Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

I began this RFA because I genuinely felt (and continue to feel) that the Arbitration Committee made the wrong decision, and I wanted to make sure that the community agreed (or not). In the spirit of "SNOW" (which I've even pushed for other projects to adopt), I'm closing this request early. There's still a possibility that this request could pass. But there's an even greater possibility that it could further split the community, something I do not want to be responsible for. And some of the opposers are people I trust a great deal; until there is less opposition to a new request for adminship, I will remain an editor.

Re-confirmation requests are always substantially harder than non-re-confirmation requests because rather than judging how a candidate might do, you are able to judge how they've done in the past with the tools. Given my level of activeness, especially in sometimes contentious areas like AFD, it's unsurprising that I have my fair share of critics. And deservedly so, in some cases. However, I've always acted in what I felt was the best interests of the project. Sometimes it didn't fall in line with what the majority of people who decided to participate in a particular debate wanted, but I tried to enforce our core principles and values at all times.

Some of the support comments made here have been truly kind and unexpected. Some of the oppose comments have been particularly constructive and I've taken them to heart.

That said, some of the other oppose comments were spite-filled and hateful. This darker side of the community, the unforgiving, name-calling, petulant side is what scares so many editors away (or drains them into leaving).

For my part, as soon as this request closes, I'm taking a break (cf. User talk:MZMcBride#Break). All things considered, I think I did well (or better than how most people thought I would do). I'm proud of some of the commenters here who take DefendEachOther seriously.

I want to take this time to point to User talk:MZMcBride#Redressing grievances. Since I won't be editing, you're still more than welcome to leave notes on my talk page or write an e-mail. If there are particular actions or edits to be reversed or undone, I'll take care of them when I return.

Thank you all for the time and I apologize for any inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final (65/56/11); ended 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride (talk · contribs)

1. Why are you running for adminship? Isn't there an ongoing case regarding you at Arbitration?

   I'm running for adminship because I believe that there's still a lot I have to offer to the community. I've contributed a lot to the maintenance of the site over the past two years and I believe that there's a lot of work left to be done.

   Yes, there's an ongoing Arbitration case against me. I have a deep amount of respect for the members of the Committee, but I believe that the Committee is making the wrong decision with regard to my administrator rights.

2. Why did you delete the secret pages?

   I made the mistake of assuming that doing so was in-line with the previous deletion discussion and the community's views toward pages of that nature. I turned out to be wrong, and I offered to restore or e-mail any copies of the pages upon request. I genuinely believed that the log summaries were playful and I never intended offense. After having surveyed a good bit of the past deletion logs, I agree with Carcharoth that administrators need to take far more precaution when deleting things.

3. Do you intend to continue to run adminbots under your main account?

   No. I've filed two Bot requests for approval already (see here and here). In the past, I ran a number of bots under my main account. That era is over.

4. Why not wait a few months? What's the rush?

   There isn't a rush. But the backlogs around here never stop growing. Does that mean I'm irreplaceable? Not at all. As Keegan is quick to point out, user rights are not a golden ticket. No user needs any user rights.

   I see this request as a way to put faith back into a project that I've given a lot of my time, resources, and energy to.

5. Why don't you seek more input before doing things?

   In many cases, after "getting the hang" of the site, I felt I had enough grasp to not need to seek as much input (on-wiki) after being here for a few years. I also felt there were a lack of proper venues for discussing some of these things that I was doing, especially deletions. However, I've come to realize that this view isn't always accurate. There are plenty of people willing to offer guidance and input, if nudged a bit into doing so.

6. What are your regrets from the past four years?

   My biggest regret is being too rash with some of my actions. Often, I've been frustrated with the pace of certain things around the site. And I believe that this impatience sometimes causes me to want to move extra quickly. I've learned that some of the time, it's best to sit back and take more time to think about things and get consultation from others.

7. Are you open to recall?

   Yes, I am open to recall, as outlined here.

8. What are your best contributions?

   I think my best contribution to the project has been the Database reports I've created. They allow people to help out, even in minor ways. And they've let me learn new things such as cronjobs and (limited) Python.

9. Why don't you work on articles?

   The truth is that I've never been a very good writer. Or at least I've never had enough confidence to write brilliant prose. I do a lot better with more gnome-like tasks: fixing infoboxes, correcting links, etc. Recently, I've edited a lot of articles adding Category:Living people to them. Tasks like this allow me to contribute to the article space in a productive way.

