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). 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. 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)

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

Nomination
MZMcBride (talk&#32;·&#32; 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Are you open to recall?
 * Yes, I am open to recall, as outlined here.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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

 * 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? &mdash;  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) You've mentioned that you contribute productively at 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&mdash;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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.

To break up the monotony
 * Questions from Seddon
 * 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.

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:
 * WikiChecker edit counter
 * X!'s edit counter
 * Wikimedia edit counter
 * ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 06:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Support

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 3) Keegan talk 06:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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 06:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Support I thought you were allready an admin, oh wait my bad--DFS454 (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Happy with the reassurances above, respect for doing this now rather than waiting for us to miss him in his role as admin.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Why not? Hiding T 08:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Support Net positive --Stephen 11:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) Strong support I fully trust you've learned from your mistakes. iMatthew : Chat  11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) 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)
 * 14) 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)
 * 15) 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)
 * 16) 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)
 * 17) 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)
 * 18) 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)
 * 19) 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 &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support; A net positive. Proven to be one, and should continue to be one.  Syn  ergy 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) 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. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) 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. لenna  vecia  13:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) 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)
 * 24) 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)
 * Ruslik0 sums up my thoughts quite nicely. – Juliancolton  | Talk 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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 <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) 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. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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. – <b style="font-family:Courier;"> iride scent </b> 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) – Steel 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 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. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Strong Support. We all make mistakes, why should this stop him continuing with his admin duties? <font face="Verdana"> Stwalkerster [  talk  ]  16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) Strong support for this hardworking contributor. bd2412  T 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Support per Camaron. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 <font color="#FFC12D">T/ <font color="#FFC12D">C  19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Support hard-working, learned from past experience. BencherliteTalk 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 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)
 * Is this the official ABF stance? لenna  vecia  20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm almost afraid to ask, "ABF?"--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe she means assume bad faith. --Ali'i 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (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. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 21:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Desysopping is not warranted in this case --B (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support LegoKontribsTalkM 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support But please be mre careful running sysop scripts on your main acount. Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6)  We need moar admins to viciously and brutally spank the vandals. --<font color=#FF0000>M <font color=#FF4400>i <font color=#FF8800>x <font color=#FFBB00>w <font color=#FFFF00>e <font color=#BBFF00>l <font color=#88FF00>l '''<font color=#44FF00>☞ <font color=#00FF00>T <font color=#00FF44>A <font color=#00FF88>L <font color=#00FFBB>K <font color=#00FFFF>☜ <font color=#00BBFF>S <font color=#0088FF>T <font color=#0044FF>A <font color=#0000FF>L<font color=#4400FF>K <font color=#8800FF>! <font color=#BB00FF>! <font color=#FF00FF>! 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cream, your sig is way too long. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/<font color="#CCC000">24 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/<font color="#CCC000">24 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 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  So Why  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. BJ Talk 07:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with BJ about having properly assessed the candidate in my support.  Keegan talk 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  So Why  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. &mdash;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  So Why  08:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because ArbCom agrees about something does not necessarily make it correct. I don't think anyone (let alone MZMcBride) would claim that he hasn't made mistakes; yet I believe it is difficult to make a case that his possesion of the admin bit is not a net positive to the project.  