Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:01, 24 August 2010

MZMcBride

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (17/56/13); Scheduled to end 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

MZMcBride (talk · contribs) – I've been around a while. I have a few thousand edits and a few thousand more actions on the English Wikipedia. I'm a fairly active bot operator (see list here), an admin on several other Wikimedia wikis, I keep database reports up and running for the most part, and I'm very lightly involved in MediaWiki development. Just recently, I submitted my first patch! :-)

I've passed and failed RFA, twice and once respectively. I realize that it's perfectly possible (and sometimes even preferable) to be a user here without admin rights, but boy can they be useful sometimes. I'm not a threat to the wiki; I think most people realize that.

I'll answer the standard questions and leave the rest up to the community. Thanks, --MZMcBride (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I've maintained a "watchlist" for a few years. I'm not as active day-to-day as I once was. And honestly, that trend will probably continue. I do have spurts of energy and spare time, though, so it'd be nice to be able to contribute something.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think it's database reports. Database reports help others help the wiki. And I've had the opportunity to learn a lot of new skills while making them.

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 think I've mellowed out a bit. Some people might disagree. I've had some past conflict, but for me at least, it's all in the past. I hope it is for others, though sometimes it can be difficult to know for sure. Related reading, for those interested: here and here.

Additional optional question from User:Boing! said Zebedee

4. You haven't really said anything about your previous admin incarnations or why they came to an end, ~~but I gather there was some ArbCom connection. Would you care to tell us what happened, give us a few relevant links~~, although you have given us a couple of links. Could you please explain why there won't be any problems this time?

A: Well, experience and understanding come with time.

Additional optional question from User:Roux

5. To piggyback on B!sZ's question. AGF is something that is generally applied to those who don't know better. You do know better, and having seen the problems in the past, they were largely characterized by an unwillingness on your part to acknowledge that perhaps you had not chosen the best course of action. Or, to be a little more pithy: what assurance do we have that you will ask questions first and shoot later, rather than the reverse?

A: I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you be a bit more specific?

Additional optional question from User:Throwaway85

6. Related to 4 and 5 above, but more to the point: You've broken the community's trust before, and lost your sysop bit as a result. What specific actions have you taken to regain that trust, and how are we to know you won't break it again?

A: I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you be a bit more specific?

Additional optional question from User:Rockfang

7. Do you run any unapproved bots from any accounts you may use on the English Wikipedia?

A: No. Or at least I don't think so. The bots listed at User:MZMcBride/Bots should all have relevant approvals.

