Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/MZMcBride

MZMcBride

MZMcBride (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

I'm moderately active around Meta-Wiki and I feel the bureaucrat tools could occasionally be useful. I continue to believe that the role of a bureaucrat is largely a failure of the underlying MediaWiki software. For example, ideally one day users would be able to rename themselves. However, Special:ListGroupRights indicates bureaucratship still has some extra useful tools and Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat seems to indicate that having another active bureaucrat around here would be a Good Thing. I'm a bureaucrat on mediawiki.org and test.wikipedia.org (cf. Special:CentralAuth/MZMcBride), though I believe both of these were unelected positions. Respectfully submitted for consideration. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose Nope, not after this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how this situation could be repeated here as ad-hoc promotions obviously do not happen here on metawiki. Vogone talk 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Vogone: @PiRSquared17: that is almost entirely irrelevant. I personally think he does not take the role of bureaucrat seriously in general and the fact that policy prohibits it here doesn't mean he automatically won't do it if he could do it with impunity (evidently he thought he could do that incident with impunity because local bureaucrats there can't desysop). I can never support anyone with a history of that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose. While I have never doubted MZMcBride's commitment to Wikimedia as a whole, or his technical proficiency, I have concerns about his judgment, which is one of the primary characteristics of a bureaucrat. Besides the incident Jasper mentions, which directly involves the bureaucrat tools, the candidate has also resigned twice from English Wikipedia adminship, under controversial circumstances: 1, 2. Also, as this is Meta-Wiki, we do expect bureaucrats to interact with people from many different projects, and the following discussion gives me doubts about his ability to do so: [1] In short, I just don't see this role as a good fit, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 06:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I suppose given the mediawiki.org "incident," it's unsurprising to see that you and Jasper opposed. (At least you had the decency to wait more than four minutes!) Those arbitration cases are nearly half a decade old—I like to think that I've grown and matured since then. It seems excessively petty on your part to bring them up here. The English Wikinews is a dead project with an incredibly hostile user community that uses indefinite blocks as punishment rather than prevention.

    Perhaps you and Jasper could work together to find a few suitable candidates to nominate for bureaucratship here, given the apparent interest (i.e., be constructive rather than destructive). Or perhaps you two could work toward eliminating the user group altogether, as it's superfluous and only adds to the wiki's... bureaucracy. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

