Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Mazca - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keepscases~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 11 June 2009 (→Questions for the candidate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:56, 11 June 2009 by Keepscases~enwiki (talk | contribs) (→Questions for the candidate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Mazca

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (34/2/1); Scheduled to end 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Mazca (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen,
it’s an honour for me to present Mazca (signature: ~ mazca ) to you as a candidate for adminship. To begin with the formalities, Mazca made his first edit on Misplaced Pages more than three years ago, though he became really active in March 2008. Since then he has done over 4,500 edits — a fair amount of them in the main space.

Whilst Mazca is admittedly not our most active featured article writer, he is rather active in the technical areas of the project. As for the main space, he mainly does a lot of (vandalism) clean up and copy editing (for instance , , ). There, in the technical areas, he has shown outstanding work: I have found him making very valuable contributions in a huge amount of deletion debates, also providing evidence of strong policy knowledge by that contributions. Furthermore, Mazca occasionally comments on noticeboards (mostly WP:AN/I) and on project talk pages (mostly WT:RFA) — in my opinion, those comments indicate that he has exactly the right character/temper for an administrator. Finally, he contributes regularly to the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk.

Altogether I believe Mazca would be an excellent administrator: He has an exemplary tone, he is extremely helpful, diligent, polite and he is fairly familiar with our project and its rules. — Aitias // discussion 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by EVula

While I believe Aitias has done an excellent job of explaining how the project would benefit from Mazca being a sysop, I've long hounded him to run an RfA, going so far as to offer a co-nom, which is why you're being subjected to my ramblings right now. :) I've known Mazca for well over a decade (a fact that made us both feel prematurely old), as he and I are both moderators for Ambrosia Software's webboards. We have both held those positions since 2000, which (in my mind) is a testament to how trustworthy he is; in that time, he's garnered a reputation for being both good-humored and fair, knowing what the rules are (and when to apply a light touch), which is something that definitely translates into his on-wiki activities (for example, I've seen him do exactly what his answer to question #3 states). He's shown a clear interest in (and understanding of) the underpinnings of the community, and (as Aitias mentioned) he's posted ample sensible commentary on WT:RFA. He's also able to avoid merely parroting "Keep" or "Delete" on AfDs, writing rationales that show a clear understanding of what is (and isn't) appropriate content on Misplaced Pages (the fact that Aitias and I both find that to be one of his strengths should definitely be telling). This project-level activity is a good counter-balance to his mainspace contributions (which Aitias has already touched on), making him a very well-rounded administrator candidate.

