internet where there is no voice inflection, no visual clues to intent, humans can be unpredictable, given to emotional and sometimes illogical responses. (see GIGO). The fact that MZM has worked so hard to "communicate", and to seek community consensus over his own beliefs has impressed the hell out of me. It would be foolish to question his strong desire to improve the Wikipedia project, or deny the devotion of his efforts here. While human interaction may be a second language to MZ, his ability to master it, simply should not be ignored. As an editor who may be on the opposing side of "deletion" discussions outside of BLP space, I believe that in the present, to deny MZ the tools would effectively hamstring the entire project. I'm not in favor of asking a person to work with one hand tied behind their back. I applaud his refusal to sell out, and his integrity of sticking to his beliefs. We may never get "walls of text" from Mr. McBride, but there are a few folks here that can pick up that end of things. What we will get is an honest, and dedicated effort to improve our project, as well as a strong individual who can help us move forward in the years ahead. — Ched :  ?  15:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. Same reason I nominated Walton not once but twice. Well, not the programming part but the idea that fundamental differences mixed with integrity mixed with willing to discuss= constructive net positive. Keegan (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support This decision took a lot of thought. While I disagree with MZMcBride on a lot of issues, it would seem to me that he's been a very good editor for the past few months, and therefore probably would be a good administrator as well. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. Dekimasuよ! 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Has made plenty of mistakes including pretty bad ones as detailed in the ArbCom case (and don't even get me started on the timing of the last RfA). Still, I find it almost impossible to argue that resysoping MZMB is a net negative. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support pending creation of Lawbot. Please do be careful this time around or else it gets the hose again. Law type! snype? 22:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Dedicated and valuable editor, deserving of another chance. -- Ϫ 01:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support in the interest of balancing anus-related opposes. ReverendWayne (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support I expected to oppose because I do believe the mass deletion of the secret pages was a particularly egregious abuse of admin powers. But reading through this whole page and all his answers, I find myself supporting. The various answers and responses are especially mature and thoughtful. I really believe he has learned from the past and has earned again the trust of the community. Good luck and thanks for all the great work you have done/will do. Dean B (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Mainly per OlEnglish (talk · contribs) above. Aditya (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support, Ironholds' thoughts on this are close to my own. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Shimgray | talk | 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Everyone makes mistakes, but I fully trust his judgment, and I don't believe he will do anything inappropriate with the tools if the bits are again bestowed. hmwitht 13:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Of course. Definitely. Pmlineditor  Talk 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Obvious support. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious? How so, may I ask? Timmeh (review me) 16:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is obvious to me that the candidate has clue and would improve the project if a sysop. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support; Arbitration remedies have as their primary objective the intent to allow someone to correct previously problematic behavior. Given that MZMcBride has since corrected his aim, and that he is generally agreed to be a competent administrator, I see no reason to not support. — Coren (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. I probably know as much as anyone about the prior issues involving MZMcBride, and the widespread sense of exasperation felt with him by many by the end of his prior tenure as an administrator, from having been the drafting arbitrator in the two ArbCom cases he was a party to. As such, I am familiar with both the positive and the negative aspects of his work as an editor and an administrator. In the months since he resigned, I've seen him enhance the positive and drastically tone down the negative aspects of his comments and contributions. His conduct in recent months and the tenor of his answers to the questions in this RfA convince me that if resysopped, he will be an asset to the project and is not likely to repeat his prior mistakes. (I also note that MZMcBride could have requested resysopping directly from ArbCom, though I don't know what the outcome of such a request would have been, but chose to proceed with this RfA instead.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Hopefully this time you will use the tools appropriately SparksBoy (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support, although I would have easily voted to desysop him twice (in fact, I fault last year's ArbCom for failing to do so in the Palin wheel war case). Adminship should be no big deal. That means that we shouldn't treat it as tenure—we should be more willing to remove the bit for misuse. At the same time, we should also grant it more liberally than RFA has in recent years. After thorough questioning, I'm convinced that MZMcBride will not make the same mistakes. If he makes wholly new ones, I think the community is prepared to deal with it. In the mean time, his adminship is a net positive. Sysop the bastard. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support MZMcBride has come a very long way and done a lot a lot of hard work. He can certainly be trusted. Bastique demandez 22:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. I am not as concerned as the opposers are. ÷seresin 22:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Strong Support I have absolute confidence in MzMcBride's ability as administrator. Snowolf How can I help? 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support per the comments of various Arbitration Committee colleagues. I have closely followed MZMcBride's progress since the April RFAR, and I note significant changes in both his behaviour and his perspective. Risker (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Had to think about this a bit, as some of the opposes I see below give me some pause, and are from editors I do hold in high regard (i.e Durova) but after considering carefully decided to support, mainly due to the fact that a) Everyone fucks up now and again b) MzMcBride appears to have learned from his mistakes and c) I'm willing to forgive past mistakes. Wikipedia too often fails good candidates due to past mistakes, regardless of whether they've learned from them or not. And I think an end should be put to it. Best of luck, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support He's nearly as awesome as I am, and few can say that. I speak French in Russian, and can disarm a man with my looks, as well as my hands. So while it would be foolish to judge MZM against the likes of someone as capable as I, I can certify that MZM would be a high functioning admin. I know this because he was before, never really ceased to be, and shall continue to be so in the future. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Cautious Support - has mellowed alot, which was a prerequisite to this even getting of the ground I would have thought. Opposers raise valid concerns, but MZM will be being watched and there is a high likelihood that any further mishaps will come to arb committee's attention pretty quickly. Note to all (picks up megaphone yet again) I am hoping everyone is noting a more fluid sysop and desysop atmosphere this year....given this I see benefits outweighing risks.Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad one of you Arbcom guys said it; I wanted to say it but didn't want to put words in your mouth. Your willingness to deal with tough cases this year has made me more comfortable supporting in close RFA cases. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support I fully recognize all the very well worded arguments made in the Oppose section, as well as the complete history of the situation, however I must say that MZMcBride's answers to the many difficult questions were extremely persuasive and have convinced me this would be a prudent decision. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. I trust this user to wield the mop with integrity. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. His impulsiveness has toned down a lot and I think that was his key problem when he had adminship last time. I see no problems now. Mike H. Fierce! 04:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support: Dedicated contributor, and I think he can now be trusted to use the tools responsibly. Also, I'm agreeing with Juliancolton's statement up there. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Strong Support Does-good-work. Give-back-mop. Pretty simple, methinks ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. He's an asset to the project, and I'm happy to support him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Rettetast (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. While I understand the too soon and agressiveness comments, he's too valued of a asset to reject the tools. Secret account 15:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support As Philippe said earlier, MzMcBride started helping the strategic planning Wiki even before he was sure it was the best possible thing. He embodied, "Assume Good Faith," and we wouldn't be anywhere close to where we are now if it hadn't been for his hard work and selfless contributions. --Eekim (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support I have a feeling that he'll be under way more scrutiny then other new admins. He can make good use of the tools, and in my opinion will be a net positive to Wikipedia. And if he isn't... well, I am sure Arbcom would be quite willing to deal with it. PGWG (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - certainly valid opposes, but I don't agree. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. I believe he has learned from past mistakes and will be a net benefit as an admin. Tex (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. support βcommand 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support, Additional time is not going to change anything, either he's ready or he's not and why not find out now? I think he will perform well, so I give my full support. NoSeptember 23:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  158. Support - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Though there are definitely some thorny issues at work (particularly the script-assisted deletions), I still trust MZMcBride. Newyorkbrad's description of efforts to improve was particularly convincing. Steven Walling (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Strong support the opposers have raised two major issues -- judgement and timing. The incidents were a wheel war, which in MZM's case was one unfortunate unprotection, controversial adminbots, and deletion that were too bold. MZM now uses the BAG process and seek consensus for bot tasks, has promised to be more cautious when deleting, and I would be very surprised if he would enter into a wheel-war. Outside those incidents, his judgement was sound, and even without the bots, I think he was one of the most active admins. The judgement issues have been resolved, so there isn't much point in waiting another 3-4 months. I trusted MZM as admin before, and I continue to trust his abilities. Maxim(talk) 01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support All of my interactions were positive. IMHO I think we can reentrust him with the tools again. Okay that was redundant, but he has done his repentance and I think he merits getting back the mop Valley2city‽ 06:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  162. —Dark talk 07:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support experienced contributor, understands the importance of BLPs and appears to have learned from the sekrit page saga. I've read the oppose section and am not convinced by the oppose arguments, in particular I'm surprised that we still have RFA !votes using "no need for the tools" rationales. ϢereSpielChequers 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support He appears to have learned from his past mistakes and could make good use of the tools again, Best of luck Mifter (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support—MZMcBride's history, and my interaction with him, leads me to believe that he can generally be trusted with the admin tools. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Nothing major wrong here Alexfusco5 14:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. While the opposition brings up salient points, I am willing to give this user the benefit of the doubt and say that he is ready for the tools again. Please don't prove us wrong :) Shereth 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support I thought he was an admin already. TotientDragooned (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - I don't usually comment at RFA, but this case, and particularly the answer to Q17 makes me inclined to trust this user. At present, I'm in a similar position; due to other pressures I currently tend to only use the admin tools for non-controversial edit-protected, self-deletion of user pages etc. I can therefore understand how frustrating it would be for a former admin not to be able to do this. However, MZM would have to realise that this is not only a second chance, but a final chance. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Strong editor. Eusebeus (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Strong support - I'm quick to trust those trusted on other Wikimedia sites. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support We could use more admins who realize that crusading against our minor nuisances is wrong, and that we have process for a reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support I am concerned that the candidate can be something of a loose cannon, but I agree with Maxim's assessment above. I admire the candidate's commitment to open editing – we need more oligarchs restricting the power of the oligarchy.  Skomorokh  08:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support per Q 17 and the comments on the talk page. It Is Me Here t / c 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Skinny87 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Mistakes were made, and some of us can't look past these mistakes (I shed a tear for you). MZM has always been a net positive in my mind. Marybelles actions and words may not be mainstream or conventional in the slightest but his intentions are inline with the project. Any other minuscule detail is random nitpicking and grudge bearing that corrodes this forum. Have a nice day. :) Syn 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Was opposed to him losing his rights initially. Support him regaining them. An MZMcBride with the tools is helpful to the encyclopedia. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support some serious concerns below; was considering casting my first oppose when I saw this yesterday. On the other hand the candidates does a huge amount of valuable work and a great many editors I consider trustworthy have faith the candidate wont be re-donning his deletionist no 1 mantle. I dont know the candidate but he must have excellent qualities to have so much passionate support. Net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Did good work before and will continue to do good work with the mop. Captain panda 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support Net-positive Agathoclea (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. He's controversial enough to make it work. John Reaves 21:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support per the above 182. Not convinced by the opposes. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support from Neutral - I am not convinced that the candidate won't screw up badly again; I am convinced that this is No Big Deal and that we can fix anything he messes up (though through no small effort if he does it on a large scale). I'm also encouraged by his answer to 12d and tend to object to the suggestion that mass unprotection is a bad thing.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support Excellent answers; good recall criteria. —Emufarmers(T/C) 22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Not perfect, but good enough to pass at this time. Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support Net positive. Like Ali'i above, opposed him losing them in the first place - good faith editor and hard worker. Orderinchaos 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support – if most of the ArbCom supports him in coming back after him resigning the bit, then why not? MuZemike 04:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. MZMcBride did make some mistakes before he lost his adminship, especially in his communication. However, I think his behavior since then has demonstrated that he understands and owns up to these mistakes, and that he is capable of being responsive. I trust his judgment in adminship matters, and I think that he will turn out to be quite productive. Dominic·t 08:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support. Encouraged by the answers to the questions and his collegiality as he works through recent issues. I see no reason for a longer wait before returning the tools. He can make good use of them now. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support – I found this a difficult decision, hence my late-hour participation in the discussion despite following it and his previous RfA and Arb case. Although in the past he has had a tendency occasionally to substitute his own judgment (in admin actions) for community consensus, I think the risks of that now have been lessened—not just because of the increased scrutiny he is now under, but also because there is evidence in his communication that he is changing his approach. I also believe that adminship ought to be easier to move in and out of than it has in the past. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Excellent answers to RFA questions, sufficient experience and expertise. I think that mistakes such as those mentioned in the ArbCom case are unlikely to be repeated. snigbrook (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support basically per Dominic. I believe MZMcBride learned from his mistakes, and will be net positive to the project. LittleMountain5 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support Humans make mistakes. Good humans learn from them. Seems like a good human. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support per Flonight. To be honest, MZMcBride has the potential to be a good admin, and I think that's sufficient to grant the tools again. I'd caution the candidate to please, for the love of all that is holy, be mindful of the communication issues discussed above (and below) - you'll have a much better time of things that way. Best to you, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  196. — CharlotteWebb 20:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support – I thought he already was an admin! ...oh, hang on, I'll take my foot right out of the mouth there... Seriously don't think there'll be any problems here. With the candidate. Not taking my foot out of my mouth. Ahem. What was I doing? – B.hotep •talk• 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  198. support clear answer about bots/scripts.