Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 4


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

MZMcBride
Final (56/124/21); ended 07:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC) – closed as unsuccessful. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I've maintained a "watchlist" for a few years. I'm not as active day-to-day as I once was. And honestly, that trend will probably continue. I do have spurts of energy and spare time, though, so it'd be nice to be able to contribute something.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think it's database reports. Database reports help others help the wiki. And I've had the opportunity to learn a lot of new skills while making them.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I think I've mellowed out a bit. Some people might disagree. I've had some past conflict, but for me at least, it's all in the past. I hope it is for others, though sometimes it can be difficult to know for sure. Related reading, for those interested: here and here.


 * Additional optional question from User:Boing! said Zebedee
 * 4. You haven't really said anything about your previous admin incarnations or why they came to an end, but I gather there was some ArbCom connection. Would you care to tell us what happened, give us a few relevant links, although you have given us a couple of links. Could you please explain why there won't be any problems this time?
 * A: Well, experience and understanding come with time.
 * Q: So are you saying that with an extra 6 months experience, you now understand what you did wrong? Or if not, what are you saying? Any chance of a slightly more in-depth answer? (And please do bear in mind that these questions are your opportunity to be a bit expansive and persuasive - I'm really trying to help you here, but I can only do so much).


 * Additional optional question from User:Roux
 * 5. To piggyback on B!sZ's question. AGF is something that is generally applied to those who don't know better. You do know better, and having seen the problems in the past, they were largely characterized by an unwillingness on your part to acknowledge that perhaps you had not chosen the best course of action. Or, to be a little more pithy: what assurance do we have that you will ask questions first and shoot later, rather than the reverse?
 * A: I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you be a bit more specific?
 * Your tendency, leading to both Arbcom cases, is to shoot first and ask questions later, both in the secret page deletions (which, I should point out, I agreed with in principle; it was the execution that was poor) and in your breathtakingly odd choice to help a banned user vandalize BLPS (again, the problem needed to be pointed out; the execution was sorely lacking). What assurance do we have that this will not happen again in the future. Your answer is unlikely to change my opinion, but it may change others. → ROUX  ₪  04:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from User:Throwaway85
 * 6. Related to 4 and 5 above, but more to the point: You've broken the community's trust before, and lost your sysop bit as a result.  What specific actions have you taken to regain that trust, and how are we to know you won't break it again?
 * A: I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you be a bit more specific?
 * You resigned your adminship under a cloud of scrutiny and condemnation after helping a banned user vandalize unwatched BLPs. Previously, you had regained your bit after resigning it due to the community's response to your batch deletion of some 250 user subpages.  While the "secret page" issue led many to question your judgement, the BLP incident was widely viewed as an egregious violation of trust.  In both instances, there was a widespread perception that you showed a lack of respect for the community and for consensus.  My question is, what has changed?  Will you approach adminship in the same way as you did before, ie: that which led to your previous resignations and the events that precipitated them? What assurances can you give the community that you will not act in the same "maverick" manner that, despite good intentions, incensed so many?  In short, how can we trust you? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to look at what's at stake and whether an oppose vote here will have any impact on it. If I wanted to vandalize, I could. I could probably do it well. I have adminship on a few other projects, some even allow way more elevated access (raw HTML support means you can do just about anything, for example). I said in my nomination statement that I'm not a threat because I'm not. Have I made some stupid choices? Yes. You learn from them and you move forward. A lot of what I've read below seems to be panic and I'm not sure what's at the source.
 * You all realize that this is a website that anyone can edit, right? While it may be simple enough to revert "penis lol" in an article, it's much harder to catch the more subtle vandalism. And make no mistake, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people who make it their mission to insert bad information into Wikipedia. That's the nature of the beast. Instead of worrying whether I'm going to repeat the same mistakes again (which I'm certainly not!), I'd be a bit more concerned about what any IP can do.
 * When you look at the admin package as whole, it's a package of mostly convenience. An overwhelming majority of contributors get along just fine without it. I certainly do. Even while I was an admin the second time, I did far less work. So much so that the issues that arose in the second wiki-court case had nothing to do with the fact that I was admin. :-)
 * This is really a long-winded way of pointing at WP:NOBIGDEAL, I suppose. I understand your concerns and I understand the concerns of those opposing below. I just don't believe that a majority of the opposes are particularly rational given what's at stake. And in some cases, the opposes are downright hypocritical, spiteful, revengeful, and/or brain-dead. I didn't expect much else from RFA to be honest, though it's still a bit disappointing. In some ways, it makes me wonder why I'm still here.
 * I hope that answers your question. And if it garners some more opposes, I'll live.


 * Additional optional question from User:Rockfang
 * 7. Do you run any unapproved bots from any accounts you may use on the English Wikipedia?
 * A: No. Or at least I don't think so. The bots listed at User:MZMcBride/Bots should all have relevant approvals.


 * Additional optional question from User:casliber
 * 8. can you please let folks know your reasoning for reverting a 'crat close on this RfA? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A: In the real world, there are a lot of votes every year that have obvious (or seemingly obvious) outcomes. I don't think that makes it appropriate to truncate them at the whim of an individual. This vote is supposed to run for seven days. Unless there's some exigency that requires that that not happen or that I withdraw, seven days is how long it's going to run.
 * As long as people continue asking questions and voting, I think there can be a presumption that the encyclopedia is being served. If, for example, you look at the exchange between me and Throwaway85, you can see that some good progress is being made in some areas. Some much-needed clarifications are being made. And some much-misunderstood points are also coming to light. I think, on the whole, the RFA is still beneficial.
