Content deleted Content added
→Neutral: resp to DarkFalls |
→Oppose: adding oppose |
||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
#:::The DRV is interesting to say the least. A result of "no consensus" at a page which is supposed to be a forum for [[cloture]], is surprising. (Especially since, if the DRV determines that there was no consensus in the original AfD - presuming that's what the DRV closure was saying - typically that means that the article should be relisted for further discussion, not "kept".) So I don't know if these set of discussions (the afd and drv) would be the best "poster child" for opposition. |
#:::The DRV is interesting to say the least. A result of "no consensus" at a page which is supposed to be a forum for [[cloture]], is surprising. (Especially since, if the DRV determines that there was no consensus in the original AfD - presuming that's what the DRV closure was saying - typically that means that the article should be relisted for further discussion, not "kept".) So I don't know if these set of discussions (the afd and drv) would be the best "poster child" for opposition. |
||
#::: As for his talk page, he came across perhaps a bit more "jovial" than perhaps the user understood, and when he noticed (which seems clear in the text), he changed tone. I don't see a problem there except that ''perhaps'' he was only noting the broader policy of WP:NOT, and not the several other policy and guidelines pages that might have applied more directly. If you're suggesting that he fell into the pitfall that many of us who've been around for a bit, in presuming that everyone else knows the policies and process as well as we do, then I won't oppose that assertion. Though I try to avoid it, I've been there myself on more than one occasion. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 08:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
#::: As for his talk page, he came across perhaps a bit more "jovial" than perhaps the user understood, and when he noticed (which seems clear in the text), he changed tone. I don't see a problem there except that ''perhaps'' he was only noting the broader policy of WP:NOT, and not the several other policy and guidelines pages that might have applied more directly. If you're suggesting that he fell into the pitfall that many of us who've been around for a bit, in presuming that everyone else knows the policies and process as well as we do, then I won't oppose that assertion. Though I try to avoid it, I've been there myself on more than one occasion. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 08:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' per the points explained by SoWhy above. MZMcBride is one of the most arbitrary, abusive and uncommunicative admins I know. I do not trust him in the slightest. — [[User:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F">''A''<small>itias</small></font>]] <span style="color: #999;">//</span> [[User talk:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F"><small>discussion</small></font>]] 09:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 09:16, 8 April 2009
MZMcBride
(talk page) (13/3/3); scheduled to end 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
[[::User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] (talk · contribs)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Are you open to recall?
- Yes, I am open to recall, as outlined here.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
Questions for the candidate
- 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 DissidentTalk 06:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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.
General comments
RfAs for this user:
- 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.
Discussion
- For those that prefer them:
- ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Support
- 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)
- 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. BJTalk 06:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keegantalk 06:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support - One of the best discerning, clueful, XfD closers we have. - jc37 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support I thought you were allready an admin, oh wait my bad--DFS454 (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Why not? Hiding T 08:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
Oppose
- Oppose. There are countless reasons to do so, from ignoring WP:CSD whenever he feels like it to ignoring community discussion and continuing controversial actions after being told to stop and discuss or his disregard for consensus (see Sjakkalle's oppose for a example where MZM used his own "I think this should be deleted"-judgement rather than judging consensus to close an AFD - that is just not acceptable behavior for an admin). I do not believe he is serious when he says he has a "a deep amount of respect for the members of the [Arbitration] Committee" and yet does not even allow ArbCom to rule on him before requesting desysop and returning here. It would be respectful to way until it's over before submitting a new RFA, not sooner. But the main reason I oppose (and that is not because I wish MZM anything bad) is that I am evaluating him like I would evaluate any new user requesting adminship. And honestly, if a new user came here, while an ArbCom case against them was still pending in which there are multiple findings that the candidate has shown misconduct, if this new user had a lengthy block log for running unapproved bots on his main account (with the last one barely a month ago for (and I quote) "bot still running while editor promised to stop") and if this user had multiple ANI threads devoted to examining their