10. You're a bit of a bastard.

    Yes, I have a biting sense of humor and I don't always conceal it well. Oh well. That being said, this request is serious and my efforts to improve as an administrator are very serious.

11. If nothing else, what do you want people to take away from this request for adminship?

    I think, as a community, we're not forgiving enough. Out of all of the user essays on the site, the one that resonates the most with me is Assume the presence of a belly-button. Everybody makes mistakes. I've made my fair share and I've asked for forgiveness from the community for them. Will I make mistakes in the future? Yes, I'm human. But I've learned a lot from my past mistakes and I vow not to repeat those. I've also asked those I've caused distress to to come to me so that old wounds can be healed.

These are the questions I've anticipated will come up with from looking at past RFAs. However, there are undoubtedly further questions that the community has. Feel free to post them below.

Thank you for your time and consideration. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. From Anonymous Dissident: If there's no rush, why run so soon after the Arbitration case, when the details of that very case are, in fact, not yet finalised? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The Committee is nearly finished voting and there is (almost) no likelihood of the outcome of the case changing. FloNight suggested that I ask for the community's input, so that's what I've chosen to do.

2. Questions from Ched How do you reconcile your answers to the preemptive questions 4 and 6 with the actual filing of this RfA? More directly: You say "...it's best to sit back and take more time to think about things and get consultation from others." and yet you request your admin. bit be returned within days of surrendering it at ArbCom; what actions should we be looking at to show that you have indeed become more patient?

   I think it's important to realize that while I resigned my adminship recently, it came after a long Arbitration case. The decision to resign wasn't made lightly, to be sure. However, as soon as I acted, a lot of my colleagues contacted me (both on-wiki and off-wiki) and told me that resigning was a mistake. I decided to listen to their judgment and re-request adminship from the community.

3. You've mentioned that you contribute productively at Wikipedia:Database reports and Category:Living people; as well as stating that the admin buttons are not a "Golden Ticket". Why do you believe you require these admin. buttons in order to edit those areas? and in what areas do you intend to use these admin. functions if they are returned to you?

   I intend to use the admin tools mostly doing maintenance deletions like I have previously. While it may not be obvious, for the past year or so I've tried to avoid 'contentious' speedy deletions like ones that involve CSD A7. When I first got my tools, I used to clear the CSD category frequently. But as time passed, I found that I did better with more clear cases like broken redirects and orphaned talk pages. My recent interaction with content deletions (the secret pages) has re-affirmed that maintenance is where I'm best suited. Regarding Database reports specifically, there are certainly areas that require admin tools to clear the backlogs. The same is true for biography-related work. I imagine I'll continue with similar maintenance (redirects and talk pages), if the community is willing to grant me a second chance.

4. Many candidates have their RfA closed as "unsuccessful" due to Oppose votes which cite WP:NOTNOW; either due to a lack of recent editing experience, poor judgment, or not enough time to demonstrate an actual change in their editing patterns. Is there a reason that you should be exempt from the "NOTNOW" practices?

   Well, I think it's important to realize that this is obviously not a standard request for adminship, so a typical oppose wouldn't really seem appropriate in this case. NOTNOW almost exclusively applies to editors who are new to the site and who are eager to become administrators. I've been a member of the community for about four years and I have thousands of edits and logged actions, so I don't believe the typical NOTNOW arguments apply.

5. You're requested feedback from the community a couple days ago; what actions should we look to in order to see that you've listened to this feedback? ... and, why do you feel this RfA is a better venue than Editor review?

   RFA and Editor review have similar means, but different ends in my mind. One could look at the recent Arbitration case as a giant Editor review. And from that case I've learned that while we operate on a fast-paced, ever-changing wiki, going slower is sometimes the best option. There are a lot of smart people on this site, who, when nudged a bit, can offer very insightful commentary and views into problems and situations that a single person would never be able to come up with.

   For my part, I've filed two Bot requests for approval, I've made a conscious effort to address any bad feelings editors and admins may have with me (see the "Redressing grievances" section on my talk page) and I've vowed to take a more cautious approach in the future, including no longer running adminbots under my main account.