I would expect opposers to make a good case for this. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for ArbCom to lie (remember, those are findings of facts, not remedies) and anyone can read up on those facts at ANI and elsewhere. You argue that MZM's good contributions mean that he is allowed to make such mistakes so frequently and in such a manner. I (and other opposers) do not agree that someone is allowed to break the rules just because they do good work. Good contributions to the project are not a carte blanche to break rules as you see fit and cause trouble that is unneeded. As I pointed out above, another candidate that showed such a disregard for consensus and the community's opinion (like deleting pages while the community is discussing whether those pages are acceptable and continuing even while the community asked you to stop and discuss) would fail RFA miserably, no matter how good their contributions are for the project. Because I do not think it's good for the project if people get the impression that some admins are allowed to use their tools to break those rules everyone else has to follow. If people start thinking we treat admins better than we treat users, they will get fed up with the project and sooner or later leave it. MZM was investigated by ArbCom, he was previously admonished for breaking the rules and wheel-warring. And now we should just give him the tools back, before ArbCom had even time to issue a ruling and give the impression that the whole ArbCom case was just a huge farce and waste of time because we just believe when MZM tells us he will change - although we have countless examples that he has not taken previous advice and concerns to heart in the past. I doubt anyone can honestly claim that MZM wasn't told time and time again to change his behavior. I see those previous times and I hear his assurance that he has changed. You believe he has and support. I do not believe him, not at the moment at least, before he had really time to prove it and so I oppose. The issue really boils down to whether one trusts him to have learned from his mistakes in the past month, when he has not in the previous years. Regards  So Why  16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no - "Findings of Fact" is a misnomer - if they were obviously facts there would be no need for ArbCom to vote on them. And even if ArbCom does vote to adopt them, that still doesn't make them facts - it only means that a majority of Arbs agree on them.  They're still only opinions, though. I am not suggesting that ArbCom are "lying", only that they may have reached a decision that would not be supported by the majority of the community.  Even if this RfA fails, it will be a useful sounding board as to just how much support the ArbCom decision (which of course is not very visible to the community) actually has.  It may be that the community supports the ArbCom decision - and if so, that at least shows that ArbCom is being clueful. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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 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 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)
 * 1) 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. — <font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F">A itias // <font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F"> discussion  09:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mince your words now! :D <font style="color:#000066;"> GARDEN 09:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose you'd know all about that. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your new account name Aitias?  Majorly  talk  14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This practice of returning just to oppose people you dislike is tiresome. The points you just raised about MZMcBride could equally apply to your behavior over the last few months, Aitias. Acalamari 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't RfA or RfC Aitias. Your admonishments are better served at his talk page, so as not to distract from the core issue here.--Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Acalamari: Writing "to oppose people you dislike" under every comment from me on RfAs is kind of funny (as it doesn't apply, the point is not that I would not like MZM, but simply that I don't trust him with the tools), however it's unnecessary and pointless and therefore you sould consider stopping it. :) — <font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F">A itias // <font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F"> discussion  16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not trust him in the slightest. I wouldn't be throwing those stones in that glass house, honey. Mike H. Fierce! 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the future temperment of a potential admin is best reflected first by their past behavior, and second his defenders in the RfA. Both are interwined. If a potential admin is "arbitrary, abusive and uncommunicative" before attempting to become a Admin, the editor will attract supporters just like him. Judging from the counter attacks of MZMcBride's defenders here, I think MZMcBride needs to seriously change his future editing behavior, so he can find some new, better defenders to defend him before he launches MZMcBride 3. Ikip (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, very well-worded. Incredibly well-worded. — <font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F">A itias // <font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F"> discussion  20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the completely uncalled for blanket ad hominem, Ikip. Word to the wise: insulting the character and intelligence of several dozen admins and editors you've never met is probably a good way to make people not like you, want to work with you, or ever be willing to support you in anything you do. I think Aitias would agree. Just a tip, since we're giving advice on "future editing behavior" and all. Bullzeye contribs 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS- Can a clerk please refactor all of Ikip and Aitias's unhelpful, obsessive trolling into one section for easy viewing/ignoring? Usually this is the kind of thing you have to do for SPAs and sockpuppets, but I think once you've resorted to blanket ad hominems you've pretty much crossed the line into deliberate disruption. Good to see them high admin conduct standards up close and personal, though. Bullzeye contribs 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitration Committee clerks have no jurisdiction over decorum at RfA, although I have to say this conversation is severely lacking in decorum. I am again however going to ask everyone again to kindly throw rocks at Aitias (and he throw them back )engage in civil discourse elsewhere. There is more than enough to discuss without being distracted by another user.