 * Um, yes, that's true. Do you think there is any chance that you will convert a significant number of opposers to achieve a >70% count? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? If the exit polls predict a landslide, do you not bother counting the ballots? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on the scale of the landslide. --WFC-- 16:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for MZMcBride:
 * Edit summary usage for MZMcBride can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Is this a case of WP:SNOW? / Hey Mid  (contributions) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. this is more of an uphill battle. wiooiw (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Wiooiw says. Not necessarily does snow apply. WP:SNOW at RFA usually applies to a novice who stumbled into this snakepit place of contest through well intentioned ignorance. MZMcBride was twice an admin, and knows his way around. Given RFA three, closure may be premature. The opposers have had their at bats. No point in calling the game without giving the supporters a chance to save. I've always been willing to be "proven wrong" by the collective wisdom of my peers. He also knows he can withdraw at any time. Dloh  cierekim  17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he knew full well it would fail. Summer boredom perhaps. Recognizance (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strange how vehemently the opposers feel about MZMcBride's misuse/abuse of tools, yet he still retains access to the Toolserver (action with "misuse" of said access is what his last ArbCom case revolved around), as well as having sysop on foundationwiki, mediawikiwiki, strategy wiki, and a few others. Seems he's trusted by the foundation and a lot of other people. By the way, in my opinion access to the toolserver and having a good grasp of techy stuff is far more powerful than +sysop. Killiondude (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Projects are autonomous. The en-wiki community cannot do much about his privileges elsewhere, although of course many individual members are members there too.  He's fouled his nest on en-wiki, and any good work elsewhere is not sufficient to get him back the tools here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Of course. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Meh I think he's learnt his lesson. :-)  Aiken   &#9835;   09:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Pointless support, net positive. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - he is a good wikipedia and he is funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForgottonChemistry (talk • contribs) 09:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote indented; troll. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Hopefully Bejinhan   talks   11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hardworking editor with the good of the project in mind. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Obvious net positive, but might as well register a pointless support. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Highly dedicated editor. Some of MZMcBride's tools make up the backbone of Wikipedia. MZMcBride's actions although sometimes mistaken are always done with good intentions for the project. A great asset to the project. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) MZMcBride hopefully learned from his mistakes, he obviously needs the tools being a developer. That's why I'm giving a caustious support Secret account 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Unfortunately, it seems this RfA is being hijacked by a cadre of editors who mysteriously show up at the same discussions and support each other unconditionally, thus rendering this extremely well-qualified (completely without shame, exudes a sort of aristrocratic arrogance that is sorely lacking in modern Wikipedia, an excellent henchman for Judge Doom; and, best of all, can keep all of those subtle yet important gears and gadgets laying around Wikipedia well-oiled with his own natural endowments - not to mention the "pig-headed South Park centrist" approach to an anti-science attitude!) candidate on the outside looking in. However, in a fortunate turn of fate's wheel, this candidate wrote the book on sock-puppeting, so perhaps he will elect to put those skills to the test and let his unfathomable talents for time-wasting, bot-aided cowboy idiocy grace en.wiki once more. Badger Drink (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (switched to oppose)
 * 1) Duh. Many of the opposers are piling on and don't know exactly what was going on before. MZMcBride is a genius, and the tools will only benefit his work.  — fetch ·  comms   16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. I agree with SunCreator in that many of MZ's tools are a great service to Wikipedia, and I see a net positive here. Killiondude (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Why the hell would you oppose? Some seem to have a point but most seem to look at the past and not judge the user from what he has learned from then. wiooiw (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I realize that MZMcBride has irritated some other editors in the past, but he's been consistently kind and helpful to me, and I expect that the average user's experience will look far more like mine than like those of the grudge-holding crowd below. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, WhatamIdoing. For me, it's not a matter of holding a grudge. I've nothing personal against him. It's a matter of lost trust. Dloh cierekim  18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in a similar position to Dlohcierekim: I've nothing personal against MZMcBride (as far as I can recall, I've not had too many dealings with him) - but I feel that at the moment, I cannot trust him with the tools. The last ArbCom case was only concluded about 6 months ago, which is too soon, in my personal opinion, to be convinced that the tools would be safe in his hands. The whole point about RfA is that the editor asking to be an admin must be trusted by the community. If it had been a year or two since the last 'problems' which ArbCom dealth with, then it might be a different matter (certainly for me) - and I hope that MZMcBride will wait a while longer before coming to RfA again (assuming that he is not successful this time), and although I can't talk for anyone else, I certainly would not rule him out completely at a future request for adminship --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Granted, all of the things he did were before I joined (in March), but I didn't see a huge amount of harm done, and his bots seem quite useful.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - of course MZMcBride fully meets my standards with the thousands of edits, high-quality article work, many WP edits, decent user page, etc. But as I said at the last RFA, he's a drama magnet. Our last encounter involved his Prodding John_Cockcroft_(politician), and my deProdding that article.  Giving him anti-vandalism tools and autoreview rights would be great, but please do not go crazy with the "delete" button. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)  Oh no, I just read over []. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support MZMcBride is rather like Sunderland Football Club; gets promoted, and then quickly finds themselves back where they started. However, like Sunderland FC, the presence of M is generally beneficial - they know the conditions and situations that prevail, they are genuinely passionate and committed to the ethos of the project, they are intelligent, they have technical skills that are lacking in most sysops, and they are fairly non conformist. That last has been a factor in past troubles, but has also been used to advantage - the ability to think up different solutions where others have failed is worth two dozen too conformist to break ranks admins that RfA has been recently generating. I trust MZMcBride to use his tools for what he sees as the benefit of the project, and hope that his idea of beneficial remains consistent with the consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support with mixed feelings. Many situations in life don't offer second chances. I don't believe adminship should either. MZMcBride's recidivism has already blown two chances, and now he wants a third bite at the apple. On the other hand, the disruption resulting from his creativity resulted from actions performed in the spirit of pointing out problems that ultimately help the project. I'll note that Wikipedia allows vandals four strikes; if MZMcBride is given a third chance, then it should be the final chance. I had a friend once, whose job it was in the Navy to sneak aboard heavily-guarded nuclear submarines and plant fake bombs aboard, to ensure that the security systems and procedures worked. You can bet it was disruptive when he succeeded. MZMcBride reminds me of him, except that my friend had authorization to be disruptive and MZMcBride doesn't. How does the saying go? If you want to break a few eggs, you need a loose cannon. I think. I reserve the right to flip my vote to Oppose or Neutral as the questions posed here get answered. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment on the validity of your support, but based on "if you want to break a few eggs, you need a loose cannon" I don't want to be anywhere near you when you're cooking breakfast. :) --  At am a  頭 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the phrase is "if you want to make an omelette, you need to break a few eggs". HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but my version may be more appropos! ~Amatulić (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Net positive. Really. He cares. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MZM is looking at this as a discussion on : He can be trusted. Know the allusion? The West Wing, specifically Mandy. He has the core goals of the project at heart. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs. He moved the ethical stance of the project forward re BLP. That's huge progress. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Despite it all, still a net positive. Wikipedia should be more forgiving than it currently is. Pichpich (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support MZMcBride made over 800,000 deletions as an administrator, more than three times as many as anyone else. I'm not happy with everything he's done, but I found his comprehensive response about the BLP list persuasive (I can't find this now, so any help locating it would be appreciated). His script skills, technical know-how, and productivity make him a net plus for the project.--Chaser (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I've changed my mind. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope you recycled the old one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody could afford it, so it's now in my basement. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * #I've looked through links and seen "last time". He seems very different now and so I give my support.  Mr. R00t    Talk  01:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I hadn't seen the BLP one. That's just disgusting. Definite oppose.   Mr. R00t    Talk  01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I edited this for formatting, I beleive it is what r00t wanted--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Tough call. Three big blunders: Userpages; Socking manual; BLP list. But in each case, I think the intentions were good, even though the consequences were not anticipated. Weigh that against his experience, the unique technical skills and contributions to the 'pedia, plus the ability to be incredibly helpful if he can. I think the deciding factor is that only the earliest blunder depended on admin tools, and he's learned from that. Whether or not MZMcBride has the admin bit, his other privileges are already enough to do far more damage if that was his goal. Net positive, and if the admin tools help the work he does, then he has my support. --RexxS (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Switched from neutral. After reviewing M's answer to my question, his insight into the reaction to his BLP experiment, and his commitment to respect the community in the future, I feel he has demonstrated an understanding of what he did wrong, remorse for same, and a commitment to improve.  Combined with his excellent work on the project and the increased ability to do more of it that the bit would allow, I believe that the project is better off with MZMcBride as an admin than without. I may be wrong, and I may get burned, but I'm willing to take that chance. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Wow, there wasn't nearly this much of a kerfuffle during the ArbCom case itself. It looks like a lot more people care about BLPs than did before. Something obviously worked. Mr.Z-man 04:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Agree with others who think he is a net positive, plus he seems irresistibly charming . - Josette (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support I agree he's a net positive, but the past issues are serious. AniMate 05:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Shame about the Arbcom case, but I still appreciate how much work this user's done to the encyclopaedia. Minima  c  ( talk ) 09:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving vote to oppose. Minima  c  ( talk ) 12:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Hmmmm.. ok. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I trust this user with the mop. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, it's not like I haven't done completely dumbass things in my time.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Were the candidate granted the tools again, unlikely though that may be this time around, I think it would end up being a net positive for the project. Past issues are serious, as noted below - and above - but the editor is, I believe, trustworthy. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support You have more clue than quite a few admins that I can think of. -- Chris 13:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Chris, et al. We've all done stupid shit in our pasts. Katerenka (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I am supporting to make up for those who oppose on the sole grounds that the candidate overturned the closure of this RFA. He was right to do so; it was inappropriate to close it early, given that this is a veteran editor. Chick Bowen 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I can sympathize with the claim that giving a banned user a list of unwatched blp's constituted poor judgment, but I assume good faith and believe that the candidate trusted this users intentions and sincerely was sorely mistaken about what a "breaching experiment" is. The list was never exactly super private information; it's not like the candidate knowingly enabled or participated in a pointy vandalism spree, at least as far as I can tell. The wheelwarring thing is ancient. I trust this candidate, and the candidate obviously has a compelling use for the admin buttons. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Unlikely to pass, but ErikHaugen sums it up above. There's a lot less to his desysopping than meets the eye; "the BLP list" consisted of MZM compiling publicly available information as a favor, not surreptitiously leaking the State Secrets of Wikipedia. MZM can be a self-righteous tool sometimes, but no more so than most others here and a lot less than most. – iride scent  16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Stones. Not slavish to process, I think he has a view on what we are here for in the first place and is not abided by cumulative druggerly, endlessly compromised, formulated, rules to interfer with that view. Per Epbr123 below, I think well intentioned is far more favourable than has spent 20 months vandel reverting, and has been coached to learned all the right answears to questions that have been in place for 3 or 4 years now. Rfa should not be a yes sir zombie factory. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) @Strong support, regardless of how pro forma it might be. DS (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Moral support.  MZMcBride has the potential to do great good.  I still have an optimistic belief that he can turn his onwiki career around if given the right support and motivation.  Bastique ☎ call me! 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) MZMcBride has not lost my trust, and my interactions with him have always been positive. Regarding tool use and all that, from what I understand, MZMcBride still has the Toolserver access which led to the second arbitration case; and his use of adminship was fine after his second successful request at RfA (and was good for the most part prior to his resigning the first time, in all fairness), and didn't appear to have anything to do with what caused the second case. I do think MZMcBride is a net positive to the project, and his work is appreciated here: I hope that he won't be discouraged by this request for adminship. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, certainly. My usual extra points for selfnom apply, so this actually counts as some ten or twelve supports. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Crats, ye know the drill, chalk up ten or twelve, call it twelve. Ceoil (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Does great work. The BLP list thing was dodgy, but well-intentioned. Epbr123 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  02:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Symbol support vote.svg Support. I would trust them with the tools. Avic ennasis  @ 05:24, 16 Elul 5770 / 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support From my brief interactions with him I've found him to be amusing, perceptive and honest (update wikistalk though!). TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Cautious support. Previously, I had been neutral-leaning-oppose with regards to this RfA, but after going over the ArbCom cases again and looking at his behaviour now, I think that MZM is most likely not going to make the same mistakes again. The BLP thing wasn't exactly the best idea, but I do think it was well-meant. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 06:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Yup. DollyD (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, same as last time. His judgment has been rash sometimes, but I trust his intentions.  I think he is clearly a net asset.  I suspect that most are expecting a better apology.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) someone has to cause more drama than me.--Scott Mac 12:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support He's a gutsy character who screwed up a couple of times and yet has probably forgotten more than many will ever know about this place, in spite of my disagreements with him in more than a few places..Modernist (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) says --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support The user did, as an admin, do something controversial off-wiki. However, the wiki wasn't actually damaged by that, beyond very transient (and harmless, i.e., not libelous, innocuous) hoax information being inserted in low-watched BLPs as a test. This kind of testing should be done more often, under supervision of the Research Committee, and MZMcbride's provision of information led to an efficient demonstration that there was a problem. We need more like him, not less. What ever happened to Abd (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Moral support MZ is like Marmite – you either love him, or hate [censored by the civility police] don't agree with him he doesn't agree with you. – B.hotep •talk• 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL...I don't know if your wording was intensional, but this sounds more llike an oppose than a support--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I consider him rather trustworthy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe that MZMcBride genuinely felt that what he doing was for the good of the project. Providing the unwatched articles was a daft move politically and indicates that he places the encyclopedia's interests above his own. – xeno talk 01:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said below, if he hadn't given it to a known sitebanned user, it might be forgivable. But that action has me seriously questioning his judgment.  I know that MZM is a netpositive to the project and that he has not destroyed the project with his other tools.  But it is these "daft moves" that prevent me from supporting---and then stirring the drahma nest.  Unfortunately, I fear that if he got the bit back, he'd be visiting ArbCOM again within a year.  It really is a shame.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support After reviewing the comments, and there were definitely some bad moves I still believe that this user is a net asset to the project with administrator rights. Forgive and forget, and move on Triona (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Learned my lesson after supporting the last one. Prodego  talk  06:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Too many chances given. In addition, most times that we have interacted, our encounters have been unpleasant. I am not sure that anything has changed since the last time he was desysopped and resysopped. ( X! ·  talk )  · @333  · 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: His refusal to accept defeat in this RfA shows that he still has the arrogant attitude that was pointed out in the later opposes. ( X! ·  talk )  · @270  · 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or "Being brave enough to again place himself in front of the community, the likelihood of not being granted the flags at this time has not stopped the candidate from allowing all opinion being voiced." I am unable to warm personally to MZM, but I have not allowed my feelings to cloud my judgement on whether he can be an effective admin and whether he should be trusted. That is the only criteria on which I based my support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be only be the case if there was any more opinion to be raised that has not been raised yet. MZM and I both know very well that there is no other opinion that hasn't been said. (And I know he knows it, due to his comments on other pages during this RfA) ( X! ·  talk )  · @767  · 17:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Twice abused his tools and resigned in the face of ArbCom sanctions. We don't need a third trip on this merry-go-round. Courcelles 07:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. As much as I would like to say "third time lucky?", I don't think this would be appropriate. The reason you were desysopped the last time was enablement of BLP vandalism by a banned user. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, certainly not. Salka (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