6. You state in your preemptive Q&A that: "I believe that the Committee is making the wrong decision with regard to my administrator rights.". Why should the community trust your self-judgment over the collective members they've previously selected to serve at the Arbitration Committee? — Ched :  ?  10:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't believe the community is being asked to trust my self-judgment. I believe they're being asked to trust their own. I've made my pledges and I've tried to right my wrongs; ultimately, however, it will be the community's decision whether or not I get a second chance at adminship.

   Very briefly, on a complete side note, that dog on your user page is adorable.

Additional questions from Sam Blacketer

7. By self-nominating, you are declaring your belief that you are a suitable person to have access to functions reserved to administrators. If it is your belief that your previous conduct as an administrator is such that it demonstrates your suitability to retain, or regain, access to administrator powers, why did you not submit evidence of it in the ongoing arbitration case? Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: This question is particularly interesting. I didn't submit any evidence to the /Evidence subpage of my case. I'm a firm believer in DefendEachOther and more simply, any evidence I would have presented would hold little value (in my mind, at least) because I obviously would never introduce anything unbiased about myself.

To be completely honest, I expect (at least some of) the Committee to review the users in a case themselves and make appropriate determinations. In this particiular case, that happened somewhat, given some of the findings that NYB presented with regard to my biography-related work.

I didn't present any evidence directly, but I certainly did what amounts to testifying when questioned (extensively) by the Committee via e-mail (later posted to the /Workshop page, at my urging). And one could say I took the stand twice as Carcharoth presented me with a new round of questions later.

If there was further evidence that you wanted me to present that I didn't, I apologize. As others were noting yesterday at the general Arbitration talk page, a lot of users go before the Committee without much idea of its processes and functions. Perhaps I erred in not presenting direct evidence in my favor, but I don't know for sure.

8. Given the unusual circumstances, this request for adminship could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to frustrate an ongoing arbitration case. Could you say to what extent this is so? Can you give a general statement of your belief about the responsibilities of administrators in relation to the process of arbitration? Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Not at all. Ultimately, the community is king. And it will be the community's choice whether or not I regain adminship. The Committee has voted in favor of this remedy—that is, a new RFA. While the case is still technically open, that portion of it at least, is closed.

With regard to administrators and Arbitration, I believe that the bar is much, much higher than it is between editors and Arbitration. For my part, I responded as quickly as I could with as much detail as I could. I didn't shirk from my responsibility to be responsive to the Committee (and the community), like others have done in the past. While both editors and administrators are volunteers, administrators have been trusted to be responsive to the Committee and the community, so the burden is higher for them to do so.

Additional optional question from Robofish

9. For the benefit of the unaware, could you please briefly outline the circumstances around which you resigned your adminship, and why you chose to do so? Robofish (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I resigned following a month-long Arbitration case because that was the wish of the Committee. However, before and after my resignation, I got a strong sense that it was not the wish of the community, and I consider the Committee subservient to the community. I decided to run for adminship to see if the community still had trust in me to be an admin.

Question from Dank55

10. You said in your answer to Q1 that Flonight "suggested that you ask for the community's input". This is a rather important point, since my guess is the RFA community is cheerfully willing to give feedback when ArbCom requests it. I don't see where Flonight asked you to do this in your RFAR; was it a private communication? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: FloNight said: "But since there have been repeated concerns raised, I think that this needs to be reconfirmed through another Community vote..." on this page.

Additional question from Davewild

11. Do you think your closure of the AFD cited below was correct and would you make the same closure again? Davewild (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Yes, I believe it was correct. One of our founding principles is NPOV, and I believe that article is fundamentally a violation of that. (The title alone causes me a lot of concern.) The community was somewhat split during the deletion discussion, but in cases like this where the article fundamentally stands in contrast to our core principles, I think it's important to err on the side of delete. The article was brought to Deletion review and ultimately I was overturned, but I believe I made the right decision for the project, all things considered.

Questions from Seddon

To break up the monotony

12 What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?

A: Air on the G String. No reason.

13 An edit war breaks out, how do you deal with it? Please explore typical outcomes possible

A: I try to avoid content disputes. If there is edit warring involving a limited, defined number of people, warnings and blocks are usually best because they keep the article own to the rest of the community to edit. If it's a widespread dispute without clear warriors, article protection is usually best.