    • Given your blocks last year on en.wikipedia, I don't think so, unfortunately. As far as the English Wikinews, I would have to agree that the approach they took towards your bot was poor, to say the least, but I think your response escalated matters and made things worse than they could have been. --Rschen7754 19:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Rschen7754: You know, I could frame you as an editor who's been repeatedly blocked on the English Wikipedia for vandalism and other editing violations. But that wouldn't be fair, because those blocks are many years old and have no relevance here. Many of your comments here are unfair and are unbecoming. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose. While I agree that an extra crat would be useful, I'm not sure MZMcBride is the right candidate. Per Rschen7754 also. Trijnstel_talk 10:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Though I agree that MZMcBride might be a controversial candidate, I personally trust his judgement and believe he would be a helpful addition to the bureaucrat team. Vogone talk 14:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I've known MZMcBride for at least 5 years. While there have been a few bumps in the road - I guarantee every long-time user has those. Lets pick our battles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Per Vogone. MZMcBride is never afraid to share his opinion on an issue, regardless of controversy, and I appreciate that kind of honesty. At the same time, I doubt he will take that so far as to close RfAs to prove a point, so I am comfortable with this. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose while I agree all long term users have issues and may be controversial once or twice but two Arbitration cases, controversial promotion of users and in general a far too 'over directive' attitude to issues and as linked by Rschen, that particular issue, I just don't feel they are right for the job yet with their recent history. Short; Per Rschen and Trijn's point. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have a lot of respect for MZMcBride, and he's done a lot for Wikimedia, but the monumental lack of judgement displayed in the sysopping of Fram on Mediawiki and related events left me with the distinct impression that this user should not hold the ability to promote others to positions of trust on any Wikimedia wiki. He's a good admin and does a lot of good work on multiple projects in that role, but he is very much unsuited to the responsability of being a 'crat. It's not like we're hard pressed for 'crats here anyway. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Using a phrase such as "monumental lack of judgement" suggests, to me, that giving Fram a few extra tools on mediawiki.org directly harmed that project. Is there any evidence to suggest that it did? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That is not the standard, but yes, you clearly harmed the project thru your lack of judgement in promoting a user that was just blocked for "Intimidating behavior/harassment" and the immense amount of drama and waste of everybody's time that it caused. The user should clearly never have been promoted, had no interest in doing anything on mw.org other than incivility directed towards devs he disagreed with, and was clearly unsuitable for what you describe as "a few extra tools". The point remains that you hold these very rights on two other wikis, and in both cases you've clearly shown that you do not have the required judgement. On mw.org you promoted Fram and ignited a firestorm of unnecessary drama, on testwiki you promoted a globally locked cross-wiki sockpuppetter as admin, on the very same account that was locked (Hurricanefan25). This attitude is quite the opposite of what I look for in a metawiki 'crat. I'd like our 'crats to be wise, thoughtful and diplomatic in their actions, to seek to protect the projects from controversies and possible issues (by avoiding rushed actions on requests within their discretionary purview, such as temporary requests), not firebrand activists. There's places and roles where firebrand activists who seek to stir up controversies and mix things up are very useful, but 'crat is definitively not one of them. I respect your work, your principle and your willingness to speak (and act) on your ideas and beliefs, but this is not a role suited to you. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I add for the benefits of those not familiar with the mw.org situation that MZ promoted a user to admin 2 days after they had been blocked for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: You were warned that these edits are not condoned, and your comments on your talk page are quite incivil.". The user subsequently (after the +sysop was removed) went on to be blocked again for the same reason (with talk page access removed). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Does granting adminship to a user on testwiki really matter? Was he identified as a "sockpuppeteer" at the time? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Does it matter? Probably not, but it goes to show how MZ approaches the +crat toolset. The user was already locked at the time the +sysop was granted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Snowolf: Err, it's a test wiki and I did a large number of user rights adjustments as part of testing related to MassMessage. Looking at User:Hurricanefan25, User talk:Hurricanefan25, testwiki:User:Hurricanefan25, testwiki:User talk:Hurricanefan25, and testwiki:Special:UserRights/Hurricanefan25, perhaps you can explain how I would've known this user is globally locked?

            In any case, what was the issue? If the account is globally locked, the user rights change on test.wikipedia.org was no-op, wasn't it? I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing what point you're trying to make regarding test.wikipedia.org. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