 * 4) Oppose I do not feel that I can trust you following the Arbitration case in January/February. I also note that you do not actually say what admin actions you would do - your answer to the first standard question seems very vague, although I appreciate that this may have been unintentional. Perhaps I can support in the future, but I can't at the moment --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I'm part of a cadre now... that's good, never been part of one of those before - do I get a t-shirt for that, and how do I get it? Seriously though - I feel the last Arbitration case is just too recent: I feel that MZMcBride does a great job here, and hope to support at a future time - I just think it's too soon at the moment. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose you have not given us an insight into the arbcom cases, what areas of administrative work you wish to take part in, my vote was in part due to the concerns raised and that I don't think that you have garnered enough trust from the community.  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Spare your time?  08:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Not with the candidate's history. —  ξ xplicit  08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I do not question MZMcBride's dedication to Wikipedia, but his last resignation was over a gross breach of trust on his part. Unfortunately, this nom does little to convince me that the benefits outweigh the clear risks. Rje (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose His caustic approach to me on my talk page, see this thread tells me all I need to know.  People can disagree with civility, and do, otherwise this place would be endless trench warfare.  He's had his chances and should find another way to help out with the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - mirroring the feelings Rje mentions. MZM's dedication is unquestionable but unfortunately his track record regarding adminship is less stellar. He has proven that he is likely one of those users which serve the project better if they were not granted adminship. I, too, have learned my lesson after RFA #3. Regards  So Why  09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC) PS: The way he reverted a crat decision to close this very RFA further demonstrates that he seems to be unwilling to accept that others might be correct. Furthermore, he simply reverted Joe's close without even trying to discuss it first - even if you believe you are correct, an admin should be able to discuss first and act later. Regards  So  Why  07:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Not impressed at being called a member of "the cadre" . General putdowns of multiple users is poor. Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Very Strong Oppose Disappointed about the failure to comment on Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2 in the nomination, which, given the serious nature of the accusations (helping a banned editor to edit unwatched BLP's and posting a list of techniques on how to beat sockpuppeting checks) leaves me with no other choice than to to oppose. Codf1977 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, although I do understand why MZM did what he did re: that ArbCom case in February - sometimes I also feel like I should have to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, but I never have done. In situations like this BLP qualm, I would prefer people in trusted positions to know when it's better to just walk away, safe in the knowledge that they personally can't and won't be held responsible if anything does go very, very wrong. - file lake  shoe  10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) I think Prodego above captures why this request is [rightfully] doomed.  Skomorokh   10:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Christ no. MzMcBride's one man campaign to show how important BLPs are by undermining the wiki and blaming ArbCom for everything simply because he's butthurt it actually sanctioned him for acting like a prize idiot does not require the admin tools. Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Not now and probably not ever: long-term history of drama, bad judgement and problematic behaviour, particularly while an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose due to risk of misuse of tools, and/or related drama. bobrayner (Clarification: There's a mixture of good and bad. I think that MZMcBride has done a lot of good work on wikipedia and hope they will continue to do so. The bad stuff is, I feel, largely admin related (or is a matter of temperament which is perhaps unsuited to situations that admins can find themselves in). Making a decision on the margin, I'm concerned that handing back the mop presents a risk of tool misuse; but that risk is not really offset by the potential for good work, because lots of good work could be done anyway as a normal user.) bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per Nsk92; I don't think that an admin who's twice relinquished their bit while a request for arbitration was pending against them is mature enough to have the bit. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Bad judgement with the tools more than once. Can't see why he needs them, and the risk of another "incident" must be significant. Plenty of good work in non-adminny areas though.Fainites barley scribs 12:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose per . MZMcBride shows a consistent and unfailing belief that his judgment is better than that of everyone else. This colours every interaction he has with other members of this project. It is an unacceptable attitude for an adminsitrator to have and it is little surprise that it has gotten him into trouble in the past. Last time I made the mistake of believing this had changed and did not oppose. Well, you know what they say: "Fool me once..." WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose - per Arbcom concerns. Suggest given the !vote that this Rfa be closed asap per WP:SNOW. Jusdafax  12:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong oppose mainly per the ArbCom situation, as well as abusive actions with the mop. ~ N S D    (✉ • ✐) 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) You were desysopped twice. No thank you. Tommy!  [ message ] 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Based on history, would probably abuse the tools. Townlake (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong oppose – His history, and of desysoppings, is terrible. I don't think he's ready for the mop yet. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose -per the candidates history with the Arb Committee and other issues--Hokeman (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose - abusing BLPs is rather disgusting. I would've been willing to reconsider if McBride had answered some of the questions put out by the community in an extraordinary fashion, but I don't see that happening. Strong oppose. Nomader (Talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose - Resigned the tools twice? I can't support a candidacy with a history like that. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose While I'm certainly desirous of granting admin rights if I can see my way through to doing so, in this case cannot. It might be a net positive to regrant MZMcBride admin rights. And the tools are amazingly useeful in doing one's chores. But so often trust comes down to judgment, doesn't it. Imagine you have a large office buidling and you give keyes to the offices to the cleanup staff. One of the janitors does something that loses him the keys with the trust. He comes back, and you decide to trust him again.. He then takes files out of an office and gives them to an outsider, so you take away the keys again. Can you ever trust him with those keys again. Dloh cierekim  14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess, to properly contextualize the analogy, your last but one sentence should read He then takes files out of an office and gives them to an outsider, to demonstrate a weakness in office security, so you take away the keys again. Also, the keys were not taken away but he gave them up (possibly just before the posse arrived to string him up, but, nevertheless, he did give them up). This is not to take away from the spirit of your oppose - which I understand fully! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Regents. You said it better. And I sincerely wish I could cross the line to the top section of the page. These hard RFA's are always painful for all of us. The supporters and the opposers only have what's best for Wikipedia at heart, but cannot come to terms on what that would be. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  18:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Regent's MzM didn't just take the files out to show a demonstrate a weakness in office security. If MzM had used the information himself, it would have been bad but possibly forgivable. Hell, if he and some other members of the Wikipedia communit in good standing had used it, it MIGHT have been forgivable. But, as I remember it, and if I remember it wrong, I apologize,  in giving it to somebody who was blocked/banned from Wikipedia, knowing that the person he was giving the information to was going to turn around and use it to deliberately cause problems on Wikipedia is irresponsible. In other words, to carry the above analogy, MZM wasn't demonstrating the weakness by giving it to a reporter, but rather selling it to a rival corporation/enemy who intended harm to the company from whom it was stolen.  It was in giving it to a sitebanned user that raised this issue to a more profound mistake than those who were involved with WP:NEWT.  NEWT was a mistake, but innocent and forgivable.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. A banned user is a banned user is a banned user. Still, I kinda like MZM's approach to things (though only as an outlier wrt general admin behavior) and I'm not going to pull the !lever in the other direction. Unorthodox behavior, with the good of the system at heart, can sometimes be useful in a system. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I think if you were to poll the people in the oppose section, I suspect that well over half of us would say, "MZM is a valuable commodoty to the project and he does a good job here." Unfortunately, two major blunders have cost him the trust in the community when it comes to giving him the bit.  Let me make that perfectly clear, the reluctance to give him back the bit should NOT be perceived as everyone saying, we "do not trust/respect/like MzMcBride," but rather, based upon past failures we would be remiss to give him back this particular set tools.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly loathe to comment in my own oppose section, but could you explain how the issues and actions involved in my second ArbCom case related to my status as an administrator on this project? That is, were any admin tools mis/ab/used? Admin influence? Anything of that sort? I think I'm missing your point. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote a long response, but think a short one is more appropriate. No, you did not use admin tools in your last round with ArbCOM, but you did use special access not granted to most users to facilitate vandalism to BLPs.  You betrayed that trust when you used priviledged access to help a person you knew to be site-banned.  