14 Do you trust content dispute resolution on Wikipedia?

A: I trust that most editors come here with an open mind in the hopes of creating something of value. However, the reality is that a lot of editors also come with biases and agendas that influence and tarnish their ability to meet the ultimate goal of creating an encyclopedia. The systems in place, such as MEDCOM, 3O, and ARBCOM are generally effective at resolving the disputes, though I'm not sure if our content is better after.

• Links for MZMcBride: MZMcBride (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for MZMcBride can be found here.
• Promote MZMcBride (bureaucrats only)

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

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The ArbCom case was surely a wakeup call to him: his actions, whilst mostly good, had several problems that the community raised. I'd have preferred him to take a break, perhaps even for just a week, but I am sure he is sincere he has learned from his mistakes. And besides, if there are further issues, I don't doubt arbcom will be quick to accept a case to remove him again. Basically, he'll be treading on egg shells for a while. But he generally did a lot of useful work as an admin, and I hope he'll be a net positive if promoted, and this time will be an even better admin. I suggest MZMcBride listens carefully to all the feedback given, both on his talk page where he asked for it, and on here. There are things raised in the opposition that I agree with too much to support, so I don't really intend to vote either way. Majorly talk 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passing (passed?) Remedy 1.4 in his current(?) arbitration case says, "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." While some people can rightly disagree with the timing of this request, to somehow portray it as violating ArbCom, slighting them, or disrespecting them is frankly absurd. They told him to ask for it back via RfA, and he has decided to do so. In what way is this wrong? They didn't tell him to wait x time period, and then ask for them back. If you have a problem with ArbCom's decision, why take it out on MZMcBride, rather than taking it up with them? --Ali'i 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals that they were discussing were for a 3 month removal of the bit, I think they had assumed that MZM would wait at least until the case was closed before running for admin. He quit to get ArbCOM off his back, now he is running to game the system. I would not be opposed to ArbCOM reopening another option to explicitly state that he needs to wait the 3 months... afterall, the case is still open.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and re-read Remedy 1.4. They are clearly aware that he resigned his bits while the arbitration was going on. --Ali'i 19:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly aware that he resigned his bit, when the alternative was that they were either going to take it away from him or that he was going to lose it for a period of 3 months. Nobody expected him to turn around less than 2 days later and game the system. It personally makes me wonder about his integrity.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I should also note, that when a person does something like voluntarily stepping down, others will often back off of their position as a sort of compromise. Thus, the new provision might have been one of, "Yeah, we'll accept this as it is less dramaful." But his decision to run, while that case was still open, shows contempt. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, it was not a smart political move to open this RfA before the case was even closed.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the community agreed that he should be an admin, how is it gaming the system? Community approval is what the system is for and what ArbCom said he needs to work on. Mr.Z-man 22:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it gaming the system? 2 days ago he resigns under a cloud before ArbCOM removed the bit and possibly applied other sanctions. ArbCOM accepts what appears to be a good faith move and backs off of other possible remedies. Before ArbCOM closes the case, which literally could have been closed anytime, he starts an RfA. Whether it was intended or not, the effect is "I'll show them whose boss." That is gaming the system. I'll repeat what I said below, I don't know what his intentions were, but by opening this RfA while the ARBCOM case was still pending, he has forced ArbCOM to address it, creating a powerplay. If ArbCOM does nothing, they lose. If they do something, they lose. By opening this RfA while the ArbCOM case is pending, he has, IMO damaged Wikipedia, and on that ground alone, I have to oppose. Community approval is not garnered through a rushed RfA, but rather showing that you can work with others.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The job of ArbCom is not to order the community around or overrule the community, but to work with the community to resolve disputes. If the community agrees that he should be an admin, I would be incredibly surprised if AC did anything other than accept the community's decision. If ArbCom does nothing, they would simply be implicitly agreeing with whatever the community decides here. If they do something ... it would depend on what they did, but they shouldn't have to do anything unless this RFA is some how unresolvable through normal processes. The only possible damage is a possible slight delay to the case (and a few days delay on a nearly 2 month case isn't much) and the drama this created, but, even 6 months from now, it would be a reconfirmation RFA for an admin desysopped under a cloud; its not like that's going to be drama-free (and for RFA drama, this is rather light). Mr.Z-man 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth looking at FloNight's comments here. I agree with her explanation that the desysopping (or, as it happened, resignation under convtroversial circumstances) means essentially that he needs approval from the community (or committee via appeal) to regain his admin tools. That's exactly what he's seeking here. This is completely in line with the letter and spirit of the arbitration ruling. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Support The guy's one of the most active admins in wikipedia history. Goodness knows what we'd miss! On his recent issues, we need to get perspective here, ignore all the dramatizing, and extend good faith and forgiveness to a highly skilled, clued, and dedicated long-term member of our community who did the natural human thing of having a few "lapses of judgment". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support I've had the pleasure of working with him on WP:DBR, he really does have the project's best interest at heart. BJ^Talk 06:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Keegan^talk 06:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support While I thought your actions were rash as hell, and I didn't agree at all, I do believe you are sincere in you promises to be more patient and profesional. We all screw up every now and then, and this community benefits more from you having access to the tools than from any mistakes you've made with them. bahamut0013^words_deeds 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support Solid editor and administrator who wants wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not a social network, and willing to the do the hard work of monitoring BLPs. --KP Botany (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC) And, yes, the track record on BLPs is sufficient, in my opinion, to cause support. --KP Botany (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support a dedicated Wikipedian who believes in the project. Have faith that the "lapses" will not reoccur. Nancy ^talk 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - One of the best discerning, clueful, XfD closers we have. - jc37 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (I'm guessing I'm not alone in supporting, considering at least the number of edit conflicts I had in trying to post this : ) - jc37 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. My gut instinct was to be less than supportive to this request; however the honesty and integrity in the self generated and answered questions indicates that MZ has taken recent comments to heart regarding some minor errors of judgement. Pedro :  Chat  06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support without reservation. As I've followed the arbitration case, I've come to realise just how much good work MZMcBride does for Wikipedia, and how much use he gets out of the admin tools in the process. He is one of our most valuable administrators despite his sometimes-contentious actions: he is the very definition of a net-positive. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Has the best interests of the project at heart. To answer those who feel this is premature, clearly the community & ARBCOM required a behavioural change, which I believe has occurred as evidenced by Mz's comments above. It is difficult to see what the addition of some time would achieve. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not trying to badger, but I think this support comes to the crux of the issue. The community & ARBCOM have requested a behaviour change. In my opinion, MZM's words above indicate movement in the right direction, but are at odds at the hastiness of his actions during the Arbcom case itself (including this self nom). What the addition of time will achieve is clarify this disconnect. Martinp (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Strong support Very valuable and hard working. I've watched his edits/actions for years in awe and think the project will be very well served with him being an admin again. --CapitalR (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Conflicted support. I said on the workshop of the ArbCom case that I would rather not see MZMcBride desysopped if we could avoid it. I cannot fault the ArbCom for their decision in light of the evidence shown, though I tend to agree with Newyorkbrad's vote on desysopping him (the obsolete remedy from before MZM resigned). This, my hope that he has begun to understand the problems here, and the fact that he has shown himself willing to work like an ant to get stuff done (including helping to fix our BLP issues), makes me choose to support. I do question the timing of this, and wonder how likely it is to pass, but neither of those is my decision to make. If I may leave with a thought or two for MZM: If this does pass, please use your privileges exceedingly circumspectly but decisively, especially to solve the BLP problems. If not, try again after waiting a while. And whatever happens, seek to learn from this experience. There, hope I wasn't too preachy! Take what you will from it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I thought you were allready an admin, oh wait my bad--DFS454 (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Happy with the reassurances above, respect for doing this now rather than waiting for us to miss him in his role as admin. ϢereSpielChequers 08:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Conditional, so long as you don't do anything you shouldn't again (which I don't think you will). It's a pity there's an RfAR open about you because I think you were one of the most clueful admins I knew. Good luck - because I think you might need it.  GARDEN  08:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Why not? Hiding T 08:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I know we had disagreements, but I know you have done, and still do a lot of good work for 'pedia, and that you had the best intentions. I trust that you will use the tools appropriately, but also hope that when, even one, other editor has concerns, you will stop automated functions, and try to see if how the automation has to be adapted (or consider that it simply can't be done automated ..) before continuing with that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. I really can't stand admins or really anyone who gives a shit about userpages (save some instances). That being said, you do have a clue as to how the rest of it works. Focus on that part. the_undertow ^talk 10:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I trust that he has learnt from his mistakes, and that the mistakes themselves will make him more cautious in future. We've not always agreed, but that's only made me like you the more for it. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Net positive --Stephen 11:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support I trust your judgement and you can do stuff other admins would usually find too controversial to do, but still neeeds to be done.--Patton^t/c 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong support I fully trust you've learned from your mistakes.  iMatthew :  Chat  11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Obvious support - lots of work that still needs to be done here; I trust the admin opposers are willing to take that load on in the event that this RfA fails. (Though I agree with Viridae etc. that waiting a short while longer might have been more productive). Black Kite 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support as deletion of secret pages probably annoyed a few kids enough to keep them off Wiki. Woohoo! GTD 12:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak support (ec) Please stick to our guidelines and policies, you were an excellent admin before otherwise and I have no reason to believe, if you stick with the 'rules' (horrible word), that you can't be an excellent mop holder again. Cyclonenim :  Chat  12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Your excellent record of adminship isn't effected by deleting near-useless 'secret' pages in my view. Nick-D (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong support - even though MZM and I have disagreed (sometimes vehemently) on certain things in the past, after we buried the hatchet and began working together I realized that his head is definitely in the right place. For those that are concerned that the old problems would return, don't forget he will still be held accountable to the arbcom remedies. –xeno (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support I strongly believe lessons have been learned here. I've had strong disagreements with this user in the past, but he's hard working and I know he'll use the bit uncontroversially, but in the interests of cleaning some of the backlog.