behavior, noone would expect many people to support them. And noone would be surprised to see them fail. While anyone makes mistakes, I cannot treat MZM any different from any user requesting adminship. We had good candidates here in the past, who failed because they had a limited understanding of WP:CSD. MZM has demonstrated to have none whatsoever - Q2 says it all: he went to delete pages outside CSD based on a consensus that did not exist; furthermore, even if such pages really were deemed unacceptable, those deletions would still have been outside policy and an admin should know that. MZM has made mistakes, multiple times and repeatedly, with a certain stubbornness, too. I cannot support any random user with such a track record of behavior, no matter how beneficial some of their contributions may be. The same standard applies to MZM. I urge everyone commenting here to ask themselves, whether they would support a candidate with such a track record that was not called "MZMcBride". Regards SoWhy 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- My support for him has nothing to do with the name, but rather the actions behind it. He devotes a huge amount to this project and does a great deal of thankless admin work. In return I ask you, do you honestly think the project is better off without him as an adminstrator? I asked myself that and the answer was an unequivocal no. BJTalk 07:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with BJ about having properly assessed the candidate in my support. Keegantalk 07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think so. An admin who has proven time and time again that he is not willing to follow vital policies like WP:DEL/WP:CSD and has a apparent disregard for consensus (see ArbCom's proposed findings #2, #3, #4.1, #4.4, #5, #6, #9.2) is more harmful to the project than beneficial. Because this behavior is BITEy and loses us editors who may improve the encyclopedia with their contributions. I do not believe that someone is allowed to break the rules and behave like that just because they do beneficial work. An admin should be an example in following the rules, not the opposite. Backlogs may be harmful but they can be dealt with by anyone. Users that we lose because of such behavior cannot be that easily replaced. Things need to get done, that is true. But there is a limit to what we should be willing to sacrifice to do them and I think neither losing users nor ignoring policies is warranted to get them done. Regards SoWhy 07:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, it is more beneficial to do things against the rules. Rules only serve to guide editors, not direct them, on Wikipedia. If we dictate everything we do by rules, then this project would've failed a long time ago. —Dark talk 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know of the importance of WP:IAR. But it does not allow you to do things you know are controversial, otherwise you could just delete all policies and be done with it. MZM has exhibited a "shoot them all and let God sort them out"-understanding of IAR that has hurt the project often: Because of his approach, we had countless ANI discussions, wasted people's time explaining to an established admin what WP:CSD is, had to invest countless hours in reversing actions he did against consensus, etc. Ignoring rules is not okay if you know you are acting against consensus or are going around biting newcomers. There is something like common sense that should accompany those actions against the rules and MZM has demonstrated in the past that he would rather act than to seek consensus for his actions and is willing to continue acting even if people asked him to stop and discuss it. The multiple findings ArbCom may agree on (see above) serve to enforce that he has gone too far in ignoring the rules, to a point where there was no benefit for the project in doing so. Regards SoWhy 08:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, it is more beneficial to do things against the rules. Rules only serve to guide editors, not direct them, on Wikipedia. If we dictate everything we do by rules, then this project would've failed a long time ago. —Dark talk 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think so. An admin who has proven time and time again that he is not willing to follow vital policies like WP:DEL/WP:CSD and has a apparent disregard for consensus (see ArbCom's proposed findings #2, #3, #4.1, #4.4, #5, #6, #9.2) is more harmful to the project than beneficial. Because this behavior is BITEy and loses us editors who may improve the encyclopedia with their contributions. I do not believe that someone is allowed to break the rules and behave like that just because they do beneficial work. An admin should be an example in following the rules, not the opposite. Backlogs may be harmful but they can be dealt with by anyone. Users that we lose because of such behavior cannot be that easily replaced. Things need to get done, that is true. But there is a limit to what we should be willing to sacrifice to do them and I think neither losing users nor ignoring policies is warranted to get them done. Regards SoWhy 07:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with BJ about having properly assessed the candidate in my support. Keegantalk 07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- My support for him has nothing to do with the name, but rather the actions behind it. He devotes a huge amount to this project and does a great deal of thankless admin work. In return I ask you, do you honestly think the project is better off without him as an adminstrator? I asked myself that and the answer was an unequivocal no. BJTalk 07:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. This very self-nomination demonstrates a "lapse of judgement", it's way too early, it will inevitably be interpreted as a provocation by a significant number of editors, unnecessarily stirring up drama. Shame, because this is such a gifted and clever Wikipedian. Needs to unlearn some behavioural traits though, less strong-headed and more consensus seeking. Actions would speak louder than words in this respect, and this is why this RfA is far too premature. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. To post a new RFA just days after the ArbCom were about to desysop for misuse of the tools (then altered to conform to a voluntary desysop) is way too soon. Heavy-handed use of the deletion button is not a lightwight issue. Moreover, I recall his close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict as a remarkably bad one, where his closing statement just thrust up an "AFD is not a vote!" shield and gave no hint as to why he found one side more convincing. It appeared to me that he was closing it according to his own personal wishes, rather than to reflect the will of the community, and admins are not supposed to use their admin tools in that manner. Use of the admin tools must be used dispassionately and impartially, and that can involve closing a discussion with a result contrary to your own preference, or, if you don't like that, you should state your opinion like anyone else, and let another administrator handle the administrative parts of it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- "...I recall...his closing statement...gave no hint..." - Did you at that time, as is customary when concerned about a closure, ask him to clarify the closure? - jc37 08:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4. See also his talkpage. I myself did not ask him personally, but someone else did. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The DRV is interesting to say the least. A result of "no consensus" at a page which is supposed to be a forum for cloture, is surprising. (Especially since, if the DRV determines that there was no consensus in the original AfD - presuming that's what the DRV closure was saying - typically that means that the article should be relisted for further discussion, not "kept".) So I don't know if these set of discussions (the afd and drv) would be the best "poster child" for opposition.
- As for his talk page, he came across perhaps a bit more "jovial" than perhaps the user understood, and when he noticed (which seems clear in the text), he changed tone. I don't see a problem there except that perhaps he was only noting the broader policy of WP:NOT, and not the several other policy and guidelines pages that might have applied more directly. If you're suggesting that he fell into the pitfall that many of us who've been around for a bit, in presuming that everyone else knows the policies and process as well as we do, then I won't oppose that assertion. Though I try to avoid it, I've been there myself on more than one occasion. - jc37 08:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4. See also his talkpage. I myself did not ask him personally, but someone else did. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- "...I recall...his closing statement...gave no hint..." - Did you at that time, as is customary when concerned about a closure, ask him to clarify the closure? - jc37 08:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per the points explained by SoWhy above. MZMcBride is one of the most arbitrary, abusive and uncommunicative admins I know. I do not trust him in the slightest. — Aitias // discussion 09:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral, MZMcBride, I'm very startled, didn't you resign from your adminship just one and half day ago? If you request it two or three month later, I would support you, but this request looks like you're striking against ArBCom's decision.--Caspian blue 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The ArbCom made it very clear they'd be happy if MZMcBride regained adminship through RfA. Resigning to voluntarily resit an RfA is a sign of good faith. Particularly good-willed, one should remember, is that MZMcBride chose to risk an RfA when it is relatively clear from the wording that he could regain adminship by going straight to the committee in a little while. This aside, it should also be remembered how much work will be lost through his lack of adminship. A three month wait would be a great loss, and if he's already learned the lesson, then what's the point? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- A period of one and half day (+ 7 days for the running) seems to me too short to regain his tool. --Caspian blue 06:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) How can ArbCom have made anything very clear while they are still deciding? And how can you say he learned his lesson when in fact he was under an ArbCom injunction for the last month that forbid him to continue deleting stuff? I'm not trying to badger anyone, I really don't, but I am genuinly puzzled how one can assume those things... SoWhy 06:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I suppose they could take an unprecedented U-turn, but on this particular point the matter is very clearly settled (12 votes to 0).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) - My understanding was that, at the time, the injunction was merely to pause so that they could assess the evidence, not that they felt he had done anything wrong at that time. So I'm not sure if I understand your argument, at least on that point. - jc37 06:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- But ArbCom has changed multiple things within the last days in that proposed decision and may still do it. The point is, there is no ArbCom ruling on the case. Just considered proposed rulings.
- My point is that if ArbCom came to the conclusion that he did make mistakes with those deletions (and it looks like that, see proposed findings #2, #3, #4.1, #4.4, #5, #6, #9.2), there is no way to know whether he learned from those mistakes and will be able to follow policy in future because he was barred from making any deletions at all (and still is, should this RFA pass before the ruling is final). So how can one say he learned from it when there are no actions to judge that from? Regards SoWhy 07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would anyone relocate this unrelated comments from mine to the talk or to the discussion lot?--Caspian blue 07:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- "So how can one say he learned from it when there are no actions to judge that from?" I do not understand your point. —Dark talk 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- To phrase it differently: If he has not done any deletions at all, how can we judge whether he will not perform controversial deletions again? It's like saying "He stopped randomly shooting people after we took away his gun. Since then he has not shot anyone at all, so we can assume he learned from it and give him back his gun". Regards SoWhy 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what it is like, as doctors in hospitals and grievers at funerals will attest. What it is, as opposed to what it is like, is a judgement call. It's not about whether MZ might kill people with his gun, it is about whether we are prepared to believe in redemption. If MZ gets it wrong again, that's something we would have to deal with. Luckily, we are capable of dealing with it, and we can deal with it better if people refrain from bad comparisons. Let's just stick to the facts. It keeps things on an even keel. Hiding T 08:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- To phrase it differently: If he has not done any deletions at all, how can we judge whether he will not perform controversial deletions again? It's like saying "He stopped randomly shooting people after we took away his gun. Since then he has not shot anyone at all, so we can assume he learned from it and give him back his gun". Regards SoWhy 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- SoWhy, i still do not understand the logic of this. Are you saying he cannot prove he has reformed because he cannot do deletions currently? But how can he prove he has reformed if he does not have the sysop bit and cannot do deletions? Does your gun comparison shows that you believe MZMcBride cannot reform? —Dark talk 08:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying that we have no indication whether he has really reformed or not because as long as the ArbCom case is pending, his actions may well be influenced by the fact that ArbCom might sanction him further if he does not show acceptable behavior. Point is, he is currently not in normal circumstances and to know whether he has changed, we need to follow his contributions under normal circumstances for some time. Non-admins can show whether they understand policy as well as admins can, multiple candidates here failed RFA mostly because they did make basic speedy-tagging mistakes (mistakes that MZM has shown time and time again when deleting pages). Without his sysop-bit, he could for example show he changed by following the appropriate venues for things he wants to see deleted. If he went around tagging everything with
{{delete|get rid of it}}
, we would know he hasn't changed. If he sought deletion at the appropriate WP:XFD instead (as he should have done with those secret pages), we might say he understood it. But while the ArbCom case is pending and 1,5 days after resigning his sysop-bit is not really enough time to judge whether he really has changed. Regards SoWhy 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying that we have no indication whether he has really reformed or not because as long as the ArbCom case is pending, his actions may well be influenced by the fact that ArbCom might sanction him further if he does not show acceptable behavior. Point is, he is currently not in normal circumstances and to know whether he has changed, we need to follow his contributions under normal circumstances for some time. Non-admins can show whether they understand policy as well as admins can, multiple candidates here failed RFA mostly because they did make basic speedy-tagging mistakes (mistakes that MZM has shown time and time again when deleting pages). Without his sysop-bit, he could for example show he changed by following the appropriate venues for things he wants to see deleted. If he went around tagging everything with
- "So how can one say he learned from it when there are no actions to judge that from?" I do not understand your point. —Dark talk 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would anyone relocate this unrelated comments from mine to the talk or to the discussion lot?--Caspian blue 07:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The ArbCom made it very clear they'd be happy if MZMcBride regained adminship through RfA. Resigning to voluntarily resit an RfA is a sign of good faith. Particularly good-willed, one should remember, is that MZMcBride chose to risk an RfA when it is relatively clear from the wording that he could regain adminship by going straight to the committee in a little while. This aside, it should also be remembered how much work will be lost through his lack of adminship. A three month wait would be a great loss, and if he's already learned the lesson, then what's the point? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- While I have great respect for MZ's tireless maintenance work which has been of significant benefit to the site, I have always found that he has a tendency to act impulsively at times. Adding the fact that MZ resigned only a short time ago and is already back at RfA, especially while the whole arbcom drama is ongoing, I have some reservations that prevent me from supporting. I just think it's a bad time to be here. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is one i have to spend some time pondering. No doubt he's done an enormous amount of good work, but there's also little doubt in my mindhe's done a lot of damage. I have to try to balance to two, and include his answers to questions and future questions. --GedUK 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)