©Geni 21:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support No reason to think there will be further problems. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support (Yay, #200!) Shouldn't be any further problems, and we need him back. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support... J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  202. agree with Lara, Cas, and Dmcdevit. — east718 | talk | 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support upstateNYerformerly wadester16 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - the lack of judgement with regards to the timing of your last RfA (resigning, the ArbCom case, etc), as well as apparent running of unapproved adminbots, is more than enough for me to oppose. → ROUX ₪ 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regretful Oppose, sorry to oppose, you've always seemed like a great guy when I've seen you around, and I really hope you don't take this oppose personally. But there's a lot of things in you contributions, which, without a proper explanation (feel free to reply to anything), leaves me unsure. ArbCom disallowed any automated edits from your account, but there's a lot of seemingly automated (or possibly semi-automated) edits coming from your account, or (obviously there's no way to prove that you were/weren't observing these edits properly) improperly viewed; For example, in June you were going through a lot of redirects (50+) removing any text below the actual redirect (and in some cases replacing it with a redirect template, such as {{R with possibilities}}), but in these two edits (and probably more) you didn't re-add the {{R from misspelling}} template (even though in both examples it had apparently been incorrectly substed onto the page, rather then transcluded). I feel that if you were reviewing your edits properly, you should have spotted this. The second example is where you were adding Category:Living people to a number of article (most of the times you added this it seems fine), but in one case (see this edit) you failed to remove Category:deceased from the article, and even changed the deceased category (which doesn't exist and was (possibly incorrectly) added by a new user) to have an upper case "D". Yes, this change is correct in that categories should start with an uppercase, but why did you add the page to living people, and correct the deceased category? Also, I think your non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe was against both WP:AfD and WP:NAC (regardless of whether it should have been closed as delete or not), in that you should not close a discussion which you have been part of, and you (as a non admin) should not close a discussion as delete. As well as this, I think this is too soon after the ArbCom case and you're resignation of adminship (with good reason). All that said, when I've actually seen you, you seem really nice, helpful, and productive. If there are explanations for any of the reasons in my oppose, then please explain :D. I would be happier in the support section - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what the problem is with that AfD. Really it can be taken as an extension of db-blank; an article can be deleted if the sole author/major contributor requests that it be deleted. Blofeld requested that the articles be deleted, so where's the problem? Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the problem in that they shouldn't be deleted, but in that it was MZMcBride closed it. Yes, you could just say ignore all rules; the articles should be deleted, therefore it's fine for it to be closed as delete by a user who is a non admin, and has taken part in the discussion. But, what's the point? It requires an admin to delete the pages anyway, so it's not saving any time (you'll still need to wait for an admin to turn up anyway). As to G7 applying, according to NAC "Non-admins may not use a 'speedy delete' close" - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the redirect fixes, none of them were automated or even semi-automated. I did them all by hand (and I imagine the timestamps will indicate this). The reason that two in particular didn't have a redirect template is that I couldn't figure out which redirect template to use. Usually when a template is substituted, it leaves behind a <!-- comment --> indicating which template it originated from. As is obvious in both diffs, there was no such comment. Regarding the addition of Category:Living people, my primary (and really sole) focus during those category additions was to do just the category additions. I ran across a number of very bad bios that need a lot of work (and in some cases outright deletion), but I felt it was more important to have all of the biographies categorized and review them later rather than continue to have pages that are completely unmonitored. I don't think I'm alone in this view, though you're free to ask others who have done similar tagging. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, all I can really say is that it was an exceptional case (in many ways) and that I was closing it so that the deleting admin could focus on the actual work involved. In addition, I felt that it was best to make sure that nobody was embarrassed or run off the project (which nearly happened with one user in particular, see my talk archives for more). I really wish you would have asked me on my talk page or somewhere else before making judgments about my editing (and opposing), but I suppose that's just the way it goes. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm aware of that comment, but I always find it easy enough to find a template from the substited text; do a search of some of the text in the template, look through the category that it adds, etc. Just because you weren't aware of what to replace it with off the top of your head, is not a reason to delete it, in my opinion. As to adding Category:Living people, why couldn't you have removed that category yourself? It's simply confusing to have the page contradict itself. I don't understand how it's easier to go through a bunch of pages, adding a category, and then correct those pages. Then it is to go through a bunch of pages, correct and add a category at the same time. By adding category living people, you would appear to be saying "this is about a living person", by correcting category deceased you would appear to be confirming "this is about a decease person". You didn't go back to that page to correct it (and it's stayed like that for months), so I can't see how claiming you were adding the categories so the pages could be looked over is a good reason for adding contradictory content.I agree it was correct for you to add the category, and you didn't exactly do anything wrong, but since you apparently acknowledged that you were adding content to the page which contradicted content already in there, why didn't you check that what you were adding was correct? As to the AfD closure, I'm afraid I can't find anything in your user talk archive during that period, I might just be being blind (could you provide a link please?) It would only have taken a few minutes more for you to ask an admin to deal with it. I did consider asking questions instead, but oppose seems to be the right place to bring up (and discuss) these issues, IMO. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) There's nothing wrong with judging a candidate's editing, MZMcBride. In fact, it is needed to make an informed !vote. Let me tell you from experience that badgering your opposers like this won't help. It's fine to clarify facts, but telling them not to oppose over legitimate concerns and blaming them for going deep into your contributions and finding faults is not the way to go. Timmeh (review me) 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some conversation between Timmeh & myself moved to talk page. –xenotalk 23:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose at the present time. This is a tough one. MZM has done and continues to do great stuff for the encyclopaedia. That being said, he exhibited real lack of judgement in April - just 4 months ago - leading to his resignation in real danger of being desysopped by Arbcom. To support someone with this history at RFA I'd like to see real solid evidence of increased wisdom, judgement and maturity. To be honest, if I were sure that MZM was an adult, I couldn't imagine such personal growth could happen over only a few months. However, I have the impression (maybe incorrect) that MZM is relatively young, and therefore I am willing to believe that such a change may have taken place. Ergo I was going to stay neutral (or not vote). However, then I reread his answer to Q1, where he basically says he has no great need for the bit right now. So there's also no urgency to give him the bit back. Therefore, let's wait another few months. Martinp (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirm my oppose. MZM has since answered questions 12 and 17 in a way that reduces, rather than increases my confidence. In his answer to 12a and b, there is an underlying theme of "I'll have to be careful since the restrictions are not unambiguous" rather than "I'll be more careful since it's clear the community does not appreciate X and Y". In 17, there's a sense that he actually wants to use the bit as before, but didn't think it was prudent to say so in question 1 since people might not like it. There's a further remark that he is doing it for the sake of others so they don't need to be watching his talkpage to do "his" work. All in all, MZM most likely has matured but it's too early to be sure. There seems to be a significant group of people who think he should never have needed to resign in the first place, a significant group who feel he was a net liability before but are convinced he would be a net positive now, and a significant group who are not (yet) ready to re-extend trust. Reaffirms my belief that the best solution is to try again in a few months. Martinp (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose although I'm reassured by the answer to Q9 and attempts to redress grievances (a pity that the noble attempt to seek redress was thuggishly derailed by someone preemptively labeling everyone who might join the discussion as vexatious trolls -- robbing the candidate of honest feedback), the issue was always a failure to communicate and an inability to recognize not even the validity but sometimes the mere existence of objection to his behavior. Unfortunately, someone who does good BLP work at Wikipedia often attracts an army of enablers who would defend a relapse into heavy-handedness, even on matters not pertaining to BLP. As such, I think it's best the candidate continues the good BLP work without access to the admin tools that may tempt him into unrelated misadventures. --JayHenry (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Roux Achromatic (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I don't like you.!! (being honest here; unlike the others above me who gave dumb reasons for opposing you instead of coming out clean and saying what I just said) :)..--Warpath (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you, you know, considered the fact that maybe other opposers might hold a different opinion to you? — neuro(talk) 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't like you" isn't a valid oppose. I can list a dozen users I don't particularly like, including some I've supported at RfA because I think they'd be good at it. People who base their support/oppose votes on whether they like somebody are contributing to the problem people perceive us having with things like IRC; we promote our "buddies" and keep down outsiders in a closed system. Ironholds (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, many have opposed a candidate who they liked, for the good of the encyclopedia, you should see my RFA at the mo, heh! :) AtheWeatherman 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if personal opinions that don't consider the encyclopedia were banned, RfA would be a much better place. Majorly talk 13:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd advise we don't get too concerned about this one; I'm pretty sure a snowball has a better chance of rolling from one end of hell to another intact than this !vote has of being given any weight by a closing bureaucrat. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like him either, and disagree with some of his stated opinions, but I think he can be trusted to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia; to do otherwise is to believe that my opinions are perfect and incontrovertible - and that makes me just another abusive admin who uses the flags to enforce my position. MZMcBride and I (among others) share the the recognition that we are the conduits of consensus, not its creators (although MZM may have had a harder path to that realisation than I have) and that is why I have supported. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointiest oppose I've ever seen. —Dark talk 06:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointiest? I thought most pointless. Lara 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, when I opposed, there were a few hundred votes for McBride and just 7 against and now look. Its over 50. I could have stated what all those below have suggested but I didn't because it will just be a waste of time. MZMcBride has shown time and again that he can't be trusted with the tools and he nearly always makes bad judgments and is always ready to jump the gun. (typical description of a troll eh?) and above all is very controversial, probably bigger than Dick Cheney shooting his hunting friend (I'm not evil, those horns are just for decoration)..--Warpath (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. To the extent I have personal recollections of MZMcBride's admin work, they are good ones, but we are now in the rare position of discussing a candidate whose judgment as an administrator has been found to be flawed by ArbCom twice, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride#Findings of fact (April 2009) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war#Reduction of protection by MZMcBride ( October 2008). Under these circumstances, I am uncomfortable with supporting his candidacy.  Sandstein  05:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose – To be honest, after looking over your edit history I find there is something quite unlikeable about you. You seem to me, to have rather bad judgement. As well as this, the humour question 14 talks about I think is inappropriate. The "abusive sock" comments on the bot talk pages I don't like either. No, nothing I particularly like about this candidate - I would not trust him with the tools. Alan16 (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to comment on the diff mentioned in Q14 -- am I the only one that doesn't think that we need to be coddled when it comes to adult humour? If someone finds something funny, fine. If you don't like it, fine. But let's not go around screaming "won't somebody think of the children", not least because any of the ones that are here have seen far worse on their adventures around the encyclopedia. As an aside, whilst talk pages are not owned by the person that they are designated to, they are still places where people should be able to come and talk to the person who the damn page belongs to. And if what they happen to say makes you want to cover your eyes, go ahead. I'm sure it won't have scarred you for life. — neuro(talk) 12:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying for a moment that we need to "think of the children", I just don't think that is the sort of humour a wannabe role-model should post. It doesn't bother me that much, and isn't the only reason (or even the major reason) I opposed. Alan16 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If a user is an unlikeable fool with bad judgement, I'd expect some kind of diffs which can show that. Can you either a) provide them or b) strike what is essentially a personal attack ("unlikeable"? comment on the edits, not the editor - besides which, since when has "I do/do not like you" been important in RfA?) Ironholds (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can expect a red carpet if you want, doesn't mean I'm going to give you one. I have said all I wanted to say, and will not go in to any more detail. "I do/do not like you" is relatively important in RFAs. If someone seems like a bit of a prick I'm not going to trust them to be good role models, so for me it is important (and that is a general statement, so don't bother drawing your own spurious conclusions about me calling MZMcBride a prick). I will not be striking "unlikeable". If we call "I don't like X" a personal attack on X, then we can go and ban hundreds of editors. "Like/dislike" is not a personal attack, it is an opinion. My reasons for opposing are as clear as I'm going to make them, so either accept that or do something about it - I'm not going to get into an arguement with you. Alan16 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie-dokies, but I'd bet money that your vote isn't going to be considered by the closing 'crat. Saying "I get the impression you're not a particularly nice/civil/user based on diff1, diff2 and diff3" is fine, simply going "I don't like you" isn't. I appreciate your reasons are very clear - "I don't like you and I won't tell you why"? Clear as mud, clear as mud. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are talking about detailed votes, we're not counting yours, so I'm not sure that the horse is as tall as you think it is. I have stated my reasons for opposing (I mentioned a few particular points for my opposing) and they are enough for me. A crat wont even bother reading this - it will likely be +85% support, so the need for a detailed look is non-existent. Also, it's amazing how quickly "That is a personal attack!" is dropped whenever it is argued against. Interesting... Alan16 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I simply didn't see any need to bring the personal attack comment up again, since you've stated you aren't going to change it. The whole "do supporters have to provide a rationale" thing has generally been worked out as "a quiet support vote is seen as 'support per nom'". Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If my not going to change it means you don't bring it up again, why bring it up in the first place? Surely opposer's should therefore be simply 'oppose per nom;, and not singled out as evil bastards when they oppose the majority? Alan16 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The nom says why a candidate should be an admin. Opposing per nom is completely illogical. Majorly talk 00:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't meant to be serious... Anyway, I've outlined why I oppose. Unless there is some problem with what I've done then this should be the end of it. I've had a thorough look at MZM's edits and I feel that I would be unlikely to change my opinion. Alan16 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A major problem on this project is that people don't know what personal attacks are. We see editors slapped down all the time for what people perceive as "incivility" and we see them slapped down for what people perceive as "personal attacks". All too often in both cases people are completely mistaken about what is uncivil or a personal attack, instead getting upset because the remarks were offense to them. For the sake of educating, it's worth pointing out that calling someone "unlikeable" is, in fact, a personal attack, albeit a fairly mild one. Lara 23:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alan, aren't you the one who failed a GAC a few days ago because "All the sources require me having a copy of a book. I don't have those books"?. Glass houses/stones. – iridescent 13:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The ability of people to link things without actually reading them is amazing: I did not fail it on that. The inability to read, glass houses/stones indeed. Alan16 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That has nothing to do with this discussion though. Majorly talk 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The combination of adminship, bots, over-willingness to delete, powerful friends and a tendency for controversial actions is too dangerous. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Striking: Adminship is actually not such a big deal and MZMcBride has enough experience and trust. I'd probably oppose if this was an election for the foundation board or the arbitration commitee, but it isn't.. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of interest, who are the "powerful friends"? If anything, he has the opposite—if those in high places liked him, he wouldn't be having to re-run his RFA. – iridescent 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per all of the above. Move aside and give others a chance. Maybe reapply in a year or so, either way it is too soon and the candidate seems to want the mop back for all the wrong reasons.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me for the interruption, but a couple points I'd like to mention. 1.) MZM having the couple extra tools does in no way inhibit another user from having a successful RFA; there really isn't a "limit" on the number of admins. we're allowed to have here. 2.) Is more of a question - are you saying that the BLP issues we're facing here at WP are not reasons to have the extra tools to protect a living person's reputation, or delete defamation? — Ched :  ?  14:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No Ched. I'm saying we already have more than enough deletionist, revert-happy, IRC denizen admins and far too few of the content creating, article editing kind as it is. I'm also saying that it is too soon to reconsider MZM's request. Is his work really so important and is he so irreplaceable that we can't wait a few more months? But thank you also for demonstrating another reason to oppose- The persistent harranging of the opposition by the supporters.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Relatively recent drama. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask what the unconvincing reasons are, its just that I noticed you put this reason in another RFA recently. AtheWeatherman 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. Question 1: "I don't have any plans for any substantive administrative work right now." Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks for the response. AtheWeatherman 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I'm sorry, MZMcBride, but I simply don't trust you with the delete button. If it was just using an unauthorised bot to delete pages in userspace, then I'd think hey, the man's a dedicated Wikipedian who made a mistake, give him another chance. But there were deletions against consensus at AfD too, and there was the self-desysopping followed by RFA 2 during the arbcom case: which I saw as evidence of unwillingness to submit to the normal processes. In short, I think you see rules and guidelines as obstacles that are stopping you doing "the right thing", and I think you tend to try to circumvent them. And I think you're too confident in your own judgment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Sorry. The oppose comments are very troubling.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, basically per S Marshall. In the last RfA, I wrote that I was unable to support, fearing that, qua admin, MZM would substitute his judgment for that of the community not infrequently, as he had during his first tour (I note now, as I did then, that I have no doubt that he acted in good faith in so doing), but offered that my position was not permanently fixed, and that I would support in the future were I convinced of his appreciation of the nature of adminship as ministerial; I am, I must say, as yet unconvinced. I have no doubt that the candidate, whom I have known, even as I have disagreed with him, on substance and style, from time to time, to be well-meaning and good-hearted, is sincere in his profession that he understands where he erred in the past and will be circumspect in his use of the tools, but I am not sure his conception of the limits of adminship is the same as mine (or as that of the community). Were he willing to adopt the restrictions outlined by S Marshall, I would (I think) support—his declination, though, is perfectly fair, and I understand entirely why he answers as he does—but on the whole I cannot now find that that the net effect on the project of the candidate’s being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, per unsatisfactory answers to Q13 and Q14. I could overlook the tangles with ArbCom in the past, but these two I think show rather poor judgement. I'm all for a joke now and then, and I'm not personally offended by the "barnstar", but there are people who very easily might be. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  15. Oppose. Honestly, I don't know if there's any way I could ever accept such a recent Arbcom incident. Also, I do think the 'abusive sock' bit is misleading; however, that does *not* (sorry for brainfart typo) factor into my oppose. Sorry :( Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I originally supported you, but I have no choice but to automatically switch to oppose over your WP:ANUS business. I'm not very impressed.--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The scale of bad judgement shown in the relatively recent past, as well as your answers to CHL's questions and the "this is a wiki" unprotections all lead me to err on the side of caution and oppose this request. ViridaeTalk 04:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I was mostly impressed with his answer to my first question, which was a follow-up to his impressive one-word answer to WJBScribe. I haven't made up my mind yet. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I am one of those people who believes past actions are the best indicator of future behavior. If the "secret page" deletions had been an isolated incident of poor judgment, I could overlook it, but MZ's history as a sysop was one of regularly pushing the boundaries of both the rules and social norms. I won't repeat all the incidents here, but his ARBCOM case's evidence and the Sarah Palin wheel war case outline most of them. Perhaps he has genuinely changed, but I am uncomfortable with re-sysoping. I see a significant possibility that he will slowly begin to push the boundaries again when he thinks he can get away with it. I also find it hard to believe that one of the most active admins of all time is running "mostly to do routine maintenance." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose It is unfortunate that I oppose you, especially since I quoted three months in my oppose during RfA#2. The reason being that I still do not have trust in you having the tools. While it looks as though your "reformation" is genuine and I do commend you for your work in the BLP arena, the trust is still not there for me and your past actions still leave uneasiness in my mind. You have been found to have flawed judgment in two cases at ArbCom and I have sincere doubts to this day about your judgment (hopefully this viewpoint will change if this request is successful and there are no issues with your editing and adminship thereafter for some time). Also, your answer to Q1 is not impressive and leaves me questioning your motives, but I am impressed with your answer to Q11. I will note that I was the filing party for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride and therefore might still be biased against this user (this has been a courtesy note to the closing Bureaucrat).-MBK004 07:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, for the simple reason that you explicitly stated in your answer to Q1 that you aren't going to use sysop tools. It Is Me Here t / c 16:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Switching to support. It Is Me Here t / c 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect that when someone with something like a million administrative actions under his belt says "I don't have any plans for any substantive administrative work right now. I imagine I'll mostly use the tools to do routine maintenance" it does not imply "aren't going to use sysop tools". --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened further discussion on the talk page — Ched :  ?  17:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose for two reasons in addition to several brought up by previous opposers. The ArbCom case was not all that long ago, and you seem a bit too eager to get the tools back for my tastes. You started an RfA before the ArbCom case ended and only two days after you resigned the tools. Also, you state in this RfA that you have no real need for the tools, yet you accepted the nomination only four months after the ArbCom case ended. I feel it is still too early after all that controversy and your actions for me to support granting you the tools again without significant fear of possible misuse. Timmeh (review me) 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, nobody needs the tools. — neuro(talk) 23:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the whole eagerness thing, this might explain some things. I probably could have used a better word than "need" though; maybe "want" or "use". Timmeh (review me) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose When the MZMcBride case was at RFAR I endeavored to resolve the situation amicably and avoid arbitration. For a while the case on the verge of not happening until inopportune comments from MZ (and slowness to provide assurances requested by the arbitrators) forced the matter. It was my hope that he would keep the tools, but as the case wore on it was quite disappointing to see him repeatedly grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. He's hardworking, he means well, but have his communication skills really improved so swiftly? He seems to want to assure people that he's ready to handle the tools again, yet I remain unconvinced that he understands why matters took the course they did in the first place. It required a lot of the community's time and attention to manage that situation. Talk to me; come back in six months. I may even nominate you then. But there's a measure of confidence that needs to be restored; this hasn't tipped the balance yet. Durova306 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "unconvinced that he understands why matters took the course they did in the first place." I agree with you here (cf. 15, where he seems to believe that he would not have been voted for desysopping if he had not opposed a temporary desysop). That said, is this a genuine failure of clue and communication, or it it just bad public relations? Cool Hand Luke 03:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Things would have worked out earlier this year if he had taken feedback on board better. Problems have arisen when reasons for his choices are well-thought and articulate but don't necessarily weigh all the relevant data. When other people bring elements to his attention that weigh against his chosen course of action or when consensus has clearly run the other way, he's been weak at adapting or changing course. He'll move a little bit, then pause and repeat his chain of logic--which may be solid on its own terms except the terms aren't comprehensive. Things stall there, which is frustrating on all sides. If the dilemma were a simpler one as in "Needs more article writing experience" that would be easy enough to resolve in a few months. But for something like this? Not yet. Would like to see him get there. Want to be confident the same dynamic wouldn't happen again. Durova306 05:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I guess I still haven't gotten the bad taste out of my mouth from the previous controversial deletions. Sorry.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Tooling this candidate up again so soon would be premature. Better to fail RFA3 now than seed the ground for another long drawn-out ArbCom case by rushing it (note: I was not involved in the ArbCom cases but reviewed them weekly while they were active). Because Martinp, Sandstein, Viridae, ThaddeusB, MBK004, Timmeh, and Durova have all articulated reasons to oppose with which I strongly agree, I won't re-cap them here. Suffice it to say that I share those concerns and see them as very serious. I agree as well with JayHenry that MZMcBride should continue the good BLP work without the admin tools which "may tempt him into unrelated misadventures." — Athaenara ✉ 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - per Sandstein, basically. In a few months, assuming this pattern of great editing continues, I'll support, but more time is needed to make sure that there will be no third arbcom case. Apologies, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I do not trust his judgement. I didn't even trust his judgement before he was running unauthorized adminbots and taunting users with lolcat deletion summaries. en.wikipedia.org is the most visible public face of Wikimedia, and we do ourselves a great disservice when we promote people to administator with a temperament that leads them to insult contributors and ignore consensus. rspεεr (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose—above arguments convincing. Outriggr (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Like Napoleon, an outstanding and strong-headed individual, with a large and dedicated crowd of supporters. (refactored). Like Napoleon, he seems to perceive himself as (self appointed) Emperor of Wikipedia, lofty above ordinary men, defining, re-interpreting, or downright flouting rules as he finds suit. Too much IAR and abuse of privileges to my taste. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you could have made your concerns about MZ known without comparing him to a tyrant. That, in my opinion, is quite excessive. I'm not sure how a comment like that could lead to anything productive. Killiondude (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification, Napoleon was also a military genius. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further clarification, you used a double-edged sword here or a backhanded compliment. Like other military leaders who are widely considered to have a negative connotation attached to their name, I would refactor that. I suppose all tyrants have redeeming qualities. Yes, great nationalism, and great leadership, but like the infancy of Communism, it could be said it was also headed in the right direction. As intelligent adults, we also get the connotation. It is a poor analogy, and what I would consider an attack. You poison the well when you mention such world leaders, regardless of the half-hearted attempt to uncover a positive virtue. You might as well assert that one is a venomous snake, however, that snake is just innocuous by design. Law type! snype? 13:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a literary conceit that makes interesting reading, but remember we're talking about a real human being. Durova306 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Accepted, refactored text. I think it is fair to say that he has caused a great deal of agony to his opponents. Regarding the "genius", it wasn't meant as a backhanded compliment. He wouldn't have such a fantastic support base without possessing truly outstanding and valued skills. Being rank and file for some time is sobering, and three mmonths is not enough in my opinion. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One simply should not have the moral fortitude to refer to someone as Napoleonic, while then following up with the fact that said dictator was a genius. Not only is it insulting, but it is like asserting that while the candidate is like Stalin, Stalin did pay his bills on time. You clearly didn't refer to MZM as Napoleon because you felt he was a genius. While I do appreciate the refactor, any mention of certain dictators is going to taint the jury, regardless of any redeeming quality. Law type! snype? 12:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Sorry but do not trust you with the delete button as raised above and as I said in the last RFA. Davewild (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. OpposeToo soon to see any change, in regards to this. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That RFAR was about bulk deletion and the use of adminbots. Since he's by definition not now in a position to do either, I'm not sure how you expect to see any change. – iridescent 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it was [this case] I was thinking of. Anyway there are examples of misuse of the admin tools by this user and I am unconvinced there has been enough time for a change of attitude.Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Too much defiance when previously in possession of the tools. I prefer admins to bring a bit more humility to the table - sorry. Ronnotel (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose: Agree with ThaddeusB and S Marshall. For a few of my own words: MZM has had plenty of opportunities to gain, or keep, the trust of the community, and more than once has behaved stubbornly or just blithely ignorantly and lost it. From the wheel war to the mass, completely out-of-policy deletions (which continued even while the community discussed the appropriateness of his actions), to the running of unapproved bots, he has dissuaded me that he has the restraint, temperament, and communicativeness to be a good administrator. A very active one, no doubt, but the community energy that has gone into admonishing him or questioning his actions means he has not been a net benefit so far. Maedin\talk 16:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose This is all new to me, but the concerns above, plus apparently no burning need for the tools, say no. It is hard to dislodge malfunctioning admins & I'm wary of then re-admitting them quickly. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. It's impossible to evaluate a candidate with four years of tenure and 60k+ edits by looking at Special:Contributions. I feel that the best I can do is to look at MZMcBride's former RfAs, the arbitration case, his answers to the questions in this RfA, and the testimonials of people who have interacted with him. Naturally, I do think that the mass deletions were very, very, unfortunate, and goes against every principle I have about how an administrator should conduct herself. However, it is clear from the amount of support, that MZMcBride does a lot of good work in various areas of the project, and is generally a friendly and helpful person. I still feel that it'd be better to appoint administrators that do not come with the sort of "baggage" that MZMcBride comes with. If I'm not mistaken, he is still under active restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Many supporters make good arguments for why he should regain the tools, not least the nominator, who[m] I very much respect. However, I cannot overlook the strong arguments brought forth by the opposition, in particular S Marshall, Joe Hiegel, ThaddeusB, Durova, and Maedin. If more people in the support column had given a more profound reason for supporting, their ¬votes could have swayed people like me, who do not know the candidate, and are initially on the fence. I did read it all, and I did take it all into consideration. decltype (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Regretful oppose per above and past actions. Sorry, but I just can't support at this point in time. One two three... 