--Tznkai (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose There is an unfortunate residue of careless judgment in the events leading up to this RfA and melodramatic immaturity in the actual production. I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm sorry, but no, not yet. You just asked on your user page for constructive criticism not two days ago. I was actually going to write something there, but it seems pretty moot now. Why did you do that if you were going to run for admin again immediately after you resigned? Why did you not wait for the arbitration case concerning you to finish first? Quite honestly, I think this has been your problem all along: You rush things. You delete "secret" pages in the middle of a discussion about them, you delete talk page redirects with no incoming links without asking about any drawbacks that that might have (people had to find out the hard way). So no, I'd like to see you become more aware of your actions first before I support you for adminship. I'd like you to stick to the rules for a while, even if you don't agree with them. Yes, there are backlogs, and I'm actually willing to fully support any admin bot of yours that you will submit to BRFA (assuming the submitted task needs to be done, of course). I'm also willing to block it immediately as soon as it does something it was not approved to do. :) --Conti|✉ 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) strongest possible oppose you resigned your adminship barely 2 days ago, doing so before it could be removed forcibly by arbcom. Hence this timing is atrocious. Take time off, try the non admin life for a while, and in a coupl of months I would be most happy to support. Viridae Talk 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - while my interactions with Mzm have been limited, the reasoning above by editors I trust sways me. Resigning the bit voluntarily and a few days later showing up at RfA (while still in the midst of the ArbCom case) seems telling. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose. You gave up your admin rights on April 6 and then nominate yourself for adminship on April 8? Um, no. Why did you resign? Now is definitely not the time. And if this RFA actually passes, it would only encourage future admins who are up for desysopping by Arbcom in active arbitration cases to game the system in a similar manner. --Pixelface (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to reply to this, but Deacon's reply to Caspian below at 06:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC) says it better than I would have. – xeno  ( talk ) 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too stubborn in your mistakes, not sufficiently willing to accept consensus when you disagree. Your admonishment in the Sarah Palin protection wheel war case last fall also weighs on me, in addition to the deletion and bot policy violations previously discussed.  GRBerry 12:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Although I enjoy interacting with you and think you've made a lot of valuable contributions, I think it is too soon to ask for adminship back. At least wait for the case to close, please. Also I do have some concerns along the lines of those GRBerry outlines, I think some time away from adminship might be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Of the above Conti is closest to my thoughts here.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I don't often contribute to RfA Discussions, but I feel too strongly about this user to do otherwise. In the events leading up to his current ArbCom case, this user has shown extremely poor judgement, a disregard for the wishes of the community and disdain for his fellow editors.  Perhaps, with more time, he will demonstrate that he deserves the community's trust again, but he's not there yet.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for now. Too much of a continuing theme of rashness and rush to action to fully trust with the deletion button at the present time (the timing of this self-nom is a case in point). Can easily see myself supporting once all the dust has settled and when it is clear MZM's modus operandi has moderated. Martinp (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I have never bought the "but he does good work" argument.  Nobody is impossible to replace, nobody.  You may in fact, do a lot of good work, but the baggage that you bring just isn't worth it.  If as you say, you are willing to change, then give it some time (months, not days), and show us you are.  Then I'll support.  --Kbdank71 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a startling lack of people willing to do any work at all on the BLP problem. See for example the discussion here, where people are asserting that the only way to fix the problem is for the people who want to do anything about it to source all 30,000 or so unsourced BLPs by themselves, as most people seem to be fine with 1 in 10 BLPs not having any sources. Some even go as far to say that the problem is "nonexistent" or "imaginary." <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the only people that can work on the BLP problem are admins? --Kbdank71 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but much of the work involved either requires, or is greatly helped by admin tools. Looking up sources only goes so far. Though my comment was more a general reply to the idea that there are a dozen people somewhere waiting to pick up the slack where MZM left off. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean I'm irreplaceable? Not at all. Look, whether there are 100, or a dozen, or no editors ready to step in, that doesn't change my opinion that we should completely disregard anything negative MZMcBride has ever done, merely because he does good work.  One doesn't cancel out the other.  All I have now is "trust me, I've changed".  Sorry, but actions speak louder than words.  --Kbdank71 17:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Regretfully oppose, but hope to support in the future. Yes, MZMB does good work. And the majority of the communications I've seen have been polite and helpful, a model of what an admin should be. But the whole page deletion thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. Not the initial deletions, but the fact that MZMB continued to delete them by the bucketful after it should have been blindingly obvious that this was controversial and needed to be discussed. I hope MZMB has learned from this, but there just hasn't been enough time to see any evidence one way or the other.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the actual "secret pages" incident was nearly 2 months ago by now (I presume those are the "pages" you refer to). <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So? --Conti|✉ 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The secret pages, the IP talk pages, and the ultra-fast bot-like deletions. The IP talk pages were being deleted until March 6; the ultra-fast deletions went through March 23 (I call 285 deletions in under 10 minutes ultra-fast). MZMB was well aware at that time that deleting at that speed was controversial, but deleted anyways because tabbed browsing wasn't specifically listed in the injunction. So yes, I have concerns, and no, I don't think enough time has passed.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The secret pages deletions were serious enough that, before MzMcbride resigned, ArbCom had effectively already decided to take his tools away whether he liked it or not. I feel the same sort of way as they do; that this was a massive, massive lapse of judgement. The disdain he showed to other users, the refusal to deal with the issue when it came up (instead prefering to simply continue deleting pages), the Santer-esque resignation (jumping before he was pushed, essentially) are not conductive to a good editing environment and do not show an administrator with the necessary judgement, imo, to continue or be renewed. He was a good administrator, and he might well be at some point in the future. But his conduct over the past few weeks/months is such that at the moment he would be godawful. Past good conduct is not an excuse for current misconduct. If you've changed and accept you were wrong, fine; come back when we've got evidence of that in the form of diffs. The fact that this occurred after you were reprimanded in another ArbCom case suggests that such changes may be a long time coming. I've used up my italics quota for the day. Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the majority of the "issues" were based on supposed "misuse" of the delete capability, how do you propose that a non-admin proves that they will not misuse an ability that they do not have? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Viridae, Fabrictramp and Ironholds. Come on, getting rid of the mop and then wanting it back 48 hours later? Are you serious? Channel R   15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it a reconfirmation vote. It certainly shows his subservience to the community. How can that be a bad thing? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see subservience, I see somebody who continues to delete pages by the dozen while he's been told not to do so. That's arrogance in my book. Even if those deletions were with "tabbed browsing" (as said on the ArbCom page) it still is a very bad idea to say the least. I expect a lot more clue from an admin. Channel R   16:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Conti. Mike R (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely not - per everyone above, really, but especially this: to resign your bit inches ahead of ArbCom removing it from you (that resolution passed with a majority of 8 several days ago) and then immediately request it back looks like evasion of said decision. Come back in six months. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the project is better off with MZMcBride having the tools... but not for 6 months? The arbitration committee stated that "Any request by MZMcBride for restoration of adminship privileges will require either a new request for adminship or the approval of this Committee." Sooooo... he's asking for them back by an ArbCom approved way. How is that evading "said decision"? Not making sense, I'm afraid. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that until now there is not ArbCom decision, just proposals?  So Why  16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but remedy 1.4 is passing 13-0, soooooo... not too doubtful of its passage. --Ali'i 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "You're fired"
 * "You can't fire me, I quit!"
 * "Can I have my job back?"
 * // roux <span style="border:1px solid #465945;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More along the lines of: "We're thinking about firing you." "I quit." "Oh, well then. If you want your job back, you'll have to ask for it." ... "May I have my job back?" Enter villagers with their torches. "How DARE you ask for something you were told to ask for!?!?1?" Fin. --Ali'i 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you said yourself: Yes, but remedy 1.4 is passing 13-0, soooooo... not too doubtful of its passage. --Ali'i 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC). He was already fired. There's not much point in continuing this. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #801818;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm in agreement with what Roux said. Tim  meh  !  16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Now? Ouch, that's a rash act. Relax. I would be glad to consider support if you ran a bit later, say in a few month's time. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I don't think that MZMcBride acted in bad faith or that he is untrustworthy.  I'd also like to say that MZMcBride has done a lot of good for the wiki, but that's not quite the point here.  I think there are a few things to throw out here.  First of all, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".  Even if you do what you think is right and helpful, you can really screw up when you start to ignore consensus.  That is one of the things that happened here.  Second, "power corrupts". MZMcBride admits that after a few years on the site, he thought he knew best and could just do what he felt was right.  That's not how it works.  If we support here today, it's a de facto way of saying that he didn't really do anything wrong, and that's not the case.  Third, I'd like to put forward a baseball analogy.  