Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 4#WP:-100.3F

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)

This is crass and unnecessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:"Crass and unnecessary" just about sums up RfA I'm afraid. You surely couldn't have expected any other outcome. The ever-present danger with RfA of course is that you may find it such a bruising experience that you withdraw from wikipedia, which would be a shame. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::No, I didn't expect anything different from RFA. I've been here a bit over five years now, after all—I know the ropes pretty well. ;-)

::However, I thought Ironholds still had dreams of adminship on this project, and a comment like that seems to indicate the opposite. Just a bit confusing to me. *shrugs* --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Since you say that you expected this outcome, you shouldn't have made the RFA in the first place. You knowingly wasted the time 142 editors and counting that took the time to vote on this RFA, several with extensive rationales. This is an encyclopedia, not your own little production of Days of our Lives. I feel sorry for your supporters. You're in no position to speak of decorum. Vodello (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Who are you? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::A "dream" of adminship? Sounds like more of a nightmare to me; you really are confused. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::::A dream to him. Some of us know better. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::::: You left the question unanswered. If, by your apparent implication, you knew the outcome of the RfA and didn't really want the sysop bit in the first place, why waste everybody's time?  Xihr  19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::I think you need to re-read the conversation. I said the comment was crass and unnecessary. Malleus said that I should've expected that from RFA. I said that I did expect it, but that I was surprised by this particular person being so crass. I'm not sure what other "apparent implication" you're trying to read into this. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a page for a record number of opposes? I'd really like to go big or go home, as it were. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:If you get 100 opposes I'm sure we can make you a nice page all of your own ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:(ec)There are several people who have reached WP:100 for opposes. There are two on the list and I think that there were one or two others that are not there, probably at their request due to BLP. Danny has the most at 118 opposes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::I'm sure I could have beaten that, perhaps even set a new record, WP:-200. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Yeah, but MzM might set a record for the fastest to 100 opposes! how do I put a smiley on this to keep it cheerful/positive/humorous as intended---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Perhaps if MZMcBride urged his supports to switch to oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::::MZM, I admire you for not flipping out and ranting at everyone at least. -- Atama頭 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::::I swear I remember Ottava Rima canvassing for opposes at one point by doing that. {{mono|:)}} Might have been why he got a massive flood of neutrals. NW (Talk) 02:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Ottava is one of the people I know had 100 opposes but is not on the list (again presumably at his request.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

: If you expected this to fail and are going for a record number of opposes, how is this not WP:POINT?  Xihr  19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

::It's unclear to me 1) what is being disrupted and 2) what is the point being made? –xeno^talk 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

:::1) Adding completely unproductive weight to the WP:RFA page, 2) Point is for MZM to set a record for evidence of not being trusted by this community. Seems kind of obvious where I'm sitting. Townlake (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

::::That doesn't appear to be WP:POINT, at least not as that page is currently written. –xeno^talk 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::It's disruptive for the sake of satisfying the candidate's curiosity. Don't get me wrong - I actually find this RFA quite entertaining - but the candidate has stated clearly the real reason this RFA remains open. It's an oil plume in a sea of legitimate RFA candidacies. Townlake (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Xihr: You seem to be reading a lot more into my comments than actually exists. Take a deep breath, try to assume a bit of good faith, re-read what's been written, and then maybe your question will be resolved. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing that out there. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:No one's claiming you did, but you did play an active role in it, even if you were just trying to illuminate some very real concerns with BLPs. For what it's worth, I'm largely in agreement with you in regards to the problem, and even with your inquiries into it. Security through obscurity is terrible practice. That said, the form your experiment took left a very sour taste in many people's mouths. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::[Regarding your last sentence] Yes, absolutely. Probably far more so than I could have imagined. Though, looking at it then and looking at it now, I've reached the same conclusion: a lot of the anger seemed to stem not from the fact that it was "experimenting with biographies" as much as it was a "banned user". An infamous one at that. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Agreed entirely. You'd probably still have the bit if you just made a sock account and did it yourself. Provided you reverted all of the changes after your experiment was done, there would have been some recriminations, but I doubt things would have gone as far as they did. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

