Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 3

Stats
Username: MZMcBride User groups: ipblock-exempt First edit: May 31, 2005 22:25:15 Total edits (including deleted): 68,372 Deleted edits: 7,210 Live edits: 61,162 Namespace totals Article	10854	17.75% Talk	3708	6.06% User	2027	3.31% User talk	7862	12.85% Wikipedia	4138	6.77% Wikipedia talk	1120	1.83% File	21989	35.95% File talk	88	0.14% MediaWiki	408	0.67% MediaWiki talk	413	0.68% Template	7167	11.72% Template talk	1123	1.84% Help	5	0.01% Help talk	1	0.00% Category	73	0.12% Category talk	142	0.23% Portal	28	0.05% Portal talk	4	0.01% Graph 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	905	 2006/06	1112	 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	1680	 2007/06	676	 2007/07	82	 2007/08	1538	 2007/09	1967	 2007/10	372	 2007/11	566	 2007/12	711	 2008/01	22908	 2008/02	3379	 2008/03	2252	 2008/04	965	 2008/05	860	 2008/06	1163	 2008/07	2011	 2008/08	1304	 2008/09	1243	 2008/10	640	 2008/11	3907	 2008/12	1016	 2009/01	871	 2009/02	870	 2009/03	1599	 2009/04	617	 2009/05	693	 2009/06	753	 2009/07	497	 2009/08	141	 Logs Users blocked: 159 Accounts created: 9 Pages deleted: 804945 Pages moved: 1058 Pages patrolled: 359 Pages protected: 7286 Pages restored: 571 User rights modified: 1 Users unblocked: 116 Pages unprotected: 922 Files uploaded: 56

Subthread between Timmeh & xeno

 * Did you read the part about Kingpin asking MZM to "please explain" if there were any explanations for the behaviour he identified? –xenotalk 22:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the part that said, "I really wish you would have asked me on my talk page or somewhere else before making judgments about my editing (and opposing)," that I was referring to. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer editors raise issues with directly with me prior to a central venue as well. /shrug. But noted. –xenotalk 22:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, these are legitimate concerns, and there's no reason they shouldn't be brought up here. They may hold weight in other editors' !voting decisions. If the concerns can be addressed by the candidate, that's perfectly fine. However, those were legitimate concerns related to how well MZMcBride may perform as an admin, and publicly "wishing" that the editor would not bring them up here or oppose over them is not appropriate, IMO. Maybe it's just me though. And don't worry, I won't oppose based on MZMcBride's response. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think MZM's comment was more to say, that they wished they would've pinged them first, (or even way back when), so they could talk about it and Kingpin could've made a more informed comment. I see what you are saying, though. I moved this thread to the talk page because it's getting lengthy and distracting. Hope that's ok. –xenotalk 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand MZM's reasoning for wanting that. In fact, I had very similar feelings about some of my RfA's opposes. I just think that the tone and wording of MZM's comment seemed a bit confrontational and that maybe it didn't need to be said at all. About the discussion move, I think you cut off the last sentence or two of my last comment. Tim  meh  ( review me ) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. And thanks for explaining. –xenotalk 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My "inappropriate" question

 * Fact is, I trust MZMcBride with everything except the delete button. I'm quite happy for him to be able to see deleted material, to block users (not that he will), to protect pages, etc.; it's deletion that's my concern.  Because I recognise his dedication to Wikipedia, but I think he sees Wikipedia's processes as obstacles to be circumvented.  So I wanted to be able to support his candidacy if he'd agree not to delete things. I'm sorry if I offended anybody by my question but I assure you it was asked in good faith.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also do not read the question at all as inappropriate or offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * People are just overly sensitive about RFA for some reason. Apparently some people consider it a grave offense to say something other than "OMG amazing, super-duper-ultra-power-ranger support".  Friday (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't please all of the people all of the time... I think the question was perfectly legit... the answer didn't satisfy your concerns so you opposed. Anybody who raises concerns is likely to have one or two people object.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not innapropriate of offensive, per se, but the only right answer to it was the one that MZMcBride gave. I'm glad that no one asked me a similar question (they asked one vaguely related), because I'm sure I wouldn't have answered it as well as he did.  We don't need networks of admins limited by various promises made to do this or that or not do this or that (With some obvious exceptions).  We need an admin who the community trusts.  Now it's obvious that you don't trust him w/ the delete button.  That's fine.  But attempting to extract a promise not to use it in order to assuage those concerns sets a bad precedent.  So I don't feel bad that you felt some pushback for answering that question and I have to disagree w/ Balloonman above--you didn't get responses merely because you raised concerns. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, look at the oppose section of virtually ANY RfA that passes, on those RfA's a large percentage of the Opposes will garner responses. Heck, even this one has quite a few.  He didn't get it "merely because" but he got it "in part" because...if you oppose or raise a concern, you have to be prepared for the possibility of others objecting.  It happens every day and you have to expect it.  Whether the response is justified or not, you have to realize that it is a legit possibility.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mind a bit of pushback, Protonk. :)  Pushback's good, it means there's something to discuss and it's an opportunity to clarify. As for setting a precedent, I fear that cat was out of the bag long before my question to MZM.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion on the RfB talk page about the "problem" that opposing votes get hassled while supporting votes (like mine at this point) get marked off as g2g. My response there pretty much encapsulates my feelings on the subject.  good or bad, opposes get more scrutiny than supports.  It is a function of the RfA structure (mostly) and human nature.  I was pointing out that here my complaint rested solely on the question itself and not the fact that it girded an oppose vote. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a problem, but part of the discussion aspect of the process... but I'll address my thoughts on the RfB page instead.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat, hence the scare quotes. :) Protonk (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason I brought it up was the "quid pro quo" nature of it, and the complicated rules such an admin would be subject to. Of course with any RFA question there is the implication that someone's support or opposition is dependent on your answer. That's why we have the questions after all. Somehow spelling it out in that particular way didn't sit right with me. I certainly wouldn't agree to such a thing. There are already a million separate criteria that vary from one user to the next that influence which way they will vote. Negotiating on the specific admin powers a user would be permitted to use does not strike me as a good idea, as it would create new "layers" of adminship. Unless technical restrictions were used to grant only the specific tools the admin agreed to limit themselves to, there would have to be policing to insure they were not breaking their agreement. I'm not suggesting any sort of policy or limitation on the questions, but I think in a case like this, if I truly did not trust the user to wield the tools, I would just oppose them, and note in my oppose reasoning which tools I did not feel the should be trusted with and why. (Which is, in fact, what S. Marshall did do in the end.) There is I suppose, also an emotional component. I would feel bad for anyone who actually agreed to such a thing, I would feel like they had been thoroughly humiliated in front of their peers. Failing an RFA seems better than to me than winning it with such a compromise. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My objection to the question is that if this, or any future, RfA passes on someone accepting a voluntary limitation to their tool use then the majority of future RfA's will be littered with participants requiring similar restrictions for them to approve - and the likelihood that very many of these "requirements" will conflict with others. In short, the gladiatorial arena that RfA currently is will become a simple riot. I would suggest that a carefully worded question in the manner of "Do you believe that your perceptions of consenus in the past regarding X may have been flawed, and that you now would only delete under an improved understanding of consensus?" Only if you are satisfied with the answer need you approve, and other participants may or may not follow your example as they see fit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The assumptions that underlie the above answers are that: 1) All admins should be generalists, and it is not appropriate for any admin to be restricted to areas wherein they have expertise and/or the trust of the community; 2) RFA participants should oppose a candidate rather than try to place restrictions on them; and 3) It is therefore better to have fewer active admins than to have more active admins, but specialised ones. I find these assumptions questionable.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the assumption is that should restriction requests become practice then many RfA's will have participants requiring the applicant only work in area X (say, AfD closes) while other participants will request they stay clear of X - within the same application it will be impossible to both the candidate and other participants to arrive at a compromise that works (and pity the poor bureaucrat attempting to determine consensus!) Yes, it is best to oppose and support on the basis of responses to questions relating on how they will conduct themselves within certain admin disciplines. Simply, your preferred solution of restricting some part of the ambit within the Request process will open the floodgates for similar and contrary requests in all future RfA's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And what of the enforcement angle? If you don't trust someone with certain admin tools, surely you wouldn't rely on the honor system to insure they did not break their agreement? Someone or several someones would have to be appointed or elected to oversee these agreements, creating a whole new layer of "middle management/parole officer" admins with less time to devote actual work on the encyclopedia because they would have to constantly be checking on all the admins who had agreed to such deals. We do need more active admins, but we don't need admins who are hobbled by ill-considered deals they made in order to get the tools, and we don't need more complicated infrastructure and regulations. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with both of you. To LessHeard vanU, I would say this is not established custom and practice, it is a proposal made (and rejected) at a single AfD.  Your argument about how dangerous it would be if it became general seems to me to be a slippery slope argument, which is a kind of logical fallacy.  How would you answer that criticism? To Beeblebrox, I would say that if I didn't trust the user to abide by voluntary restrictions, then I would not seek them.  In MZMcBride's case, I trust him to do what he says he will do.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have been easier to support this candidate if he'd accepted S Marshall's deal. This is such an exceptional RFA i think the community would be wise enough not to treat the deal as establishing a precedent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by "It Is Me Here."
re: ''Oppose, for the simple reason that you explicitly stated in your answer to Q1 that you aren't going to use sysop tools. It Is Me Here.''