If the coach tells you to bunt, but you swing for the seats, you're going to get benched even if you hit the game-winning homer.  It's just not acceptable to use your own judgment when it goes against what you should be doing, and in this case MZMcBride didn't hit the game winning homer, he grounded into a double play, so any baseball manager would be absolutely livid.  Finally, coming here so soon shows that MZMcBride believes that he didn't really do anything wrong.  Sure, mistakes were made, but coming to RfA more or less immediately means that he downgrades the seriousness of what he did wrong (and in my opinion, there may even be an attempt here to undermine the ArbCom).  So, to fill out the baseball metaphor, I think he'd do well to "ride some pine" for a couple of months before coming back here. Cool3 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I asked roux above, the ArbCom stated, "Any request by MZMcBride for restoration of adminship privileges will require either a new request for adminship or the approval of this Committee." So he is asking for the tools back in an ArbCom directed way. How is it undermining them if he's following their direction? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well first of all, that's a relatively minor part of my decision. Yes, I agree if he wants the tools back, RfA is the place to go. The problem is coming here immediately.  Coming here now indicates that he doesn't think he did anything (seriously) wrong.  Just about every ArbCom desysopping I've ever seen, the candidate was told they could request adminship again through RfA. I've never see anyone else do it immediately. It's sort of like if you said to your kid: "Go to your room and think about what you've done."  The kid gets up, walks upstairs, enters their room for one second, turns around, comes back down, and says "Ok, I thought about it."  Is any competent parent going to say, alright then, let's go out for ice cream?  No.  Learning a lesson means actually thinking for a little while, and maybe facing some consequences.  Cool3 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not going to second-guess Arbcom before the case is even closed. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have a great deal of respect for MZMcBride and the time and effort he puts into the project, but regretfully must oppose in view of the Arbcom admonition of 6 months ago and now this second Arbcom case where the ink isn't even dry yet.  JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Due to lengthy block log and running non approved bots.--Rockfang (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose without prejudice to running again after the Arbitration is actually closed. But I think it has to be considered too early to run again if the ArbCom case which prompted it isn't itself closed yet. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) MZM was about to be desysopped in the arbcom case before he resigned. I don't see this as a good idea. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) WTF I'm sorry, but this is just over the top. I am all in favor of people stepping in and out of adminship... I think we need to have more temporary desysops, and would encourage ArbCOM to start using temporary removal of the bit rather than permanent removal.  But requesting the bit back while the ink is still wet is a little too much.  I probably would support you in a few months, but not right now---my expectations for restoring the bit are lower than for granting it initially (I want gainin/loosing the bit to be less of a big deal.)  That being said, I do have a problem with a fair amount of your work at CSD.  The criteria at CSD are such that they errors should be in favor keeping the article  I don't watch AN/ANI religiously, but I've seen your name show up there more than a few times---and often taken there by long standing editors/admins complaining about your CSD's.  Am I willing to restore the bit?  Yes, but not now.  Not when it appears to be an end around of the ArbCOM process.  This shows an incredible lack of respect for the members of ArbCOM and for Wikipedia itself!  If you had waited a month or even a few weeks, I think you might have passed... but to run while an ArbCOM case is ongoing... that appears to be an intentional slight on every member of the committee.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, basically per SoWhy and GRBerry. MZM&mdash;acting, it is undisputed and I do not doubt, in good faith&mdash;substitutes his judgment for that of the community too often (and quite importantly relative to BLP), and I do not believe that the net effect on the project of his being a sysop was positive (he may, of course, having been suitably chastened, now intend to partake of adminship ministerially, but one can't yet reach any conclusions about what changes he may have made; I, for one, though, would be glad to revisit the issue in a few months, when a greater record of post-RfAr conduct will exist, and I do not pass on the possibility that I might one day support).  Joe 18:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, I should say, love the idea of on-wiki Festivus, for the candidate's willingness to participate in which he is to be commended. Joe 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Both due to the events that led to the Arbcom case and for the answer to my question. In both cases MZMcBride seems to take no consensus as an invitation to impose his own opinion over the opinion (or no agreement) of the community. I cannot support any candidate who would do that, as that way leads to decisions being made just on the basis of which admin arrives to make the decision first. Davewild (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Now is a time to process what has been said at RFAr, at your talk page, and at various other places. I've said elsewhere that I believe your activity as an admin has been a net positive, and I stand by that. However, it has also included a number of avoidable negatives. That is to say you have made mistakes that could have been avoided by acting with a bit more discussion, patience, and forethought. All people make such mistakes and hopefully we grow from them and learn to do better. I didn't feel you deserved to to be desysoped because of that but now that it has happened I think it is a time to let the dust settle and reflect on how things got here. I expect to see you return to adminship eventually, but I think it does neither the community nor you much good to jump back in as if there were never any problems at all. Dragons flight (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose per Sowhy and pixelface. Wasn't this editor an admin before? Has history of ignoring consensus on Articles for deletion, and closing the AfD the way he wants. Ikip (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) The way you dealt with this is inappropriate, I can't help but feel your are trying to play the system. — R  2  18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) too soon Let's let the arbcom case run its course and give things a month or so. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per all the reasons presented by SoWhy. With an arbcom case ongoing, I also have some uneasyness. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per all above, but mostly the secret page deletions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Per SoWhy and Roux. I have absolutely no confidence in the candidate won't abuse the tools, especially when it has already been done. —  Σ  xplicit  19:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose  I have no doubt that MZMcBride is on balance a good admin.  The problem though is on balance isn't a high enough standard when it comes to out of process admin actions.  He still continues to assert a right to ignore consensus like using unauthorized bots.  In fact his explanation that he didn't want to debate the people whose pages he was deleting IMHO compounds the problem.   Obviously deleted pages can be restored but the burden is on the deleter not the creator, for a reason.  I think the precedent set would truly awful.  Deletions should either be completely obvious or require a consensus.  I'd support reinstatement after a period of months.  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Sjakkalle.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose which I'll be happy to change to a support after the ArbCom case closes, depending on the ArbCom decision and how this RFA goes. My hands are tied at the moment by my belief that RFA shouldn't be used to overrule ArbCom, and what I read in the proposed decision refers to "an RFA subsequent to this case" and "a future RFA", which is in line with the discussion leading up to the decision.  If the ArbCom case has not closed 7 days after the start of this RFA, I would support a request to the crats to extend this RFA until the case closes, if that might make a difference in the result. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) The rashness of this RFA makes me suspect immaturity on his part. Immature admins are a problem.  Friday (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose due to tendency to use admin tools unilaterally, ignoring the wishes of the community. Algebraist 20:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong oppose I'd have trouble supporting you half a year from now, but now?! You have abused CSD and deleted tons of valuable information in the process, most notably the warning templates on past spammers. When notified of your actions you didn't stop to talk things over but carried on. What you did was an abuse of the admin tools if I've ever seen one.  Them From  Space  20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) No. Not suited to be an admin. MZMcBride's track record, his arbitration case, and my personal experience with him proves this. - <font color="#000080">auburn <font color="#CC5500">pilot's  <font color="#000080">sock  20:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose not with an arbcom case pending; let's see how it ends so we can evaluate your contributions in light of actual (not proposed) findings. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose I try to stay well clear of wikipolitics, but in my opinion this has to be opposed because of the pending arbitration case. <font color="#66CCFF">King of the <font color="#FF0000"> North <font color="#66CCFF">East  21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Chronically poor communication and an attempted end-run around an impending Arbcom desysop are not encouraging signs. Skinwalker (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The validity of this vote (and other votes by this user) have been contested. All users are kindly asked to stop edit warring over the edit's inclusion. Closing Bureaucrat, please pay attention to    and Wikipedia_talk:Rfa.--Tznkai (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Too much drama and what appears, without diving too much into the ArbCom case, to be an attempt to tiptoe around the issue. Semi-recent mass deletion with an unapproved adminbot. It's too much for my taste. Although you are a good editor and I could potentially support you in a future RFA depending on how things pan out. Useight (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Drama prone, long history of bad decisions, doesn't listen to the community, etc etc as shown in the arb case; this poor decision to resign and file a new RFA while the arb case was ongoing is just bad-tasting icing on the cake. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose I agree with the sentiments expressed by Durova and Roux—this has come far too soon, and there are some serious issues with your conduct. But MZM does do good work; it's a shame...  — <font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Jake  <font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Wartenberg  01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - resigning the bit during an AC case then RfAing was really stupid. You should've really waited the three months instead. Sceptre (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose The ArbCom case was a wake up call and he had no indication, including a specific injunction to stop the cavalier behavior, that his cavalier behavior needed modified? If that's the case he's far, far too clueless to ever be allowed back near the admin tools. --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - you do some good things for the project, but the bad does not outweigh the good in my mind (Which may be biased since I was the one to file the recently-closed Arbitration case), and the pattern and timeline of events leading up to this RfA is extremely unsettling. Resigning the bit during an ongoing Arbitration case is your right, but I believe that your judgment is severely lacking in initiating a reconfirmation RfA even before the Arb case closed especially when there was a remedy that would have passed if you had not resigned which would have de-sysoped you indefinitely. I would have liked to see at least three months of problem-free editing before you presented a reconfirmation RfA, therefore in three months I might consider supporting you because at present I do not trust you with the tools. -MBK004 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per above and a pending ArbCom case. Perhaps you should wait awhile before applying again - 2 days after giving up admin rights and then re-requesting them makes it seem like you really haven't learned anything from the ArbCom case.  