            • I would expect a meta 'crat to be able to check whether a user is or isn't locked, and I expect a 'crat on any wiki to look into the history of users they're promoting, especially when they do so motu proprio. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Your expectations are unreasonable, particularly for a test wiki. I don't know of a bureaucrat on any wiki that checks for the presence of global locks before adjusting user rights. I don't believe there's any place that this requirement is documented and it seems to have been made-up in the course of this request for bureaucratship. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
                • The fact that you consider my expectation of proper checking on a user's history unreasonable goes to the core of the essence of why I'm opposing your request here. I also note that I check a user's history in my role as a testwiki 'crat and have declined multiple requests because of users' history on other wikis. I think it's common sense, and your interactions during this request only seem to reinforce my opinion that you do not seem to take the role seriously. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • I suppose you and I have very different ideas about user rights on test wikis. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Snowolf: Re: "clearly unsuitable," I think it's fair to point out that Fram is an administrator in good standing on the English Wikipedia. It feels pretty rude to me to suggest that Fram is "clearly unsuitable" to be an administrator when he's volunteered in this role on a sister project since 2007 (he's actually been an administrator on the English Wikipedia longer than you :-). --MZMcBride (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
        • A user blocked two days before for intimidating behavior/harassment is unsuitable for adminship. Whatever they (or me) might have done on other projects is highly irrelevant (it isn't entirely irrelevant, but it is irrelevant in comparison with activity on the project in question). Should I take it by your statement here that you're standing by Fram's suitability as a Mediawiki sysop two days after being blocked and in light of all that happened after? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Some people would say that a user blocked for disruptive incivility should never be made an administrator (or a steward). But I don't agree with those people because context is very important and block logs are often misleading. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
            • False comparison. I was not appointed steward by a random 'crat, I was elected by the Wikimedia community. Same goes for admin (except on testwiki). As such, the community made a judgement, not a single user. I also note that the block in question stemmed from a misunderstanding (an error in language, not intent, on my part, due to my then lack of knowledge of the English language) that was pointed out even before the block was issued. It was removed within 6 hours of when it was issued and I've addressed it during my RfA on the English Wikipedia. I notice a distinct lack of willingness on your part to admit that you made any error in judgement in your actions on mediawiki, and a lot of statements pointing to irrelevant and unrelated things in an attempt to deflect criticism. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Question: What would you mainly use the tools for? The SUL finalization seems to be indefinitely on hold, but when it happens, it will mean RenameUser will only be used by stewards. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wherever I can help out, whether it's user rights or bot flags or user renames. Ideally I think we should find a way to kill the bureaucrat role entirely (to reduce bureaucracy and empower elected admins), but similar to SUL finalisation, that's a long-term goal. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• support, no big deal. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I think he will do a good job, but I agree he has been in some controversies before. The MW.org incident should not happen again here (as Vogone said above) as we require a request for adminship. MW.org does/did not require an RfA. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rschen7754 --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Deng and Rschen. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Is this sarcastic? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Probably not. Vogone talk 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  (No. If you have the likes of Deng and Rschen opposing you, then you're probably doing something right. With all due respect.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you. I'm much more disappointed in the other oppose votes here from users I respect (Trijnstel, Snowolf, et al.). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'm glad to know that you consider at least two dedicated wikimedians not worthy of your respect. This is exactly what we want from our 'crats. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  When people talk about how hostile and toxic Wikimedia wikis can be, I think they're partially referring to the type of grudge-bearing and ax-grinding on display on this page. You're right that I don't respect users who engage in and promote such behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with ax-grinding, as I would not have started off my oppose with "While I have never doubted..." I just don't think the role is a good match. --Rschen7754 22:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I could have also opposed based on what I've seen from him on IRC, which tends to be in my opinion rather immature and indicative that he takes nothing seriously if he has the slightest disagreement with it (for example, he often treated the op tools in #wikimedia-ops as toys, and when I voiced concerns about it to other ops, he told me to "behave" as if I were a troll). I have no ax to grind, as it would not be the end of the world if MZMcBride were promoted. But rather frankly, his comments on this RfB really look like the pot calling the kettle black. If he wants to regain my trust to the point where I could support a further request for advanced rights, he has to assure me that he will take the bureaucrat role seriously. I don't want to use the word "trolling" here, but I've heard others on IRC describe the incident I mentioned as such. I don't care how bad enwikinews' community might be and even if they are as bad as MZ describes it, they deserve basic respect I think MZ is not willing to give.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose just from the interaction on this request, without even taking into account the linked to events on mw, wp, and wn. KTC (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Seems like Snowolf's concerns about people voting on this request who wouldn't usually after it was discussed on IRC were justified. Edit: Seems like KTC was the one who started the discussion on IRC, though it did seem strange since they've never voted on a Meta RfA before. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Sigh. There were no "discussion". Someone pointed out there were a RFA on en.wp, I noted there were a RFB on meta. I have WM:RFA on my watchlist, and already saw this request this morning when I was at work. No, I haven't commented on a request before. I've only made requests here for different rights multiple time before. Please assume some good faith. -- KTC (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, I got the time order wrong - I thought I was looking at someone who had never voted here before and who had seen a discussion on it in IRC. My mistake; I've struck that part of my comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Despite trusting MZMcBride to use the rights correctly, I consider we should give the 'crat flag to active users within meta maintenance. MZMcBride's last logged action was now nearly a month ago, and further activity as an admin isn't impressive either (rights log, blocking log, deletion log,...). Some reactions on this RfB are also disappointing. Savh^ñ 00:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've watched this discussion unfold over the past day, I find myself wanting more and more to disengage from Meta-Wiki as I no longer want to be as closely associated with many of those who have become the regulars here. A wiki's culture is certainly expected to change over time, but it's becoming clearer to me that here on Meta-Wiki, the culture isn't improving. I think the user rights scheme on this wiki is broken and I think we should fix it. This request was my attempt to volunteer to help out, but the vindictiveness, hypocrisy, and stupidity of some of those who have posted here make me question my overall involvement here. Please consider this a request to close the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)