General comments

Links for MZMcBride: MZMcBride (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for MZMcBride can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Is this a case of WP:SNOW? /Hey Mid (contributions) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. this is more of an uphill battle. wiooiw (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like Wiooiw says. Not necessarily does snow apply. WP:SNOW at RFA usually applies to a novice who stumbled into this ~~snakepit~~ place of contest through well intentioned ignorance. MZMcBride was twice an admin, and knows his way around. Given RFA three, closure may be premature. The opposers have had their at bats. No point in calling the game without giving the supporters a chance to save. I've always been willing to be "proven wrong" by the collective wisdom of my peers. He also knows he can withdraw at any time. Dloh cierekim 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Of course. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I think he's learnt his lesson. :-) Aiken ♫ 09:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless support, net positive. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - he is a good wikipedia and he is funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForgottonChemistry (talk • contribs) 09:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote indented; troll. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hopefully Bejinhan talks 11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hardworking editor with the good of the project in mind. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious net positive, but might as well register a pointless support. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly dedicated editor. Some of MZMcBride's tools make up the backbone of Wikipedia. MZMcBride's actions although sometimes mistaken are always done with good intentions for the project. A great asset to the project. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride hopefully learned from his mistakes, he obviously needs the tools being a developer. That's why I'm giving a caustious support Secret ^account 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Unfortunately, it seems this RfA is being hijacked by a cadre of editors who mysteriously show up at the same discussions and support each other unconditionally, thus rendering this extremely well-qualified (completely without shame, exudes a sort of aristrocratic arrogance that is sorely lacking in modern Wikipedia, an excellent henchman for Judge Doom; and, best of all, can keep all of those subtle yet important gears and gadgets laying around Wikipedia well-oiled with his own natural endowments - not to mention the "pig-headed South Park centrist" approach to an anti-science attitude!) candidate on the outside looking in. However, in a fortunate turn of fate's wheel, this candidate wrote the book on sock-puppeting, so perhaps he will elect to put those skills to the test and let his unfathomable talents for time-wasting, bot-aided cowboy idiocy grace en.wiki once more. Badger Drink (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that he did write the book on sockpuppeting, many of the opposes stem from the fact that he then turned around and gave that book to vandals. Amongst other things. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. Many of the opposers are piling on and don't know exactly what was going on before. MZMcBride is a genius, and the tools will only benefit his work. —fetch ·comms 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree with SunCreator in that many of MZ's tools are a great service to Wikipedia, and I see a net positive here. Killiondude (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportW hy the hell would you oppose? Some seem to have a point but most seem to look at the past and not judge the user from what he has learned from then. wiooiw (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I realize that MZMcBride has irritated some other editors in the past, but he's been consistently kind and helpful to me, and I expect that the average user's experience will look far more like mine than like those of the grudge-holding crowd below. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WhatamIdoing. For me, it's not a matter of holding a grudge. I've nothing personal against him. It's a matter of lost trust. Dloh cierekim 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a similar position to Dlohcierekim: I've nothing personal against MZMcBride (as far as I can recall, I've not had too many dealings with him) - but I feel that at the moment, I cannot trust him with the tools. The last ArbCom case was only concluded about 6 months ago, which is too soon, in my personal opinion, to be convinced that the tools would be safe in his hands. The whole point about RfA is that the editor asking to be an admin must be trusted by the community. If it had been a year or two since the last 'problems' which ArbCom dealth with, then it might be a different matter (certainly for me) - and I hope that MZMcBride will wait a while longer before coming to RfA again (assuming that he is not successful this time), and although I can't talk for anyone else, I certainly would not rule him out completely at a future request for adminship -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Granted, all of the things he did were before I joined (in March), but I didn't see a huge amount of harm done, and his bots seem quite useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - of course MZMcBride fully meets my standards with the thousands of edits, high-quality article work, many WP edits, decent user page, etc. But as I said at the last RFA, he's a drama magnet. Our last encounter involved his Prodding John_Cockcroft_(politician), and my deProdding that article. Giving him anti-vandalism tools and autoreview rights would be great, but please do not go crazy with the "delete" button. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Oh no, I just read over [[1]]. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support MZMcBride is rather like Sunderland Football Club; gets promoted, and then quickly finds themselves back where they started. However, like Sunderland FC, the presence of M is generally beneficial - they know the conditions and situations that prevail, they are genuinely passionate and committed to the ethos of the project, they are intelligent, they have technical skills that are lacking in most sysops </me waves>, and they are fairly non conformist. That last has been a factor in past troubles, but has also been used to advantage - the ability to think up different solutions where others have failed is worth two dozen too conformist to break ranks admins that RfA has been recently generating. I trust MZMcBride to use his tools for what he sees as the benefit of the project, and hope that his idea of beneficial remains consistent with the consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with mixed feelings. Many situations in life don't offer second chances. I don't believe adminship should either. MZMcBride's recidivism has already blown two chances, and now he wants a third bite at the apple. On the other hand, the disruption resulting from his creativity resulted from actions performed in the spirit of pointing out problems that ultimately help the project. I'll note that Wikipedia allows vandals four strikes; if MZMcBride is given a third chance, then it should be the final chance.
I had a friend once, whose job it was in the Navy to sneak aboard heavily-guarded nuclear submarines and plant fake bombs aboard, to ensure that the security systems and procedures worked. You can bet it was disruptive when he succeeded. MZMcBride reminds me of him, except that my friend had authorization to be disruptive and MZMcBride doesn't. How does the saying go? If you want to break a few eggs, you need a loose cannon. I think. I reserve the right to flip my vote to Oppose or Neutral as the questions posed here get answered. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the validity of your support, but based on "if you want to break a few eggs, you need a loose cannon" I don't want to be anywhere near you when you're cooking breakfast. :) -- Atama頭 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Learned my lesson after supporting the last one. Prodego ^talk 06:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too many chances given. In addition, most times that we have interacted, our encounters have been unpleasant. I am not sure that anything has changed since the last time he was desysopped and resysopped. (X! · talk) · @333 · 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Twice abused his tools and resigned in the face of ArbCom sanctions. We don't need a third trip on this merry-go-round. Courcelles 07:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As much as I would like to say "third time lucky?", I don't think this would be appropriate. The reason you were desysopped the last time was enablement of BLP vandalism by a banned user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, certainly not. Salka (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose I do not feel that I can trust you following the Arbitration case in January/February. I also note that you do not actually say what admin actions you would do - your answer to the first standard question seems very vague, although I appreciate that this may have been unintentional. Perhaps I can support in the future, but I can't at the moment -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I'm part of a cadre now... that's good, never been part of one of those before - do I get a t-shirt for that, and how do I get it? Seriously though - I feel the last Arbitration case is just too recent: I feel that MZMcBride does a great job here, and hope to support at a future time - I just think it's too soon at the moment. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose you have not given us an insight into the arbcom cases, what areas of administrative work you wish to take part in, my vote was in part due to the concerns raised and that I don't think that you have garnered enough trust from the community. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 08:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not with the candidate's history. — ξ ^xplicit 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not question MZMcBride's dedication to Wikipedia, but his last resignation was over a gross breach of trust on his part. Unfortunately, this nom does little to convince me that the benefits outweigh the clear risks. Rje (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His caustic approach to me on my talk page, see this thread tells me all I need to know. People can disagree with civility, and do, otherwise this place would be endless trench warfare. He's had his chances and should find another way to help out with the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - mirroring the feelings Rje mentions. MZM's dedication is unquestionable but unfortunately his track record regarding adminship is less stellar. He has proven that he is likely one of those users which serve the project better if they were not granted adminship. I, too, have learned my lessen after RFA #3. Regards So Why 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressed at being called a member of "the cadre" [2]. General putdowns of multiple users is poor. Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose Disappointed about the failure to comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2 in the nomination, which, given the serious nature of the accusations (helping a banned editor to edit unwatched BLP's and posting a list of techniques on how to beat sockpuppeting checks) leaves me with no other choice than to to oppose. Codf1977 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I do understand why MZM did what he did re: that ArbCom case in February - sometimes I also feel like I should have to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, but I never have done. In situations like this BLP qualm, I would prefer people in trusted positions to know when it's better to just walk away, safe in the knowledge that they personally can't and won't be held responsible if anything does go very, very wrong. - filelake shoe 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Prodego above captures why this request is [rightfully] doomed. Skomorokh 10:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christ no. MzMcBride's one man campaign to show how important BLPs are by undermining the wiki and blaming ArbCom for everything simply because he's butthurt it actually sanctioned him for acting like a prize idiot does not require the admin tools. Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not now and probably not ever: long-term history of drama, bad judgement and problematic behaviour, particularly while an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to risk of misuse of tools, and/or related drama. bobrayner (Clarification: There's a mixture of good and bad. I think that MZMcBride has done a lot of good work on wikipedia and hope they will continue to do so. The bad stuff is, I feel, largely admin related (or is a matter of temperament which is perhaps unsuited to situations that admins can find themselves in). Making a decision on the margin, I'm concerned that handing back the mop presents a risk of tool misuse; but that risk is not really offset by the potential for good work, because lots of good work could be done anyway as a normal user.) bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nsk92; I don't think that an admin who's twice relinquished their bit while a request for arbitration was pending against them is mature enough to have the bit. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad judgement with the tools more than once. Can't see why he needs them, and the risk of another "incident" must be significant. Plenty of good work in non-adminny areas though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per [3]. MZMcBride shows a consistent and unfailing belief that his judgment is better than that of everyone else. This colours every interaction he has with other members of this project. It is an unacceptable attitude for an adminsitrator to have and it is little surprise that it has gotten him into trouble in the past. Last time I made the mistake of believing this had changed and did not oppose. Well, you know what they say: "Fool me once..." WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Arbcom concerns. Suggest given the !vote that this Rfa be closed asap per WP:SNOW. Jusdafax 12:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose mainly per the ArbCom situation, as well as abusive actions with the mop. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were desysopped twice. No thank you. Tommy! [message] 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on history, would probably abuse the tools. Townlake (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – His history, and of desysoppings, is terrible. I don't think he's ready for the mop yet. /Hey Mid (contributions) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -per the candidates history with the Arb Committee and other issues--Hokeman (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - abusing BLPs is rather disgusting. I would've been willing to reconsider if McBride had answered some of the questions put out by the community in an extraordinary fashion, but I don't see that happening. Strong oppose. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Resigned the tools twice? I can't support a candidacy with a history like that. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I'm certainly desirous of granting admin rights if I can see my way through to doing so, in this case cannot. It might be a net positive to regrant MZMcBride admin rights. And the tools are amazingly useeful in doing one's chores. But so often trust comes down to judgment, doesn't it. Imagine you have a large office buidling and you give keyes to the offices to the cleanup staff. One of the janitors does something that loses him the keys with the trust. He comes back, and you decide to trust him again.. He then takes files out of an office and gives them to an outsider, so you take away the keys again. Can you ever trust him with those keys again. Dloh cierekim 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, to properly contextualize the analogy, your last but one sentence should read He then takes files out of an office and gives them to an outsider, to demonstrate a weakness in office security, so you take away the keys again. Also, the keys were not taken away but he gave them up (possibly just before the posse arrived to string him up, but, nevertheless, he did give them up). This is not to take away from the spirit of your oppose - which I understand fully! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Regents. You said it better. And I sincerely wish I could cross the line to the top section of the page. These hard RFA's are always painful for all of us. The supporters and the opposers only have what's best for Wikipedia at heart, but cannot come to terms on what that would be. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 18:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Regent's MzM didn't just take the files out to show a demonstrate a weakness in office security. If MzM had used the information himself, it would have been bad but possibly forgivable. Hell, if he and some other members of the Wikipedia communit in good standing had used it, it MIGHT have been forgivable. But ~~, as I remember it, and if I remember it wrong, I apologize,~~ in giving it to somebody who was blocked/banned from Wikipedia, knowing that the person he was giving the information to was going to turn around and use it to deliberately cause problems on Wikipedia is irresponsible. In other words, to carry the above analogy, MZM wasn't demonstrating the weakness by giving it to a reporter, but rather selling it to a rival corporation/enemy who intended harm to the company from whom it was stolen. It was in giving it to a sitebanned user that raised this issue to a more profound mistake than those who were involved with WP:NEWT. NEWT was a mistake, but innocent and forgivable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right. A banned user is a banned user is a banned user. Still, I kinda like MZM's approach to things (though only as an outlier wrt general admin behavior) and I'm not going to pull the !lever in the other direction. Unorthodox behavior, with the good of the system at heart, can sometimes be useful in a system. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I think if you were to poll the people in the oppose section, I suspect that well over half of us would say, "MZM is a valuable commodoty to the project and he does a good job here." Unfortunately, two major blunders have cost him the trust in the community when it comes to giving him the bit. Let me make that perfectly clear, the reluctance to give him back the bit should NOT be perceived as everyone saying, we "do not trust/respect/like MzMcBride," but rather, based upon past failures we would be remiss to give him back this particular set tools.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly loathe to comment in my own oppose section, but could you explain how the issues and actions involved in my second ArbCom case related to my status as an administrator on this project? That is, were any admin tools mis/ab/used? Admin influence? Anything of that sort? I think I'm missing your point. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer one of the supporters, I read both the Arbcoms. To say we are piling on unreasonably or unknowingly is in error. Dloh cierekim 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Sorry, but while I am a believe in redemption and supported you in your last RfA, loosing/surrendering the bit twice under a cloud is enough for me to comfortably say, "No."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) NOTE: I do appreciate your dedication/commitment to the project, you are an asset here, but there is no way that I could support you regaining the bit---your past abuse/lapses are too significant. Unfortunately, they are not mere disagreements or momentary mistakes, but true lapses in judgement done in a premeditated/thoughtful manner. Ones that I'm not convinced you realize are mistakes or agree with, that make it unlikely to ever support you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Essentially agree with many of the comments in the Oppose section, including those of Courcelles (talk · contribs), X! (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs), and WJBscribe (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Prodego. Nathan^T 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, you've simply lost all trust that I had in you with that last Arbcom case. The case itself was not that long ago and that whole situation left me guessing your judgment as an admin.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Some people should never be Admins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was one of the 200+ people who supported you in your last RfA. Not this time. You had your second chance already and abused the tools, I'm not sure you can be trusted with them again. -- Atama頭 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You had too many chances that you blew. I would not feel comfortable with you as an admin. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't feel I can support this candidate's request. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In view of your previous actions with the tools (twice) I cannot support your becoming an admin again. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Any editor that knowingly assists a vandal should not be an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me [three times], shame on me. You've twice proven that you can;t be trusted with the tools. In addition, you have serious civility problems. Every time I see your name, you're being uncivil, attacking someone, edit warring or doing something else undesirable. Far too many traits I don't want to see in an admin [again]. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually gone back to read the Arbcom decisions rather than !vote here based only on the fact of them. I don't think they're disqualifying circumstances, but they were examples of privileges being misused. Sadly there is little acknowledgement of that in the nomination statement, and that does give a lot of credence to the opinion expressed by WJBScribe above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One mistake can be forgiven, but two shows that you are not learning from them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. A shameful failure to own and admit to your mistakes, instead ditching the bits before they were taken; this is coupled with acidic commentary at Wikipedia Review and a generaly arrogant attitude on Wikipedia. You'll just do it wrong again frankly, which is a shame. Pedro : Chat 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people supporting someone who essentially helped a banned editor to vandalize BLP's!? I can hardly think of a worse breach of trust short of MZM vandalizing them himself. I can't possibly trust him with the tools again, and can't understand why people are even supporting him. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I did not read everything [[4]]. The drama outweighs his usefulness. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ive got a bad feeling about this after reading the arbcom statements. There is alot of history here from MZM as an editor though Some good, Some bad. Ultimaetly this comes down to trust though. I just dont feel comfortable going in the support col for a third go around. My suggestion is to spend time rebuilding trust in the community. Right now i dont think is the right time. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with Pedro. Pulling up the sticks to avoid ArbCom cases doesn't seem to me like a very honourable thing to do. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - frankly, this request strikes me as extremely presumptuous. MZM doesn't make a clear case of why he needs the tools, or how he would benefit Wikipedia by having them; he just seems to assume he deserves them by virtue having been an admin previously. Well, it doesn't work that way. He's shown poor judgement on multiple occasions, sufficient for many of us to lose trust in him, and hasn't given good reasons why that trust should be given back. I would be prepared to switch to Support if he returned to this RFA and actually made a strong case for why we should support him, but as it stands I have to oppose. Robofish (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have very little trust in the judgement of MZMcBride anymore. The sheer number of bad incidents overwhelm the good experiences I've had with him. Adminship is not for everyone, and this doesn't prevent anyone from helping out on Wikipedia, but I simply cannot trust him with the tools anymore. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Prodego, Nathan, and the above. Not at all comfortable with MzM having the tools. Blurpeace 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - After having read through this, there is no way that I can trust him with the tools at this time. To knowingly assist a BLP vandal is completely unacceptable. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Was happy to be part of the massive pile-on of support last time, disappointed to feel compelled to oppose this time. Please keep up your quality work in other areas, I don't think the community can see it's way clear to granting the bits a third time anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen some of his work and it is quite impressive. However, I just read the ArbCom case, so regretfully, no way.--SPhilbrick T 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No way I don't trust this user. Diego Grez (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't trust him either. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral As much as I would support you (I did on your last one) the whole de-sysoping incident background is a bit concerning. Maybe in a year or so you'll get my support. Good luck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - on the fence at this point. On the one hand, history of poor judgement and admin arrogance. On the other, blocks are cheap; desysoppings less so but I imagine that should events come to a head in that case Arbcom would act swiftly based on history. These two positions are in pretty tight balance. I await answers to questions. →ROUX ₪ 07:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't usually care about the content of the nomination statement, but given that you have previously been desysopped by Arbcom, it lacks an explanation of why and what you've learned, and would therefore suggest that Roux's negative opening sentence appears to still be the case. That said, other than knowing that I've seen you in wikispace, I'm not familiar enough with you to oppose at this stage. --W F C-- 08:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. On the plus side, I see someone who has made a lot of great contributions and is clearly genuinely dedicated to the project. But on the minus side I see a bit of a loose cannon who has been in conflict with policy and with consensus rather too often and has clearly abused the admin bit quite seriously. I really need to see more answers, which need to be sufficient to convince me that the candidate has changed enough to be trusted again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now read the past ArbCom issues, talk page discussions, etc, in some detail. And what I saw wasn't pretty - some woefully poor judgment, refusal to accept he did anything wrong, and an apparent general attitude that he's always right. However, the candidate's obvious intelligence, technical skills, and tremendous contributions mean I really do owe him a chance to speak for himself, partly by answering the questions above, so I'm staying neutral for a while longer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - pending answers to Questions 4, 5, 6. I know they are optional, but without those points addressed I could not consider support. Begoon^talk 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Leaning oppose. I'd like to see 4, 5, and 6 answered. I'm not completely opposed to supporting MZMcBride, but I'd have to see a pretty damned good reason for why the community should restore the bit. This would include a much better explanation of what MZ intends to do with a regained bit than the one given in the nom statement and 1. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I still think you might, overall, be a net positive with admin tools. I supported last time on the basis of your otherwise excellent commitment and competence - but the whole banned-user BLP experiment was a real lapse in judgment and in trust, and I'm not willing to support again at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was considering a moral support, but then I remembered what happened with BLP deletions. No need for me to pile on, because you're clearly not getting the tools back this time. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ayn Rand. Sorry dude; with the current climate and processes, it ain't gonna happen. I think you know my thoughts on that, so I won't elaborate here; I think you're great, you've helped me a lot, etc. etc. You are a net positive, for sure, with or without tools. Chzz ► 17:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While I like the work you do, I can't say I agree with some of your recent run-ins with arbcom. That in mind, I don't think that warrants either an oppose or support. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral unfortunately. Although I would really like to support (Bejinhan sums my thoughts up quite nicely), you've had more than one chance. Sorry, Airplaneman ✈ 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any prospect of this passing this would be a NO way! oppose but since this is clearly going to fail I'll tuck this down here to avoid piling on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i would like to see you have more experience before i would support you. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't know, this candidate was once an administrator. wiooiw (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's been here several years, has made over 70,000 edits and runs a bot. How much more are you looking for, 5 years, 200,000 edits, and 200 FAs? Please read the entire statement above before saying something like "he needs more experience." —fetch ·comms 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 146: / Line 146: @@
 # '''Oppose''' I've seen some of his work and it is quite impressive. However, I just read the ArbCom case, so regretfully, no way.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 # '''No way''' I don't trust this user. [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] ([[User talk:Diego Grez|talk]]) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
+# '''Oppose''' I don't trust him either. --[[User:Mattwj2002|Mattwj2002]] ([[User talk:Mattwj2002|talk]]) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 =====Neutral=====

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights