Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2

General user info Username: MZMcBride User groups: ipblock-exempt First edit: May 31, 2005 22:25:15 Total edits (including deleted): 59,746 Deleted edits: 699 Live edits: 59,047 Namespace totals Article	10258	17.37% Talk	3600	6.10% User	1963	3.32% User talk	7411	12.55% Wikipedia	3526	5.97% Wikipedia talk	849	1.44% File	22000	37.26% File talk	88	0.15% MediaWiki	425	0.72% MediaWiki talk	379	0.64% Template	7193	12.18% Template talk	1107	1.87% Help	5	0.01% Help talk	1	0.00% Category	69	0.12% Category talk	141	0.24% Portal	28	0.05% Portal talk	4	0.01% Month counts 2005/05	1	2005/06	1	2005/07	0	2005/08	0	2005/09	0	2005/10	0	2005/11	0	2005/12	9	2006/01	59	2006/02	9	2006/03	53	2006/04	665	2006/05	906	2006/06	1115	2006/07	700	2006/08	490	2006/09	178	2006/10	218	2006/11	209	2006/12	140	2007/01	145	2007/02	138	2007/03	362	2007/04	475	2007/05	1681	2007/06	675	2007/07	82	2007/08	1539	2007/09	1975	2007/10	373	2007/11	569	2007/12	714	2008/01	22930	2008/02	3381	2008/03	2259	2008/04	965	2008/05	862	2008/06	1165	2008/07	2027	2008/08	1322	2008/09	1308	2008/10	643	2008/11	3909	2008/12	1022	2009/01	872	2009/02	873	2009/03	1608	2009/04	420	Logs Users blocked: 159 Accounts created: 9 Pages deleted: 804945 Pages moved: 1009 Pages patrolled: 358 Pages protected: 7286 Pages restored: 571 User rights modified: 1 Users unblocked: 116 Pages unprotected: 922 Files uploaded: 56

Extended off-topic discussion under Caspian Blue's !vote

 * 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)
 * How can ArbCom have made anything very clear while they are still deciding? And how can you say he learned his lesson when in fact he was under an ArbCom injunction for the last month that forbid him to continue deleting stuff? I'm not trying to badger anyone, I really don't, but I am genuinly puzzled how one can assume those things...  So Why  06:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose they could take an unprecedented U-turn, but on this particular point the matter is very clearly settled (12 votes to 0).Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) - My understanding was that, at the time, the injunction was merely to pause so that they could assess the evidence, not that they felt he had done anything wrong at that time. So I'm not sure if I understand your argument, at least on that point. - jc37 06:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But ArbCom has changed multiple things within the last days in that proposed decision and may still do it. The point is, there is no ArbCom ruling on the case. Just considered proposed rulings.
 * My point is that if ArbCom came to the conclusion that he did make mistakes with those deletions (and it looks like that, see proposed findings #2, #3, #4.1, #4.4, #5, #6, #9.2), there is no way to know whether he learned from those mistakes and will be able to follow policy in future because he was barred from making any deletions at all (and still is, should this RFA pass before the ruling is final). So how can one say he learned from it when there are no actions to judge that from? Regards  So Why  07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would anyone relocate this unrelated comments from mine to the talk or to the discussion lot?--Caspian blue 07:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "So how can one say he learned from it when there are no actions to judge that from?" I do not understand your point. &mdash;Dark talk 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To phrase it differently: If he has not done any deletions at all, how can we judge whether he will not perform controversial deletions again? It's like saying "He stopped randomly shooting people after we took away his gun. Since then he has not shot anyone at all, so we can assume he learned from it and give him back his gun". Regards  So Why  08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what it is like, as doctors in hospitals and grievers at funerals will attest. What it is, as opposed to what it is like, is a judgement call. It's not about whether MZ might kill people with his gun, it is about whether we are prepared to believe in redemption.  If MZ gets it wrong again, that's something we would have to deal with. Luckily, we are capable of dealing with it, and we can deal with it better if people refrain from bad comparisons.  Let's just stick to the facts.  It keeps things on an even keel. Hiding T 08:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SoWhy, i still do not understand the logic of this. Are you saying he cannot prove he has reformed because he cannot do deletions currently? But how can he prove he has reformed if he does not have the sysop bit and cannot do deletions? Does your gun comparison shows that you believe MZMcBride cannot reform? &mdash;Dark talk 08:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that we have no indication whether he has really reformed or not because as long as the ArbCom case is pending, his actions may well be influenced by the fact that ArbCom might sanction him further if he does not show acceptable behavior. Point is, he is currently not in normal circumstances and to know whether he has changed, we need to follow his contributions under normal circumstances for some time. Non-admins can show whether they understand policy as well as admins can, multiple candidates here failed RFA mostly because they did make basic speedy-tagging mistakes (mistakes that MZM has shown time and time again when deleting pages). Without his sysop-bit, he could for example show he changed by following the appropriate venues for things he wants to see deleted. If he went around tagging everything with, we would know he hasn't changed. If he sought deletion at the appropriate WP:XFD instead (as he should have done with those secret pages), we might say he understood it. But while the ArbCom case is pending and 1,5 days after resigning his sysop-bit is not really enough time to judge whether he really has changed. Regards  So Why  09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay.. I had the wrong perspective. &mdash;Dark talk 10:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion to hold
I'd like to make a motion to hold this RFA "as is" with all !votes kept in place for this RFA to be restarted when the RFARB closes. It is best we get through the RFARB and sort out the morass. It might also give this RFA a better chance to suceed.--Ipatrol (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious?  Syn  ergy 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone else had proposed this nomination, I might be inclined to agree; however, since MZM was the one that put this into motion, I'm more inclined to believe the intent is to see the outcome at this time. — Ched : ?  13:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)