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Supported: I have supported your actions in the past, and continue to hold the belief that you have had the best interests in WP at heart, and will continue to show my belief that you have learned from prior mistakes and will thereby give support to this RFA. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support; A net positive. Proven to be one, and should continue to be one. Synergy 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support A desysop, even voluntary, should not be punitive. As MZ already has decent tenure as an admin, has apologized for his mistakes, has promised not to repeat them, and has requested sysop status again, holding it back simply because of the recency of the ArbCom case would simply be punitive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong support - I don't always agree with MZMcBride, in fact, when it comes to WP-related stuff, we usually disagree. However, in the many debates/arguments (sometimes heated) I've had with MZMcBride, one thing has always been clear, and that is how passionate he is about this project, and I've never questioned his intentions for any of his actions, no matter how much I disagree with them. I think it's clear that he does what he believes is best for the project. As far as this RFA coming so quickly, I thought it was too early as well, but knowing MZMcBride as I do, I did not believe it was an appropriate desysop, and many editors I spoke with agreed. ArbCom decisions should reflect community desires. I don't believe this RFA is to disregard the AC, rather than to confirm that MZMcBride's loss of the tools is the community's true desire. His work in the area of BLPs is prolific. A #1 concern of the project should be cleaning up and protecting living subjects of articles here. While that's not currently the case, it is a #1 concern of his. We need more admins with such a focus, not less. Hopefully the AC case has been a bit of a wake-up call and we'll see a change in the way he communicates. لennavecia 13:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Arbitrary committee is arbitrary. They were stupid to even think about a temporary desysop, and I think it's clear that MZMcBride has the best interests of the encyclopedia in his actions. Clearly an asset to the encyclopedia with the tools, so they should be given freely in this case. Amazing work on WP:ANUS and similar projects show what good MZMcBride does around here. --Ali'i 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Good God yes. While I don't always agree with MZM, I've always admired his dedication to the project and BLPs. His adminship was, in general, a net benefit. Judging by his above statement, I'm confident that he's learned his lesson. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruslik0 sums up my thoughts quite nicely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35. Support without hesitation. MZ has always done excellent work. The arbitration case against him was/is a farce. — CharlotteWebb 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support This administrator was tremendously useful for the Wikipedia despite some minor problems. His resignation will be a huge loss for the project. Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - I don't have much to add that has not been said. MZMcBride has done an incredible amount of work as an administrator, and his loss would leave a void that would be practically impossible to fill. I do believe that MZM is sincere with his answers to the questions, and I hope that the community will agree to give MZM another chance. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. I believe having MZM desysopped is a net negative for the project. I find many of the oppose votes rather unconvincing and based on a rather policy-wonkish approach to Wikipedia, which I reject. I don't see what we gain by waiting some arbitrary time period here. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support MZMcBride's contributions and admin work in maintenance areas are essential to the ever-expending encyclopedia. The arbcom case was over so trivial matter, I can't believe a desysop was considered there. On the few concerns raised, I'm confident they'll have been addressed. Cenarium (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Per Juliancolton, Lara, GTD and CharlotteWebb, all of whom I agree with. I don't agree with most of what MZM does, but I've never known him to be less than reasonable when asked to explain (and reverse if necessary) any action he's taken. To the "we can't disagree with Arbcom!" opposers – Arbcom are people, not gods, and have a long history of making weird calls. When they make a contentious decision, there's absolutely nothing wrong with throwing it over to the broader community for review, which is what's going on here. – iridescent 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support- MZMcBride having the tools is better for the project than him not having the tools. Resigning his tools and then coming to RfA seems extremely mature to me, I'm not quite sure why people are trying to use it as an argument to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. MZMcBride has my strong support for being very cooperative with ArbCom during the entire case, for not being a coward and retiring to hinder the committee, and for putting himself up for community judgment. I disagree with the "too early" opposes; this couldn't be a better time to run, and I think this candidacy shows great judgment: it would be great if more admins did this. Acalamari 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. – Steel 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong support. There were no blocks involved. One of the flaws with the decision was that some context wasn't properly included in the decision of a small handful of arbitrators, and a few non-issues were inflated as issues. The community needs to make a statement to the effect that if admins with clue, are willing to change but have not been recalled (if they are open to recall), then that's prima fascie evidence that no desysop should occur via other means (unless it's an emergency). As for the actual issues, I trust MZM will tackle them, and continue his outstanding work for this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I asked some of the arbs about context/perspective with regard to issues of the case. The reply was basically that going through the motions is more important than effects and results. Mr.Z-man 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