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - Issues raised in Q13 and Q14 are disconcerting and candidate's answers only make me feel worse. I'm all for appropriate humor and I can be sarcastic as hell in RL, but there's a time and a place for everything. The barnstar is disturbing, despite the way it was well accepted/tolerated by the receiver and by the admin(s) who chimed in. WP is not censored, but similarly WP does not have a goal to offend readers and clearly this is something that has a high probability of offending a good percentage of the people who saw it. Perhaps this is a reminder that a certain category of in-jokes should remain off-WP. The talk page comments of the bots are not funny, they are just confusing. In my mind both of these set a very bad precedent of what a admin should do/say, let alone how we would expect a 60k editor to behave. These issues, combined with the other issues raised and (recent) past controversy make me seriously question the candidate's judgment. The candidate not having a clear reason for wanting the tools makes me wonder why we are here in the first place.  7  23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Two arbcom cases within the past ten months set a high bar for restoration of his adminship, to my mind. The responses to Q14 and Q15 are unconvincing and my previous oppose at RFA2 therefore still stands.  JGHowes  talk 01:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose—Too soon. Tony (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose I'm not sure I like how the delete button has button has been handled in the past. Many other reasons to oppose in this section. RxS (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose This RfA is too premature for my liking. Coupled with the controversial deletions, and the Arbcom case make me feel too uncomfortable to support you. I am sorry, but I must oppose. Until It Sleeps Wake me   02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that no arbitrators have opposed, yet at least four have supported. Wouldn't this suggest that the issues from the ArbCom case have been satisfactorily addressed? –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual arbitrators have supported him, but RFA is a community process, and the standards must be the community's standards. It's perfectly legitimate for users to be unconvinced that a user has changed. I hope not to see any more of these sorts of appeals to authority. Cool Hand Luke 03:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It means only that 4 arbs have supported, nothing more, they are acting here as editors, not arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that; it seems to me, however, that arbitrators would be more familiar with the circumstances surrounding the relevant arbitration cases. I don't view it as an appeal to authority, rather an invocation of common sense. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitrators are sometimes reluctant to participate because of the undue weight given to their votes. ArbCom did examine his actions, and found them sanctionable. It so happens that several arbitrators—in their individual capacity—think he might have changed, but we have no special access to his mind. It could also be "common sense" that users cannot quickly change their colors (Durova and several others have expressed this view, and I don't think it violates any notion of common sense). I'd appreciate if you not misuse the votes of arbitrators. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not singling out the arbitrators' supports because of their positions of power. I'm simply pointing out that in their role as editors who presumably happen to understand MZMcBride's previous actions better than most, they see fit to re-promote him to an administrator. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but I don't believe this is an unreasonable opinion. Thank you for the clarification, nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose The This is a Wiki comments being brought up again makes me think that nothing has been learned from past issues, and thus, that I would not trust him with the tools. SirFozzie (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose because I can't stand the deletion-happy subset of Wikipedians. Need less drama-causing admins, also. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose I am reluctant to edit this section but feel that I must do so. Although I have seen MZM around and he seems like a nice guy, I am a bit queasy when it comes to handing him the mop. RxS said it very well; I don't like how he has handled the "delete button" in the past. Excessive drama was created before when he had access to the "delete button", as can be confirmed in his talk archives. Therefore, for my reasons and practically all of the reasons above (except the "I don't like you" one), I reluctantly oppose. MZM is definitely here to improve the encyclopedia, but I think he needs a bit more time to settle down after the drama in April. Airplaneman talk 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I feel that MZMcBride is too controversial a user. Four months is also not a very long time, and as MZMcBride does not plan on undertaking "substantial administrative work", and has been able to perform his valuable database tasks without administrative powers, I do not see the need for a return to admin status. Furthermore, I feel that over time the administrative powers would lead to more controversial actions and be to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Esteffect (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - I'm concerned that this nominee has a somewhat looser idea of "rough consensus" than would be optimal. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Would like to support, but cannot in good conscience do so. There's far too many concerns, most notably your historical use of the deletion button, your one-eyedness to semi-protection, and your concept of consensus, which all lead me to oppose. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per response to question 17, which simply comes across to me as purposefully evasive. MZM should clearly and directly answer this important question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that he doesn't have any specific plans and therefore could not give a direct answer; would you have preferred that he just lied? From my own experience, most admins do not plan out the things that they're going to do in advance. The work tends to find them, in the form of people asking them to do things, or they get bored and go scan the various "admin work pages" (CAT:CSD, WP:RFPP, etc.) Mr.Z-man 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "I don't have any specific plans" would have been a direct answer. But when you read his answer to the question, the candidate says he won't give an answer like that because it would lead to opposition to his nomination. And I see that kind of response as inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is basically what he said way back in question 1. I wouldn't think that giving the same answer with slightly different wording would have been satisfactory to many people. Mr.Z-man 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose, per JGHowes, too close to the two ArbCom cases, and the image of the anus was crass. Give it a bit more time. Dreadstar ☥ 17:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Opppose As an admin returning from 'under a cloud', this Rfa not being a self-nomination wasn't a good start imho, and it hasn't got any better from answer A1 onwards, although there are some chinks of light. I then noticed what Ched wanted from this Rfa from MZM's talk page, and that worries me enough given my memory of past incidents to oppose, without prejudice to supporting a later self-nomination given a satisfactory and detailed run-down of lessons learned, from the horse's mouth. Despite the sentiments given by MZM that he wants to reduce other's workload, I'm not convinced he even wants the bit back, which is not a great way to approach a re-application such as this. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why an admin returning from under a cloud should have a self-nomination? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, largely per Martinp and S Marshall. Also not thrilled by the issues raised in Q13/14 - they're not enough for an oppose by themselves but the maturity level displayed there isn't very impressive. BryanG (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose, I was a little disturbed by the early opposes and decided to monitor the progress of this. However, several days later if anything I am still not satisfied enough to support based upon a lot of the above reasons and weighing them against the positives which your supporters focus upon. It is hard to ignore all these points. Maybe in future I would support but not right now. --candle•wicke 09:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong opppose - I've lost count of the times I had to restore things because delete-o-bots have wrongly deleted them. I really don't want this guy near a delete button. fish&karate 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Reluctant oppose > tend to agree with Alan16, and particularly with SMarshall. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong oppose. There is no need to restate all the evidence cited above. This user has shown time and again he cannot be trusted with the delete button. Period. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weak oppose per the above concerns. I could not decide my vote until now because the little improvement of candidate did not sway me one way or the other. However, the closing of the RFA with a 77% support seems to be controversial and given past ArbCom cases on adminins' conducts, admins who had controversial RFAs tend to continue controversies. So well, I'm landing here.--Caspian blue 22:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Given the candidate's history, I am unable to confide in their judgment and overall use of the tools. — Σxplicit 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. I've had the same experience with invalid deletions as Fish and karate. You do great work with database reports and BLP's, but I don't trust you with the delete button. Graham87 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. More time needed to rebuild trust. Zaxem (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose per ThaddeusB and others above. Ikip (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose per above YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Opppose ThaddeusB does make a great case against this person. Dream Focus 09:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose People above have outlined the concerns.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Serious judgment concerns.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose I view essentially all people with extra rights (checkuser, admin, bureaucrat, etc) as being servants to the greater community of editors, rather than the heirarchical structure of ArbCom and on down to the measely editors. So I think of candidates with the sense of "would I want this editor doing this servant work for the greater community?" The response I find myself thinking when viewing this entire RfA is no. Too many things wrong here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose - I had missed this RfA until now. Roux, Axl and Durova make good points, as do many others. We do not need another administrator which a sharp tongue, nor do we need one with blunt judgement. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose - still have reservations about his last RFA, begun while facing an impending desysop. Skinwalker (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Still leaves a lot to be desired. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose While I'm sincerely regretful for this, I'm afraid that previous actions (all thoroughly covered above) stop me from supporting. Maybe another time, after I'm convinced that there has been change. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral. For now. It has only been a few months since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride. This request for restoration of admin privileges seems far too soon after that decision. I am open to being swayed, pending an answer to my question. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to Support. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral I'm also neutral for now as I have reasons to both support and oppose your adminship request. I'll see what other's have to say before I make a confirmed one or the other.--The LegendarySky Attacker 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Moving to support.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I find you to be a helpful user. Shappy talk 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain your position a bit further? Your comment could be read as a support, and I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral given the answer to question 9. WJBscribe (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to clarify Will? Your comment will count heavily, I suspect, and I for one am confused why the response to the question merits a neutral (as against an oppose or indeed support) given the straight forward question and answer. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear and concise answers are commendable (indeed the answer was exactly what I hoped it might be). Having been away from the project for most of this year, I have not had the benefit of the positive interactions that form the basis for much of the support, but (although we had our difference) I recall that MZM was always honest and truthful in his dealings with me and so, given his answer to question 9, I do not oppose. WJBscribe (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending response to my question. @harej 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now, and only coming back on Monday. The brilliant answer to Q11 as well as a general level of clue I sense from MZMcBride's edits makes me lean to support but I'm really a bit puzzled over the edit in Q14. --Pgallert (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to support, a single edit I didn't understand is no reason to oppose. Just one more thought on the matter: Many other editors without insider knowledge might fail to see how this edit helped building an online encyclopedia. To have the role "sysop" appear in the preview box of the user that made this edit might give a wrong impression on what adminship is about. --Pgallert (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I had some major concerns last time around, and your closure on this AFD debate was part of the reason I opposed back then. Sure, many people who supported deletion would support your closure there, but your closing statement "This is one of those cases when we're reminded that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Ultimately, we must look at our core principles of inclusion. When doing so, it's clear that this article does not belong on this project." is a slap in the face of people who argued to keep the article in good faith, and looked like a closure according to your personal wishes rather than one reasoned in policy and consensus. A policy based rationale would point to what is deficient in the arguments for inclusion, and point out which parts of WP:NOT this so clearly violated. The fact that the deletion was overturned, and the article is online, indicates that these supposed violations were nowhere near as clear as you may have thought. A consensus based rationale would summarize the arguments made in the discussion. Your rationale didn't appear either policy based or consensus based, but opinion based. Even though that event renders me too uneasy to support, I am going neutral now. The incident was several months in the past, and it shouldn't derail all RFA applications for eternity. The "way to hasty renom" argument has also subsided by now. But if you close a contentious AFD, don't summarily dismiss arguments you don't agree with. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Link trail: that AfD was followed by this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral This user has made some very welcome contributions to law related articles - an area of huge systemic bias. However the concerns raised by the Opposers over bots are enough to make me neutral for this RfA. Am I correct in thinking this was the user who thought it was great idea to delete talk pages that only had the talk header template on them? If so it was most annoying as I had to go and recreate them!  Francium12  18:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From Template:Talkheader:"In accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page layout, this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages." Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    #Neutral changing to supportI've been away a lot and haven't followed much of what happened here but based on what I've read above and the ArbCom cases, I have serious concerns about this editor becoming an admin again so soon. No objection in principle to an admin leaving under a cloud and coming back later, especially where as here the cloud was more or less resolved by ArbCom and the editor has tried to address it; but it's less than six months and some of the issues above seem to suggest this editor still has much to learn about editing under speed before getting back the tools of an admin. Also, based on MZM's answer to question 1, I'm not sure why he wants to be an admin right now. Why should we give you the tools if you don't intend to use them?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see Question 17, above.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider Q. 17[a] as resolved. I am satisfied that the candidate intends to use the tools mainly for edit protected work and deletions, based on his answer. I remain concerned about the matters above and have posted a follow-up Q. 17b to see how the candidate addresses this concern.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Communication between new users and anyone, but especially admins, is important. We must remember that written English is hard enough to understand even between people on the same continent, and that .en wiki has a multinational userbase. I'm not convinced that this editor shows an understanding for the need for plain, clear, communication with users. I'm not worried about the deletion of secret pages thing, but I'm gently concerned about how this editor would communicate in future similar clean-ups. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral — While I appreciate the work that MZ could or would do (or has done) as an administrator, I do think it is slightly early given the events of the past year (in particular I reference the Arbitration Committee cases involving MZ). I do understand this nomination to be largely on the part of Ched, but it is disagreeable to me that it was accepted. In good faith, I leave these comments in the neutral section. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - Great worker, but too much of a drama magnet. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_3&oldid=1147981843"