A: ''I don't have any plans for any substantive administrative work right now. I imagine I'll mostly use the tools to do routine maintenance (looking up broken redirect targets for people, etc.). My activity levels have been reduced lately due to meatspace and the psychological drain this place can have.''
 * MZM response to question:;


 * It is me here - I'm not trying to badger, or even attempt to change your views - but I did want to point out that MZM "explicitly" stated "substantive" work, and goes on to explain that he would use the tools in a "routine maintenance" fashion. My understanding from that would be that he would use the tools when the need presented itself - but would not attempt to do in any "massive" manner such as "mass deletions" or such.  I believe the work in BLP areas would indeed call for a use of the tools, even if it was not in a inordinately frequent fashion.  — Ched :  ?  17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am missing something here, but if MZMcBride wants to fix broken redirects, then they don't even need to be autoconfirmed for that (as long as the redirect pages aren't semi-protected) - when would they need to use sysop tools?  It Is Me Here   t / c 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It Is Me Here, my impression from MZMcBride's answer was that he wasn't going to participate in any "one" admin area, and instead, was planning to use the tools when the need presented itself (i.e. dealing with vandals he comes across, editors requesting admin assistance, etc.); note where he said "I imagine I'll mostly use the tools to do routine maintenance (looking up broken redirect targets for people, etc.)." The "broken redirects" part was merely an example he listed, not the sole place he planned to work in. I expect MZMcBride admin logs when resysopped to be like my current admin logs: using the tools for maintenance, which is how a lot of admins use their tools anyway. Hope that helps. Best. Acalamari 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He might mean a redirect that is leading to a redlink, he would need special:undelete in order to view the old target. –xenotalk 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm a little flabbergasted by an oppose which suggests that the canddiate doesn't need the tools when the candidate is still on the top of the charts for admin stats. If he uses them 1/5th the amount that he used to, he will still be more active than the median admin. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not flabbergasted at all, please see my neutral !vote and Q. 17 along with the candidate's answer which does clarify things, though I'm not sure the candidate espouses the same views of what he'll do as his supporters above. In any case, it is certainly logical for someone to question whether a person should be an admin who when asked what admin actions he will take, says what the candidate said (what on Earth is substantive administrative work?).  I'll wait a little longer to see if I am convinced enough to vote in support but again, the answer to Q.17 helped clarify and should settle this matter.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, after the answer to Q 17 and the points made here, my concerns have been allayed and, as such, I shall switch to support.  It Is Me Here   t / c 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)