{{anchor|Reverting a Not Now close}}

With due respect to all our hard working bureaucrats, is it really such a bad thing to revert a 'not now' close? I should think that it is at an established editor's discretion whether or not he or she wants to go the full monty on an RfA. In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say that Nihonjoe should not have closed this without checking with MZM first (it should have been fairly clear that he wanted to go the full length of the RfA). Or is it just that dissing bureaucrats is considered outré? Either way, I am surprised at the outrage.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:Me too. Especially for a former admin (and editor in good standing), a NOTNOW close was completely inappropriate. NOTNOW is for newcomers and people inexperience with RFA. MZMcBride is neither of those. Yeah, bureaucrats have the discretion to close RFAs early, but they ought to respect the candidate just a little bit more. MZM wants it open and that should not be held against him. Aiken ♫ 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::I think most of those opposing for this, like myself, are less troubled by MZM's wish to have it open but by him reverting Joe's close without attempting to discuss it with Joe first. If someone closes an AFD in a manner I disagree with, it's both policy and basic courtesy to contact the closing admin and discuss it with him - instead of simply reverting his or her actions as I saw fit. The same basically applies here. We select crats (amongst other things) as a group to watch RFA and do what is necessary and if one of them makes an RFA-related decision based on this community mandate, we should respect that enough not to simply revert it. I don't think anyone really opposes because MZM wants it to stay open. But probably because of the way he expressed his desire. Regards SoWhy 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::{{ec}} Using WP:NOTNOW was not intended as an insult to MZM, so I would appreciate it if people would stop attributing that reasoning to it. It was meant in the literal sense (as explained on my talk page), nothing more, nothing less. It's very obvious to me that the general consensus here is literally "not now". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::WP:NOTNOW is not necessarily a consensus thing. Any editor in good standing may close a clearly failing RfA. However, this should be done with caution and good judgment. If there is any doubt, posting to the candidate's talkpage and asking them about their RfA is often a better course of action than abruptly closing their good faith attempt at adminship. Note that some editors prefer their RFAs to remain open, even if clearly failing, as the feedback is useful. Note the caution and good judgement, the part about 'if there is any doubt', and the part about editors preferring that their RfAs remain open. I don't think that anyone thinks you're trying to insult MZMcBride (I doubt if that is possible!) but, I do think your not now close was not a good idea. Given that the close was not a good idea, I would suggest cutting the candidate some slack here. Also (to SoWhy), I don't think an editor in good standing needs to discuss this when he/she wishes to continue the RfA. It is their right wish to do so, and there should be no need to defer to the 'authority' of a bureaucrat. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Nobody has the 'right' to keep an RfA open, but 'crats do have the responsibility to close them. One of their tasks is to close RfA's when it is apparent that they are going to fail and to evaluate when keeping an RfA becomes more of a distraction/disruption. As I said elsewhere, I think Joe was within his rights and responsibility to close the RfA as he did. I also think MzM would have been perfectly within his rights to request that it be reopened and that for somebody like MZM, said request should be followed. But the notion that anybody has the right is mistaken.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Refactored above. Right or wish, I don't see the RfA as disruptive (MZM has been extremely polite) and WP:NOTNOW is quite clear on stating that editors may wish to keep their RfAs open. Finally, a not now close is an 'any editor' close, and there is no reason to defer to bureaucrat authority in reopening it. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::There hasn't been enough drama lately. I can't see opposing for not allowing the snow. Doing so has certainly energized the opposition though. It would have been better not to have closed per snow without contacting the candidate. If it wasn't snowing before, it is now. Dlohcierekim 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

:::::FYI Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures doesn't presently have any guidance on early closures by bureaucrats (though there is text at WP:RFA#Decision process that concerns it). –xeno^talk 15:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=380941062 my comment here]. Other than what has been said here and at BN, it seems that three users had expressed concerns at Nihonjoe's talk shortly after the close was made, but without much of an effect. Another user now also sees a trend where Nihonjoe has rushed into a situation without full consideration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::Crats have a limited function. Early closure is not among them. As long as he didn't edit war, I would say MZM was within his rights.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::While WP:BUR supports your statement, it is at odds with WP:Requests for adminship/Front matter#Decision process: "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open." –xeno^talk 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Touche. Suggest at some point the rough edges be polished off BUR so others aren't misled as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::I suppose it has very limited guidance, in that it links NOTNOW. Could definitely use some polish. –xeno^talk 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::: One half of me thinks that we should go with WP:BUR as that page is probably the more authoritative with regards to the precise role of a bureaucrat. The other half thinks that any attempt to further waste the community's time by prolonging a discussion which is settled (with a resounding no as the outcome) should be met by a kick in the face and a loud shout of "IAR!". With all respect to MZM, this is done. AGK 22:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I speak for nobody else, but for me it was the manner in which MZM reverted the close. Nihonjoe notified him on his tpage why he had closed it. MZM merely reverted the close, and his one-word response to Joe was 'fixed.' This demonstrated the exact same admin arrogance that got him in so much trouble with Arbcom before, showing that IMO nothing has changed. Had MZM simply said "actually I'd like this to stay open, please" and waited for Joe to revert it himself, it would not have been grounds for me to oppose, as it would have shown that he's willing to discuss first and act later. Not sure about anyone else.→ ROUX ₪ 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::Good point. The laconic responses may just be stoic, but they are not helping the candidate's cause. Dlohcierekim 18:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't think stoicism is the purpose of the responses. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&diff=prev&oldid=380805306 This] pretty clearly indicates MZM wants this kept open for sheer amusement value, and not for any insights he might gain. More to the point, his characterization of neutral voters as 'too chicken-shit to oppose' is alarming, to say the least. →ROUX ₪ 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Because of that edit, this RFA should be closed immediately. He's knowingly wasting the time of every editor that has participated in this RFA. While we talk about irrelevant procedures on snow closures, he's laughing about his fake RFA. Close it so that people can go back to editing articles while a bureaucrat bans him from making any more RFA requests. Vodello (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::In my spare time, when I'm not running the entire Internet, I've been learning mind control. True story. It allows me to force people to spend their time writing pithy opposes and supports at requests for adminship on an online encyclopedia. I kid you not. I don't have this page on my watchlist. Perhaps you should try the same? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::Reasonable. Let's just let this run its course. Anything to break the endless tedium around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Roux, that's now how I read that edit at all. AGK 22:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is forced to come and waste their own time here. Nobody, least of all MZ, is stopping anybody from editing articles. And nobody but the community/Arbcom can ban someone from RFA. Definitely not a bureaucrat. Aiken ♫ 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BRD! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am at a complete loss to see how this RfA does not qualify as a "not now" closure. The outcome is clear, and keeping this open (even should MZM want us to) is an utter waste of time. AGK 22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

::Which feeds into the questioning of his judgment... by insisting that it remain open and creating the drahma surrounding it, it is just another log on the fire. He may not have liked Joe's close, but when it was closed (even if he thought it was done improperly) he should have left it closed knowing that reopening a doomed cause would not amount to anything. But MzM relishes drahma as it follows him around.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)