46. Strong support - very nice, very reasonable, I could go on and on. I see no reason to believe that MZMcBride would repeat any past mistakes. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Whatever the arbcom outcome, I believe that MZMMcBride was acting in the best interests of wikipedia and will continue to do so. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Strong support Yes, he's a bastard, but I have a record of voting for people who're bastards. Besides, he's a nice bastard, with a knowledge of the wiki, and a net positive to the project. He's certainly shown that he's learned from his mistakes, and the answers to the questions he generated were really the thing that assured my support. I'll admit, I've argued with him before, and I'm quite sure that I'll argue with him again. But that doesn't change my vote. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strong Support. We all make mistakes, why should this stop him continuing with his admin duties? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. I agree with Jennavecia, and she's put forth reasoning that is pretty much my own as well. MZMcBride is headstrong but does things that are very beneficial in the long run. If we desysopped people who took things in their own hands and were sometimes bitches, I think we'd shrink in size to 20 admins who are all mealy-mouthed and yes men anyway? Critical thinking is important and I think he exhibits that in spades. Mike H. Fierce! 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - I am surprised to see you running for adminship so quickly after resignation, if I was you I would have probably taken a rest for lets say a week before thinking about the tools again for what you have gone through. However, you are entitled to run for adminship at any time per past planned and currently planned ArbCom rulings so I do not object to you doing so now. It was a long time ago, but I did support your original RfA, and I have also lurked both your current ArbCom case and the Sarah Palin one. Do they make me regret supporting your adminship before? A bit, both cases do show in my view a series lapse in judgement. On the plus side however is your many contributions which will be enhanced by you retaining the mop, particularly BLP work. I am also impressed by your more recent behaviour, including your answers to the questions, and dare I say it, you are open to recall. Finally, you know as well as I do that any more negative ArbCom cases about you will probably end in book throwing! Overall, I have decided to give my support. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Overall a valuable net-positive for the project. I got on his case about the secret page deletions, but I never had the opinion that he should be without the bit. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Strong support for this hardworking contributor. bd2412 T 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I know I'm not allowed to vote 'cus IP's are only second class wikipedians, but I am anyway. I'll not rehash the numerous reasons given above, just that I agree with them.198.161.174.194 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

