MZM back on RFA, voters already handing him his ass Options

[CharlotteWebb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/MZMcBride_4

Mr. McBride has a super-majority of 100 voters opposing him after only 24 hours. I realize this is probably non-salvageable but I hope he keeps it open and sets a new record.

MZMcBride (talk · contribs) – 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! :-)

Oh, is that really all it takes? I submitted a patch once myself but it was rejected because it contained IE-unfriendly CSS.

In all seriousness the toolserver folks were the only ones in a position to sanction him. As such he should not have resigned.

[Anonymous editor]

look at his answers to people who are asking about previous desysoppings:

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?

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?

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.

someone should vote "Oppose I'm not sure I understand this RfA. Can you be a bit more specific?" or "Oppose Experience and understanding come with time. Give it about ten years."

[MZMcBride]

look at his answers to people who are asking about previous desysoppings:

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?

Interesting that you left out the 350-word answer to the follow-up. What does that say about you?

someone should vote "Oppose I'm not sure I understand this RfA. Can you be a bit more specific?" or "Oppose Experience and understanding come with time. Give it about ten years."

You say that as though it would be funnier or more pithy than the current set of opposes. Account creation is free; go wild.

Still hasn't withdrawn RfA even though his odds are impossible and he just looks like a fool by now.

Well, better to look like a fool than be one. Or something.

Welcome to the Review, bluejayfan. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Anonymous editor]

look at his answers to people who are asking about previous desysoppings:

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?

Interesting that you left out the 350-word answer to the follow-up. What does that say about you?

Baloney. That was your initial response to the questions. Zero attempt to explain at all. It took an awfully long time for you to respond at all. The tally stood at (38/93/13) when you finally did.

What does that say about you?

Consider this my oppose based on not even bothering to go into the whole thing, which is what people care about when someone is trying to get back the tools.

The smart move would have been to cut it off at the pass by making a statement at the beginning. But no, you couldn't be bothered. Then several people ask about various things related to the desysoppings, and instead of giving an explanation you knew people wanted, you chose to stall with "be more specific", when the questions were perfectly plain.

Then when pressed, you finally gave some kind of acknowledgment of the issues. Terrific. If you want plaudits for that, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Somey]

Baloney. That was your initial response to the questions. Zero attempt to explain at all. It took an awfully long time for you to respond at all. The tally stood at (38/93/13) when you finally did.

What does that say about you?

That he has a low tolerance for bullshit? That's just a guess... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Two of the person(s) asking the question(s) about his "previous admin incarnations" (wtf kind of word-choice is that?) characterized the incident that led to his last "desysopping" as "helping a banned user vandalize unwatched BLPs." That, right there, shows just how utterly clueless, sheep-like, and insular the WP Faithful really are, at least as far as BLP issues are concerned.

Having said that, I can sort of see why they wouldn't want him to be an admin again, based strictly on his ability to "play nice," which has clearly decreased over time. (No offense, MZM - it's actually supposed to be a kind of back-handed compliment, in fact. Btw, does anybody remember if he played nice early on? I don't have time to research that question at the moment.)