Thus, you demonstrated judgment inconsistent with the minimum standards expected of administrators.  I know you retain your rights elsewhere, and that you are a valued member of the community, but that does not mean that we should be rushing out to restore them here.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer one of the supporters, I read both the Arbcoms. To say we are piling on unreasonably or unknowingly is in error. Dloh  cierekim  21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Sorry, but while I am a believe in redemption and supported you in your last RfA, loosing/surrendering the bit twice under a cloud is enough for me to comfortably say, "No."--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)  NOTE: I do appreciate your dedication/commitment to the project, you are an asset here, but there is no way that I could support you regaining the bit---your past abuse/lapses are too significant.  Unfortunately, they are not mere disagreements or momentary mistakes, but true lapses in judgement done in a premeditated/thoughtful manner.  Ones that I'm not convinced you realize are mistakes or agree with, that make it unlikely to ever support you.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Essentially agree with many of the comments in the Oppose section, including those of, , , and . -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Prodego. Nathan  T 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Unfortunately, you've simply lost all trust that I had in you with that last Arbcom case. The case itself was not that long ago and that whole situation left me guessing your judgment as an admin.-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: Some people should never be Admins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I was one of the 200+ people who supported you in your last RfA. Not this time. You had your second chance already and abused the tools, I'm not sure you can be trusted with them again. --  At am a  頭 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) You had too many chances that you blew. I would not feel comfortable with you as an admin.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - I don't feel I can support this candidate's request. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose In view of your previous actions with the tools (twice) I cannot support your becoming an admin again. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - Any editor that knowingly assists a vandal should not be an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me [three times], shame on me. You've twice proven that you can;t be trusted with the tools. In addition, you have serious civility problems. Every time I see your name, you're being uncivil, attacking someone, edit warring or doing something else undesirable. Far too many traits I don't want to see in an admin [again]. Sorry. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While the drama here is almost embarrassing to be a part of, the sheer arrogance, not of re-opening your RfA, but of this comment to the 'crat who closed it perfectly demonstrates why you shouldn't be an administrator. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I've actually gone back to read the Arbcom decisions rather than !vote here based only on the fact of them. I don't think they're disqualifying circumstances, but they were examples of privileges being misused. Sadly there is little acknowledgement of that in the nomination statement, and that does give a lot of credence to the opinion expressed by WJBScribe above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. One mistake can be forgiven, but two shows that you are not learning from them. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) No. A shameful failure to own and admit to your mistakes, instead ditching the bits before they were taken; this is coupled with acidic commentary at Wikipedia Review and a generaly arrogant attitude on Wikipedia. You'll just do it wrong again frankly, which is a shame. Pedro : Chat  19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Why are people supporting someone who essentially helped a banned editor to vandalize BLP's!? I can hardly think of a worse breach of trust short of MZM vandalizing them himself. I can't possibly trust him with the tools again, and can't understand why people are even supporting him. Appending: Flying in the face of consensus more than demonstrates that he is not suitable for adminship at this time.   The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume it's because the candidate had assurances that the banned editor did not intend to vandalize, and was under the impression that the user was maybe just going to watch the pages? Also the "help" wasn't really something the banned user couldn't have done alone. In any case, it is not clear that the candidate intended to aid in a vandalism raid. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in the abstract that giving a banned user confidential information that could be used to do damage to BLPs is grounds for de-sysoping them and opposing their RFA. But in this case I think MZM's role in causing that harm was limited because many minor BLPs do not have any active editors watching them, which is effectively the same as unwatched pages. Finding those BLPs that are effectively unwatched is probably not difficult. Enabling Greg Kohs was a bad idea, but what he got did not help him much. Weighing that against MZM's productivity and knowledge, I support, although not without some reservations.--Chaser (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I did not read everything [|here]. The drama outweighs his usefulness. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Ive got a bad feeling about this after reading the arbcom statements. There is alot of history here from MZM as an editor though Some good, Some bad. Ultimaetly this comes down to trust though. I just dont feel comfortable going in the support col for a third go around. My suggestion is to spend time rebuilding trust in the community. Right now i dont think is the right time. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my oppose While I somewhat agree with Pedro, and that pulling up the sticks to avoid ArbCom cases doesn't seem to me like a very honourable thing to do, I'm also uncomfortable with this necktie party. And to be honest I don't see very much wrong with the BLP experiment. The point needed to be made, whoever made it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - frankly, this request strikes me as extremely presumptuous. MZM doesn't make a clear case of why he needs the tools, or how he would benefit Wikipedia by having them; he just seems to assume he deserves them by virtue having been an admin previously. Well, it doesn't work that way. He's shown poor judgement on multiple occasions, sufficient for many of us to lose trust in him, and hasn't given good reasons why that trust should be given back. I would be prepared to switch to Support if he returned to this RFA and actually made a strong case for why we should support him, but as it stands I have to oppose. Robofish (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have very little trust in the judgement of MZMcBride anymore. The sheer number of bad incidents overwhelm the good experiences I've had with him. Adminship is not for everyone, and this doesn't prevent anyone from helping out on Wikipedia, but I simply cannot trust him with the tools anymore. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per Prodego, Nathan, and the above. Not at all comfortable with MzM having the tools. Blurpeace  21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose - After having read through this, there is no way that I can trust him with the tools at this time. To knowingly assist a BLP vandal is completely unacceptable. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, I have to ask (and this is a genuine question); do you see any lasting harm caused by it? Most of the reason I supported was because this seemed like a basic WP:POINT situation, just larger than most.  I wasn't around for this (I came in March), but I don't quite see how this did a lot of harm in the long run.  Breaching experiments can be a rude awakening, but they can lead to great improvements. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Was happy to be part of the massive pile-on of support last time, disappointed to feel compelled to oppose this time. Please keep up your quality work in other areas, I don't think the community can see it's way clear to granting the bits a third time anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I've seen some of his work and it is quite impressive. However, I just read the ArbCom case, so regretfully, no way.--  SPhilbrick  T  22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) No way I don't trust this user. Diego Grez (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I don't trust him either. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Ditto. It's unlikely this user will be an admin again. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) You can only get so many second chances. No. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per above. -- Zoo  Fari  23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I believe that MZMcBride has the best interests of the project at heart but I do not think that giving him back the admin bit would be in his or the projects best interests so I cannot support this request. Sarah 00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been opposed on similar grounds at RfA, that it's not in my "best interests" to become an administrator, and I frankly found that insulting. Still, enough about me. I'm quite sure that this candidate knows exactly what he's doing. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you kidding me? Which way are we trying to move this project? Although you seem to be a very helpful person and trustworthy I feel that I should do what I can to prevent you from getting access to information like that again. I like to consider myself a sort of Albus Dumbledore but am afraid that I'm just not feeling it. Sorry but I don't think we can ever give you these tools again.  Mr. R00t    Talk  01:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I did oppose, I think it's only fair to point out that the administrator tools were not used to gain that information. That information is not available to administrators directly; rather he pulled that information from the toolserver. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While that's certainly true, that's hardly a reason to support. It's like saying he should get his admin bit back because he only abused checkuser. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And this is why I opposed. I'm merely pointing out that statements like "prevent you from getting access to information like that again" aren't really applicable; he actually still has access to that information to this day (I think). -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and access to quite a bit more, actually. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As an editor, may well be a positive to the project. As an admin, past behavior, and lack of regret for it, is damning. Ray  Talk 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Per WJBscribe. Daniel (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose – Too many chances given by the community. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Per above, don't trust user after the Arbcom case not too long ago. Kcowolf (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - supporting a user with this kind of conduct and judgment for admin makes zero sense, unless the goal is to destroy this site. Crum375 (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to an established pattern of poor impulse control, most recently evidenced in the response to User:Throwaway85 above, stating that "in some cases, the opposes [to this RFA] are downright hypocritical, spiteful, revengeful, and/or brain-dead." Cindamuse (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I'd be happy to support someone as intelligent as MZMcBride to regain the bit, but the flip answers are similar to what got the editor in trouble this most recent time. It'd be nice to see a more sober approach to adminship. tedder (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong, strong oppose per The Thing That Should Not Be. That kind of behavior is simply unacceptable in my opinion. Access Denied talkcontribs editor review 03:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Sorry to pile on, but seeing this user un-close his own RfA after it was closed according to WP:NOTNOW really concerns me. Shows an inability to accept consensus, which is a most definitely unwanted attribute in an administrator. — GorillaWarfare talk 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Oppose per this. Clearly, you don't give a damn about following any policies or guidelines here, and your actions show that. I was pretty ambivalent about you having adminship before, but I don't think you get it. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 05:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per GorillaWarfare. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  05:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Now opposing per Nihonjoe. Sorry, but reverting the judgement of one of the people whose job it is on Wikipedia to judge RFAs? No, I don't think so. You still believe your judgement outweighs everyone else's, and your disingenuous responses to questions about what assurances we have that this has changed, well... clearly it hasn't. No mop, please. → ROUX  ₪  05:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Reverting a bureaucrat close of a clearly failed RfA? Are really sure you want more people to tell you how you are clearly unsuited for this job? Very well.   Sandstein   05:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - I wasn't going to vote in this one, since I didn't have any strong feelings either way. Overturning a bureaucrat close put it over the line. NOTNOW, and quite possibly NOTEVER. The Wordsmith Communicate 06:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose (moved from neutral) . This decision pains me. I can see the great contributions the candidate has made, but the actions that led to the ArbCom cases (especially the second one) showed extremely poor judgment, and the responses to the cases were dismissive and arrogant. But I was still open to supporting, depending on the answers to the questions above, and if I'd seen any genuine-sounding contrition and a bit of humility, I may well have switched to support. But I'm afraid all I see is more dismissive arrogance, and further poor judgment exhibited in the combative approach to this RfA. Sorry, but no. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Per the above, rather overwhelming, points supporting rejection.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) A leopard never changes its spots. Big  Dom  08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. After the fiasco in the last arbitration case, I do not have confidence in his judgment as an administrator.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now indenting my vote, which I think was a bit on the terse side. I think MZMcBride did great things as an admin, but is too controversial to be one again. Moving to neutral.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Since MZMcBride apparently wants the RFA to run for its full length, I assume that he wants the whole community to weigh in here. As such, here's my voice. What irks me most about all the incidents involving MZMcBride is his "I know best" attitude, which becomes more and more dangerous the more authority a person has. And anyone claiming that adminship is "no big deal" and "just a few extra buttons" is still living in the Wikipedia-world of 2003, when these things were actually true. --Conti|✉ 09:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Upon careful reflection, I've come to the conclusion that shameless arrogance and weaseling sliminess are evidently not good qualities in an admin candidate. Unfortunately, my less-than-good-faith support !vote was being out-ridiculoused by its neighbors, and thus I feel compelled to move down to this section, where the mood may be less jovial but where it's much less daunting a task to figure out where my neighbors craniums end and posteriors begin. Badger Drink (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While there is a limited amount of poetry in your oppose, I have to say that I find it to be one of the more offensive opposes that I've seen in a while. RfA is often a place where NPA gets pushed to the limit, but this oppose actually seems to insult everybody.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 11:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Badger, please refactor your comment. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do nothing of the sort. I apologize most profusely to those whose upstanding sensibilities are offended by my finding the repeated resignation of the tools simply to thwart ArbCom's attempts to remove them slimy, or the constant inability to question one's own poor judgement (and evident pride taken in such) being shamelessly arrogant, or the attitude the candidate displays in coming back yet again for the tools which he's been forced to resign twice now as weaselly. I could go further, and once more link to his view in the recent Climate Change RFC as an example of utterly pig-headed ignorance (people with accredited backgrounds in the sciences often support each other's positions - why, color me shocked), or point out the ruleslawyering in his response to oppose #30, or, or, or . . . Badger Drink (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * RfA is a rather poor place to be making personal attacks, such as "utterly pig-headed ignorance". Lots of crusty admin types with heavy hammers. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pig-headed ignorance" is a certain color of ignorance. It would take a strange form of autism indeed to imagine I was accusing him of having the actual head of a pig. Badger Drink (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Seems reluctant to talk about the previous desyssops, which were pretty abysmal cases in and of themselves. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Net positive to the project but cannot be fully trusted and causes far too much drama. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose MZMcBride, you've often impressed me with your poise, kindness and creativity. However, I was astonished when your BLP stunt came to light. The lack of judgment was immense. Opening a door to vandalize BLPs threatens the entire project. Break the wrong eggs and the entire kitchen implodes. Your answers do not convince me that you've been humbled by this yet. I don't trust you with the bits yet. If this were to pass today, I see more difficulties than benefits. Net negative. Kingturtle (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per past and present behavior & comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indented Oppose Established drama monger. Never. Vodello (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC) (Note: I am indenting my oppose as MZM sees this RFA as a joke, and while deliberately trying to create drama, he is cracking wise about wanting to have the record for "most opposes." He has said that he knew how this RFA would go, and is deliberately wasting the time of every editor that has voted. This is a disruptive, joke RFA that has no business being reopened. Per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 4, I am indenting my oppose. Thank you, MZM, for stealing 5 minutes of my time that I could've used on an article. Even now you do your best to damage the integrity of the encyclopedia, and you've successfully done it with this fake RFA. I am in full support of a bureaucrat banning MZM from ever requesting adminship again, as well as any disciplinary action for his admission of being blatantly disruptive. Vodello (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because that snarky comment didn't add to it or anything... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per this revision.  " Pepper " ( Talk )  15:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The fact that he refuses to realize this RfA is going to SNOW is enough to oppose. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"> <B>Allmightyduck &#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> What did I do wrong? 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, basically you're opposing this RFA because its failing? Refusing to end the RFA early is not the same as refusing to realize that it will fail. I don't see where he's said anything to indicate the latter. Mr.Z-man 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess didn't phrase that well. When he overturned Nijhonjoe's closing per WP:NOTNOW (see here it showed immaturity. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"> <B>Allmightyduck</B>  <B>&#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> What did I do wrong?  04:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not, extremely strong oppose Moreover, I believe the MZ ought to be subject to a ban on applying for adminship. Basket of Puppies  15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Several times the contributor has lacked respect for other editors, which is a very important requirement for an admin. Equilibrium is the most important quality of an admin. I think that you should leave aside disputes, keep the good contributions up and retry in a year or two. --  S ulmues (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The candidate has repeatedly shown an immense lack of judgment, respect for others, inability to create drama, and ability to accept consensus. He most certainly does not have my trust. Laurinavicius (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Inability to create drama is hardly something I would oppose for! ;-) Killiondude (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it was intended to read like: "...an immense lack of the following four items: judgment, respect for others, inability to create drama, and ability to accept consensus." 67.136.117.132Also 174.52.141.13817:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No thanks - per all above. Connormah 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Mainly to move one step closer to WP100 when hopefully youll no longer object to this divisive RfA being closed. Just in case you are open to constructive feedback, one issue is that no matter how talented or charismatic you are theres a limit to how long you can get away with trying to control events with force and power plays. Force provokes opposition. It takes more energy to persuade folk and it feels worse if your ideas are rejected, but when it works instead of leaving the other side feeling resentful you bring them along as collaborators and that way you can achieve lasting change. I also think you should work on being more respectful to folk with different views. Folk wont forget the unparalleled contributions youve made for the project. If you still want the tools in a years time and theres been no more major drama Id be happy to to support. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) From a dude whose opinion is entirely devoid of prior contact or involvement - the answers you have written carry a very negative mindset. Its more like "why I don't really want to be, or shouldn't be an admin." You need more time to cool off and build a better history - you're maybe looking at more than a year from now before a return to adminship. Keep up the commitment and all the best -  Shiva   (Visnu)  17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - You've really done some good work for the project and I can see that you had good intentions, but after the BLP incident, the secret pages, and everything else mentioned above, I'm not ready to trust you yet. You haven't even taken the opportunity to at least partially explain yourself to the community by answering the questions better than you have, but in a year, maybe less, if nothing else goes wrong, I'd be open to supporting you. ~ <i style="font-size:small; font-family:Arial; color:#666990;">Qwerp</i> Qwertus  Talk  ツ   17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose MZMcBride's comments are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of particularism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel, the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of scapegoatism. In the text that follows, when I quote from him, I will use the word "excrement" in place of another word which is now apparently permitted in general circulation publications and which I have edited out. MZM keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. The purpose of this deception may be to delete articles at random. Or maybe the purpose is to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging MZM's bons mots. (Oh, what a tangled web he weaves when first he practices to deceive!) After having read this, you may think that bettering the world is apparently the last item on MZMcBride's "to do" list. Nevertheless, you should always remember that I am not complaining about that. 64.134.70.207 (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indented !vote by anonymous user -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. His evasiveness and clear unwillingness to address his previous desysopings except via lame handwaving is completely unacceptable.  Admins should be accountable and he's trying to avoid it.  Xihr  19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.I  was on  the fence  after doing  my  own  research, and I  nearly  stayed completely  out  of this one (like not even going  neutral). I  think  Malleus support has a point  about  the BLP,    but  now after following  up  on  some of the opposes such  as those of Ciçndamuse, GorillaWarfare., and Boing, and the lack  of a convincing  self-nom as to  why  he really  wants the tools again,  I'm  not left  left  warm  to  the idea of him  being  an admin again. He's a great  asset  to  the project in  other ways and he can still be that  without  the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Generally nasty, with plenty of issues. I'm stepping outside of my "writing-only" box for this RfA. <span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;padding:1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em"> ℳ ono   00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Never. MtD (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per attitude to this RFA and general arrogance. Graham 87 01:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Nope You had your chance, and you blew it. TWICE. Is this some kind of joke? ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Sorry No, seeing arbcom cases... Pilif12p : Yo  02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - I still do not trust you and your judgment, and your recent behavior especially during this RfA in regards to the reverts of its closure exemplify the arrogance and holier than thou attitude which makes you unsuited to be an administrator. The two trips to ArbCom apparently have not had the intended effect, and I have no clue as to what will. -MBK004 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Too many judgment issues for me, sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. I opposed your 2nd RFA, stating "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."  I don't see that you have changed, so I must again oppose.  --Kbdank71 14:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. I have just watched ArbCom take great care to decide another complicated case, and in general I wouldn't expect any user with an unfavorable ArbCom record to carry the mop. The unresponsive answers to questions from the community are also very troubling. No hard feelings (I haven't personally interacted with this candidate at all), and best wishes for future participation in various Wikimedia projects, but I don't feel comfortable, on the basis of this nomination file, with the candidate having the mop. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Oppose per Nihonjoe and others.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Make that a Strongest possible oppose per the closure revert and ArbCom (I didn't read it before because I thought it would be really long; it's actually really short). The ArbCom demonstrates a severe lack of judgement before, and the closure revert demonstrates a lack of judgement still now. (seriously, this thing is 35/100, how much longer do you want to let this play out?)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose somehow I missed the last RfA in which I would have opposed for lack of judgement regarding the out-of-process userspace deletions. When you had the tools given back you abused them even further. Your recent removal of the bureaucrat's close of this RfA indicates even more that you are too reckless for the tools.  Them  From  Space  19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of order, when he got the tool back, he did not abuse the administrative tools further. He did abuse trust that he had from WMF related to the toolserver, but they decided to let him keep his access and (according to him) he actually has more access to the DataBases today than he did then.  In all reality, MZM has the ability to cause more havoc to Wikipedia via tools he has elsewhere, than he could if he had the Admin tools restored.  (This does not mean that I support adding to his tools, I don't trust his judgment and find him to be somewhat a drahma queen.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per much of the above... maybe in the future, but unfortunately this run is likely to taint future RFAs... MurfleMan (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose - Per the closure revert alone. That shows this user is clearly not even following the policies and rules as an editor and should not be given tools of any kind anytime soon. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) As many others have commented, I don't have any doubt that MZMcBride's intentions are good. But MZMcBride's judgment is another matter, and I was concerned with the manner in which the BLP issue went down - the decisions made in each step, from providing the information to responding to initial queries, raise enough flags that I can't support. - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) TTTSNB (#45) said it best. Sorry. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Civility issues and previous trouble make me reluctant to support, but I would oppose anyone who made that kind of closure revert. Bart133 t c @ 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - When I saw this RfA, I was reluctant to go to the trouble of reading all the way through the ArbCom stuff and was going to skip over this RfA. However, as soon as I saw that he unclosed his own RfA and said 'Fixed' to the closing beaureaucrat, I knew I could make a decision without even needing to read through the ArbCom stuff. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Someone that blew his second chance so egregiously should not get a third (or a fourth). Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I supported giving a second chance in the previous RfA. However, judgment issues have continued since then as pointed out by many other users. MZMcBride seems to have good intentions, but they say the road to hell is paved with them... Captain   panda  16:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Would be best to stick with non-admin contributions. Deli nk (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - This user has good intentions. Unfortunately, for us, he has abused these administrator tools and has also been incivil. I think he will never be given a third or fourth chance, because if he did, that will cause a lot of trouble for us users. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose.  I opposed RfA/MZMcBride 3 in August 2009 (diff).   I oppose this one as well.  – Athaenara  ✉  22:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose.  Q  T C 22:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Nice guy (y'know, when he's not being sarky or blunt :)), but not at all what we need in an administrator. Which is a shame, because he is technical prodigy compared to me. Oppose.  AGK   23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Regretful Oppose too much baggage for me to support as an admin. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 23:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Thank you for all the work you have done that makes it easier for users to edit. But allowing a banned editor to edit unwatched BLP's, posting a tutorial on how to defeat sockpuppeting checks and reverting a crat close is too much. —Sandahl (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose (moved from support) Has shown poor actions in relation to our encyclopaedia, especially in the second Arbcom case. Since MZMcBride has responded to that contributor who wanted to know how to sock without getting caught, that contributor might have said "Thank you" and done the dirty stuff. Sorry, I know I supported in the first place, but I learned a lesson about how bad that action was. Minima  c  ( talk ) 12:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Why do something constructive here when you can piss and moan at a place like Wikipedia Review? Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2 is simply an example of over the top stupidity by anyone, let alone an administrator. Aside from the needless creation of drama, the motivation for said drama was and remains flagrantly obvious to anyone with ten minutes of experience using Wikipedia; vandalism is easy. As an admin, it is your job to use the very tools that you abused on behalf of K to prevent people from doing that. Next time, take such a list and add the list items to your watchlist, or enlist the assistance of interested users to do the same. Without knowing much about bots, someone could have probably automated this process, and with the semi-advent of approved revisions, that process could also probably be automated into a bot as well. Instead, you displayed all the maturity of a 12 year old and took the most dramatic and least constructive action anyone here could conceive of. Well struck. I stood up for you in the past, but this time you really dug yourself a hole. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the above is not true. The tools he abused are not Admin Tools, but rather tools that he didn't lose.  He still has access to those tools.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Never let facts stand in the way of a dramatic RFA vote. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - per Hiberniantears. Couldn't have said it better myself. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose In the past I supported some of what the candidate was doing, however the ignore all rules activities to prove points was seriously out of order, and it will be best for Wikipedia if these cannot happen again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral As much as I would support you (I did on your last one) the whole de-sysoping incident background is a bit concerning. Maybe in a year or so you'll get my support. Good luck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - on the fence at this point. On the one hand, history of poor judgement and admin arrogance. On the other, blocks are cheap; desysoppings less so but I imagine that should events come to a head in that case Arbcom would act swiftly based on history. These two positions are in pretty tight balance. I await answers to questions. → ROUX  ₪  07:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The responses to questions have been... uninspiring, to say the least. Disingenuous might be closer to the mark. While I certainly don't want MZM to grovel and abase himself before the community, some indication that he now understands his judgement was wrong, and some indication of how that won't be happening again would go a long way towards showing that despite past actions he should be trusted again. The lack of this shows much the opposite, but there seems to be a periwinkle's chance in a supernova that this will pass, so I'm not moving my vote to oppose. → ROUX  ₪  04:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I don't usually care about the content of the nomination statement, but given that you have previously been desysopped by Arbcom, it lacks an explanation of why and what you've learned, and would therefore suggest that Roux's negative opening sentence appears to still be the case. That said, other than knowing that I've seen you in wikispace, I'm not familiar enough with you to oppose at this stage. --WFC-- 08:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. On the plus side, I see someone who has made a lot of great contributions and is clearly genuinely dedicated to the project. But on the minus side I see a bit of a loose cannon who has been in conflict with policy and with consensus rather too often and has clearly abused the admin bit quite seriously. I really need to see more answers, which need to be sufficient to convince me that the candidate has changed enough to be trusted again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now read the past ArbCom issues, talk page discussions, etc, in some detail. And what I saw wasn't pretty - some woefully poor judgment, refusal to accept he did anything wrong, and an apparent general attitude that he's always right. However, the candidate's obvious intelligence, technical skills, and tremendous contributions mean I really do owe him a chance to speak for himself, partly by answering the questions above, so I'm staying neutral for a while longer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) ( Move to oppose, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC) )
 * 1) Neutral - pending answers to Questions 4, 5, 6. I know they are optional, but without those points addressed I could not consider support.  Begoon  talk  09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Leaning oppose. I'd like to see 4, 5, and 6 answered.  I'm not completely opposed to supporting MZMcBride, but I'd have to see a pretty damned good reason for why the community should restore the bit.  This would include a much better explanation of what MZ intends to do with a regained bit than the one given in the nom statement and 1. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)  Switch to Support
 * 1) Neutral - I still think you might, overall, be a net positive with admin tools. I supported last time on the basis of your otherwise excellent commitment and competence - but the whole banned-user BLP experiment was a real lapse in judgment and in trust, and I'm not willing to support again at this time. ~ mazca  talk 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I was considering a moral support, but then I remembered what happened with BLP deletions. No need for me to pile on, because you're clearly not getting the tools back this time. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per Ayn Rand. Sorry dude; with the current climate and processes, it ain't gonna happen. I think you know my thoughts on that, so I won't elaborate here; I think you're great, you've helped me a lot, etc. etc. You are a net positive, for sure, with or without tools.  Chzz  ► 17:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ayn Rand? The eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher? harej  18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. While I like the work you do, I can't say I agree with some of your recent run-ins with arbcom.  That in mind, I don't think that warrants either an oppose or support.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral unfortunately. Although I would really like to support (Bejinhan sums my thoughts up quite nicely), you've had more than one chance. Sorry, Airplaneman   ✈  18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) If there were any prospect of this passing this would be a NO way! oppose but since this is clearly going to fail I'll tuck this down here to avoid piling on. Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral i would like to see you have more experience before i would support you. Inka  888 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know, this candidate was once an administrator. wiooiw (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's been here several years, has made over 70,000 edits and runs a bot. How much more are you looking for, 5 years, 200,000 edits, and 200 FAs? Please read the entire statement above before saying something like "he needs more experience."  — fetch ·  comms   22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I require at least 5,000 admin actions before I will support an RfA. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He has 800,000+ admin actions :) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I was inclined to support strongly, as my own limited experience with this editor has been positive. But then I saw the arbitration cases and believe that this &#8220;breaching experiment&#8221; is problematic.  Bwrs (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, but just because I don't know every blow of the saga. I do recognise more of the supporting names as cross-wiki, and somewhat wise to technical issues and hazards. Those who think someone should keep secrets about vulnerabilities, might do well to read this. Exactly how many of those opposing could have developed, implemented, and applied fixes within application of the Rapid7 disclosure policy? But, was anyone listening to what the threat/risk was? --Brian McNeil /talk 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral harej  18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I think you do really good work for this encyclopedia, and normally I would be inclined to support you. That said, your past experience with Arbcom keeps me from !voting Support. In addition, your repsonses to the questions posed in this RfA have been very vague, to the point of giving identical answers to two questions ("I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you be a bit more specific?"). You also didn't respond to clarifications on two questions that you answered vaguely, which leads me to think less of supporting you. I'm not saying you should never get your admin privileges back. I'm just saying you should wait a while longer before regaining the tools and that you should answer the questions posed in a little more detail. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (changed to cautious support)
 * 1) Neutral - this is a hard decision for me to make, i had no idea that such behavior had been shown in the past so that's why i cant really support. This user had always been helpful to me and i saw no signs of disrespect whatsoever. This just lead me to put Neutral. -   Dwayne   was here!   &#9835;  01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Entirely confused by anything arbcom related, I don't think I have the necessary judgement to !vote. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - Flash mobbed, ouch. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) This is not so much a neutral as me refusing to put myself in either camp. Since I'm a former arb you probably have a judgment against me already, so placing myself in either support or oppose would mean nothing. No doubt that MZMcBride is hard to figure out. On the one end, he's amazing with the toolserver, and I'm a regular user of his database reports. Many of his deletions were great as well, and I respect that part of him. That being said, one thing that bugs me about wikipedians in general, let alone admin candidates, is when they blindingly hold grudges. There are users who I've had conflicts with and usually disagree with, but when they do something smart I acknowledge it. What I see from you is someone who will blindingly go against any person or group who's wronged you, whether right or wrong. Arbs aren't perfect, and I know I wasn't a perfect arb, but I read the noticeboard, and when your comments end up not really being related to the noticeboard topic, and instead are just your usual bashing, it makes me wonder if you can let things go. I actually don't mind the crat undo too much since it's your RfA, if you want more ammo fired at you then so be it. I'm naturally forgiving, but the RfA community certainly isn't, so the mound of opposes doesn't surprise me. It's a tough question in the end, though. Would I trust you with adminship in terms of the tools themselves? Most likely. Would I trust you with adminship in terms of the position, the figurehead status, the intangibles of the position? The two cases combined with the BLP incident makes it hard for me to. All I can say is just keep concentrating on those database reports and the like, which luckily you don't need the admin tools for. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I am a regular user of MZ's database reports & find them greatly valuable - and would offer support, but at this point it ain't got a snowball's chance... Would support next time if good behaviour continues/grows. Skier Dude  ( talk  05:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I can only assume this is meant to be some kind of joke or social experiment. Otherwise, I would oppose on balance of the candidate's behaviour.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm still opposed to MZMcBride regaining adminship, but I decided that I don't want to be embroiled in a negative, dramatic pile-on. It holds no benefits in the long run.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) I would support if you had waited a year since the last RfA, but it looks like you only waited 361 days 12 hours 6 minutes and 1 second. And I really dont think that's enough time to learn from your mistakes.   —  Soap  —  22:30, 30 August 2010 (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.