Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 3

MZMcBride

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (53/3/3); Scheduled to end 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

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)

• Mostly infobox fixes
• Featured list candidacy
  • Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States district and territorial courts/archive1

Approved Bots and database work

• User:EdwardsBot (Generic delivery bot)
• User:LaraBot (BLP bot)
• User:BernsteinBot (Primary database report bot)
• User:WoodwardBot (Second database report bot)

Database work

• (actually, it's probably best that he explain what WP:DBR is)

Meta work

• Global BLP policy m:BLP

Foundation work

• strategy.wikimedia.org help (mostly cleanup, copyediting, etc.)

WP:BLP work

• WP:DBR
• WP:NEWBLP
• WP:BLP problem
• User:LaraBot
• standardization Unreferenced BLPs work: WP:BLPFIX, WP:UBLP, WP:BLPN, etc. etc. etc.

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

• meta.wikimedia (Administrator verify)
• test.wikipedia (Administrator and Bureaucrat verify)
• strategy.wikimedia (Administrator verify)
• mediawiki.org (Administrator verify)

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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.

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)

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)

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:

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.

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.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/MZMcBride
• Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2
• Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 3
• Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 4

• 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 Special:Contributions/MZMcBride before commenting.

Discussion

• Does anyone else find S Marshall's choice of words in his question a bit... inappropriate? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. If I were the candidate I would just ignore that question. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Its about time. MZMcBride's database reports are the main way I know of him, they're fantastic, and Wikipedia will be better off if he has the tools again--Jac16888^Talk 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

   ^{Yay, first support--Jac16888Talk 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)}

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. –xeno^talk 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
9. Unqualified Support Let bygones be bygones. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Per everyone else. – Steel 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Per Ironholds in particular. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
14. Per Ironholds, VegaDark. NW (Talk) 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Support thank you for answering the question.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
16. 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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

17. 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)
18. Bleh. Give him back the tools already. DS (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong Support. Of course. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. Strong support. Brandon (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
23. 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)
24. Strong support. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. Support iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 21:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Majorly talk 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. Support - per me. Last time. Several months ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
32. 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)
33. He still knows what he's doing. ceranthor 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
34. 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)
35. Support per Ironholds. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. It's about time. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
37. 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 Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Per Gmaxwell. Mr.Z-man 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
39. 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)
40. 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)
41. 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)
42. 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)
43. 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)
44. Support essentially per iridescent. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
45. 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)
46. 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)
47. Support Sure. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Stephen 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
49. 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)
50. Support - no brainer (even for a non-brainer like me!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Nobody's perfect. Please avoid rampaging crusades or get community support first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
52. 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)
53. 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)

Oppose

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)
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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   (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)

   Some conversation between Timmeh & myself moved to talk page. –xeno^talk 23:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Neutral

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)

#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 Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 18:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Moving to support.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral I find you to be a helpful user. Shappy ^talk 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

   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)

2. Neutral given the answer to question 9. WJBscribe (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   Thanks for the clarification. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Pending response to my question. @harej 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)