I do think you are/were an excellent admin but this is, unfortunately, not the time. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above and a pending ArbCom case. Perhaps you should wait awhile before applying again - 2 days after giving up admin rights and then re-requesting them makes it seem like you really haven't learned anything from the ArbCom case.  I do think you are/were an excellent admin but this is, unfortunately, not the time. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) 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)
 * further discussion relocated to talk page.  So Why  09:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, the committee has not yet removed his adminship. I cannot fathom why he resigned and then ran for RFA all before the case even closed. Cool Hand Luke 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So if the RfA passed and the Committee delayed closing the case until one minute after RfA closure, he'd be desysopped anyway? Durova Charge! 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, Durova, you rock!--Caspian blue 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) 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 mind he's done a lot of damage. I have to try to balance to two, and include his answers to questions and future questions. -- Ged UK  08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) A year ago at the close of another arbitration case I discussed the possibility of a similar RFA with the unfortunate admin who was at the center of it. Those circumstances were substantially different and don't need to be discussed here except to say that it was a highly irregular case and the Committee eventually vacated parts of the decision.  It's a good thing for the community to retain the power to correct arbitration errors in case they ever happen again.  That said, I am unable to support any candidate who posts this two days before RFA.  I almost never oppose an adminship bid, though, and MZMcBride has been a very active and mostly beneficial administrator who seems to be having a rough spring.  Take a breather.  Life without the tools isn't so terrible, and if you do get them back please take a rest anyway until you're tanned and ready.  The stresses of being an active sysop are almost invisible until they overtake a Wikipedian; that's why so many retire suddenly.  Slow down from a sprint and run the mile.  Warmly,  Durova Charge! 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral pending outcome of ArbCom case. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral until I've had time to consider this in its entirety. I can't deny the contributions or benefit you've been to the community.  The support from some very experienced wikipedians is obvious.  Your responses to some very difficult questions are exemplary. (And I suspect you underestimate your writing skills)  My first thoughts of an attempted end-run around procedure may well have been wrong, and in the spirit of AGF, I assume it's a quick response to ArbCom's suggestion, and colleague's comments.  I think the judgment as to the timing of this is suspect, but I do admire the boldness.  Yes, I'll need a little time to reflect and evaluate.  While I understand my !vote carries very little weight, it's important to me that I cast it in the slot I believe most accurately reflects my beliefs. — Ched :  ?  18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per Caspian Blue. I generally agree with your actions, if not your methods, but I would like to see you hang up the bit and work without it for a while, to demonstrate continued "plays nice with others" and mollify your critics.  Come back after 3+ months of such productive non-admin contribution and I'll gladly support. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) This is a tough one. On one hand, broadly speaking I trust MZ with the tools, and I think the "secret page" thing was no big deal.  On the other hand, this RFA, in the context of the RFAR, suggests a certain stubbornness in response to criticism that's a little worrying.  I'm also worried about the fact that he's "open to recall" - as I see it, recall is only meaningful if you aren't open to advice through normal channels (like a note on your user page, an email, or an RFC).  Broadly speaking, the idea of MZ having admin tools doesn't bother me - there's a lot of benefit to the project.  But there are also concerns that make it hard to add myself to the support column.  Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Leaning toward oppose. MZM, you are dedicated to the community, but I still am a little put-off by your actions.  Also, the ArbCom case is still open. :| Meetare Shappy  Cunkelfratz! 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral - I came here with the clear intention to support you, but I feel I can't do so due to the concerns raised above. Regretfully, → Na · gy 22:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral I don't want to be part of this nonsensical debate but I'd like to note that the timing is just atrocious. What exactly were you expecting MZM? Overwhelming support? Enough support to fall in a grey zone where a bold 'crat might feel generous? Enough support to make the 8 of 14 arbitrators recommending desysoping look foolish? I don't really know what you were thinking and, RfC style, I'd like to ask "what is the desired outcome?" That's a mystery but what I do know is that the result, in the first 17 hours alone, is 110kb of drama which you've just uselessly inflicted on the community. Divisive shit: a few editors taking shots at one another or at ArbCom, people digging into trenches and thinking "jeez what are those idiots thinking?" I'm not even going to hint at what I think of the ArbCom findings or the wisdom of their decisions, or hint at my own evaluation of MZM's past behaviour. All I want to say is that running this RfA now is beyond idiotic and cannot possibly be helpful for the project. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why so serious?  Syn  ergy 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.