54. Support per Camaron. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. --Giants27 ^T/C 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. I don't follow the opposes based on "avoiding" arbitration. None of the proposed decisions take the decision out of the community's hands, so this RfA is perfectly appropriate. I don't always agree with MZMcBride, but on balance I trust him with the tools. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support hard-working, learned from past experience. Bencherlite^Talk 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Never had a complaint about his edits or his use of the tools. Frankly, I consider his ArbCom case to be an entirely unnecessary and avoidable hatchet-job, fueled by the self-serving political pontifications of several editors who really had no dog in the fight or business fomenting drama for drama's sake. One of them even "resigned" for dramatic emphasis after his actions were scrutinized and the case seemed unlikely to be accepted, only to return a week later after he'd made his point. I don't tolerate drama or drama whores. Neither does MZ. Bullzeye ^contribs 20:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is pretty ironic as I see this as one of the more dramaful actions I've seen in a long time. If MZM had waited a week, the ArbCOM case would have been closed. Instead, two days after "stepping down" he chooses to run... which is clearly not the intention of the ArbCOM group. By opening this RfA while the case is still open, he is thumbing his nose at ArbCOM and putting them in a precarious position. If they act in any way now, they risk bringing the wrath of the community down upon them, because it's now in the hands of the wider community at RfA. If they don't act, then he has successfully told the Arbitration Committee to go F*** themselves. And if this RfA passes, what message does that send about ArbCOM and his view of this community? If he had waited a week... the case would have been closed a lot of the people who oppose him might have supported him, but instead he is fabricating a scenario where nobody in the community wins. *THIS* is perhaps the biggest gambit/powerplay I've seen at RfA.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this the official ABF stance? لennavecia 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm almost afraid to ask, "ABF?"---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe she means assume bad faith. --Ali'i 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (e/c)If the RFA passes, it tells ArbCom that they made the wrong decision, that they were about to desysop an admin who still had the support of the community. ArbCom is not infaliible. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And waiting a week could have attained the same outcome, instead, by opening this now (wether intended or not) he has created a powerplay and puts ArbCOM in a position where they have to act, and risk criticism or they don't act and lose credibility. By rushing it the way he has, he shows ArbCOM and the community a great deal of disrespect. A week would have gotten his message across without the powerplay.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because you keep calling it a "powerplay" does not make it so. If you think he's just running for adminship again for the power, I don't see how an arbitrary waiting period would make a difference. Though I agree with others, its one thing to say that this is too soon, its totally another to say that he's doing this as a "powerplay" as a way to give the finger to ArbCom. Though I'm not sure how one can take a comment like "he has successfully told the Arbitration Committee to go F*** themselves ... he is fabricating a scenario where nobody in the community wins ... the biggest gambit/powerplay I've seen" can be taken anyway other than personally. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The effect of his running right now is creating the powerplay. If he had waited until after the ArbCOM case was closed, which could have happened any day (including today), then the case would have been closed, and ArbCOM could have ignored it or turned a blind eye to it. By opening the RfA now, before the case is closed, he has created a scenario that has resulted in a powerplay---and I don't know if it was by design or lack of forethough. If ArbCOM does nothing, they lose. If ArbCOM does something, they lose. In some way, ArbCOM has to now address this RfA and determine whether or not it is a deliberate attempt to evade process---and however they act (even if they don't act) it hurts the project. I don't know what his intentions were, but the result is that he has created a scenario where the project loses. The result is that the action of starting this RfA, while a case is pending, creates a powerplay. To prentend that it doesn't is bogus. Using RfA in this manner is one of the biggest powerplays I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. If he succeeds, then I think he has damaged Wikipedia. I am opposing him, not because I dislike him or don't trust him---it is nothing personal---but I think the results of his actions (in this case) are a negative to Wikipedia. Thus I cannot support him.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

59. Opposing this request would, in my opinion, be an endorsement of the Arbitration Committee's punitive motion (which would have been approved had MZMcBride not requested the removal of his rights himself) to desysop MZMcBride, which I did initiate a discussion relating to. More (and most) importantly, I still trust MZMcBride. I believe his actions and behavior during the last few weeks (especially during the last 2-3 days) have been beyond satisfactory and are at the very least, commendable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Desysopping is not warranted in this case --B (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support But please be mre careful running sysop scripts on your main acount. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I still trust MZMcBride in spite of this issue, and believe that he's capable of using the tools effectively, moreover, is a benefit to the project. Bastique ^demandez 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support We need moar admins to viciously and brutally spank the vandals. --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜STALK!!!} 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cream, your sig is way too long. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

65. We've all fucked up before. This RFA won't pass, and I'm not going to pile on. I don't think you'd make the same mistake twice (as would I), and I'm willing to forgive, so, I'll support. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]