For the TLDR crowd, Mazca having the sysop tools would be a net gain for the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks to both of you for the nomination. I accept. ~ mazca 16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:From my own point of view, the place I'd find the tools most useful would be at articles for deletion and deletion review. While I'd obviously assist in closing old discussions; simply having the ability to view deleted articles would be an immense help - relying on Google's cache at deletion review is at best irritating and at worst highly misleading. The other area I'd likely make use of the admin toolkit would be in speedy deletion - I often notice CAT:CSD becoming backlogged during my regular editing times, and I'm sure I could do my bit to keep it clear.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: My contributions are generally minor and varied. One of the reasons various people have had such trouble poking me into requesting adminship is that I really don't have any serious article-building to point at: I copy-edit and reference things as I come across them, but the biggest single-article work I've done was some serious referencing after someone drive-by nominated Iron Maiden for GA despite it being nowhere near ready. My real-life job involves writing rather a lot of tedious referenced prose: hopefully I can be forgiven for not doing very much of that here, in my free time! Certainly, most of my real effort to help the project has come in Misplaced Pages-space: I take pride in doing more than just "!voting" at AfD and RfA, and I contribute to a wide variety of discussions whenever I feel I can be of use. As I'm sure you'll notice if you wade through a sample of my contributions: at some point, I've stuck my nose into almost every part of the project; I've just never focused my efforts greatly on one aspect.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm not a big fan of "arguing on the internet" in general; I do not seek conflict and generally choose disengagement over continued confrontation. With particular thought to some of the more contentious AfD debates I've participated in, I find the secret to productive discussion with people of differing viewpoints is to recognise when productive discussion has stopped, and you're just repeating your opinions at each other: at this point, I make specific effort either to withdraw from the argument, and if necessary to seek participation from others to find out where majority opinion lies. When extending this philosophy to some theoretical admin actions I may make in the future, it's pretty simple: if an editor seems to have a good-faith problem with something I've done, the first step is to understand their concerns, and if I still find myself in disagreement then the opinions of others should be sought. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - winning an argument by attrition is not winning at all.
Questions from Rootology
4. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Misplaced Pages project, including any not in use currently? If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not? If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?
A: This is the only user account I've made any edits on. I have one account (User:Macza) as a doppelganger account, but it's never been used and probably never will be.
5. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
A: As with all people, I have various beliefs, but none so strong that I'd anticipate them causing problems here. I don't believe I've done any kind of opinionated editing here before, and I don't intend to start.
6. Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute?
A: No, none that I can think of. I can't say my personal life or my job is particularly contentious by any stretch of the imagination!
7. Are you over or under the age of majority?
A: I'm 24, which is certainly well over the age of majority here.
8. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?
A: I think the policy is a good one, and is certainly necessary if Misplaced Pages is to remain credible and unlitigated going forward. There's most definitely a gap between policy and reality though: there are still far more unsourced BLPs than there should be, and in other areas our enforcement of it is not as comprehensive as it should be. In general, we do a pretty good job of keeping the really high-profile BLPs clean - the real danger comes from poorly-sourced criticism and undue weight sneaking into less-watched but no less important biographies. In recent months, efforts to reduce our unsourced minor BLPs through sourcing and/or deletion have certainly lead me to believe we're moving in the right direction; but there remains a lot to be done.
9. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Misplaced Pages in mid/late 2009?
A: In principle, I like the idea from a technical standpoint, though I don't think I'd personally agree with as broad an implementation as is currently active on the German Misplaced Pages. My personal preference is for liberal use of flagged revisions in its "flagged protection" form - susceptible articles are individually protected using flagged revisions, in the same way as semi-protection is currently used, but far more widely. Even taking it as far as flagged-protecting all BLPs would be quite agreeable to me, though I don't very much like the idea of blanket activation of flagged-revisions across the entire encyclopedia. It takes away from the immediacy of seeing your work in the encyclopedia which I'm sure is what attracts a decent proportion of our new contributors. In short, I think flagged revisions are a nice step forward, but full activation across all articles would be too much of a good thing. I look forward to them becoming available here so we can see first-hand how we like them and how much they should be used.
10. Do you feel that admins should be subject to all policies, and the repercussions for possibly violating them, as if they were any other non-admin user?
A: Absolutely, yes. I've seen some of the issues that have arisen recently around admins behaving badly, but I don't really view the problem as being one specifically about administrators. It's more about how to discipline long-serving, generally productive editors in general. It's easy to decide what to do about a new account that's being massively uncivil: the user is blocked and rapidly forgotten about. But when a generally-productive user throws a hissy-fit about something and crosses the line, drama tends to ensue due to differing opinions on how much slack they should be allowed. The fact that many of our better-known users are admins is in many cases almost a coincidence: blocks and sanctions handed out to long-standing users are very often contentious regardless of whether the user in question happens to be an administrator. These problems by their nature must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but most definitely a user should not be spared a sanction purely on the basis of their administrator status.
Additional optional questions from Coldmachine
11. You have been involved in Misplaced Pages since 2006 (3 years): what are the most important things you feel you've learned during this time?
A: Interesting question, thank you. The first thing I've learned that springs to mind is the importance, and validity, of assuming good faith. My first real useful contributions to Misplaced Pages were mostly in the area of recent-changes patrol. For a new user, I think I did a pretty good job of it; but that kind of work rapidly fills you with a sense of futility - most of the users you're dealing with are genuinely malicious, or at least unhelpful, editors. It gives you a general sense that Misplaced Pages is going down the toilet fast. The enlightenment came when I diversified my contributions some, and ventured into other areas: once you get outside of the front line of keeping the bored kids from writing 'penis' on things, it's most refreshing how generally well-intentioned almost every other editor is. Sure, there will always be trolls and PoV-pushers around, but in my experience at least 99% of our regular editors absolutely have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart even if I disagree with their opinions. This is why assuming good faith in discussions is so important: because nearly everyone else really is acting in good faith. As lessons go, this was a rather nice one. I even find myself thinking "assume good faith" in real life sometimes, and it's not a bad policy there either. Most people aren't out to stab you and steal your kidneys: if you generally assume they have your best intentions at heart unless you have reason to believe otherwise, many interactions go better.
There are plenty of other things I've learned in my time here, but I'll save this answer from getting too excessively verbose.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
12. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Speaking legally, all Wikipedians do indeed have at least one right - the right to be credited for their contributions, among other things. It also seems quite reasonable to consider many of our policies and behavioural guidelines, broadly, as "rights" within the context of the site. In general, all our editors have the right to be treated civilly, not have their privacy infringed without their consent, and be able to edit freely unless there's a good reason. As with any rights, these come with the associated responsibilities - those who infringe the rights of others or otherwise abuse the trust given them can have their rights to edit revoked, and of course anyone has the right to leave should they wish to. When you phrase 'rights' as broadly as I have here, many actions on the wiki can be viewed as upholding them - even as you deny the right to edit from a persistently uncivil or vandalous user, you are simultaneously upholding the rights of others to work in a collegial and productive environment. Perhaps the "rights" as I've defined them here are better described as "privileges" - we are, after all, editing on what is technically private property. But certainly within the context of the Misplaced Pages social construct, editors do have something akin to rights.
Additional questions from Jennavecia
13a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A:
13b. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A:
13c. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
A:
Additional question from Keepscases
14. What is the most impressive magic trick you could perform right now, without any research or practice?
A:


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mazca before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support
  1. Support Seems like a sound candidate.--Res2216firestar 16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Absolutely. Tan | 39 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support. Should have co-nomed. :( –Juliancolton |  16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Thought he was already an admin support. –xeno 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. (5 (!) edit conflicts) Good luck! :) — Aitias // discussion 17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per Xeno. J.delanoyadds 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support, this user's comments on previous RFAs lead me to believe that they possess a high level of Clue, something that is in short supply around here today. Nakon 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Easiest choice I've made all day. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support. Well-rounded, civil user. Spencer 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support I see no reason Mazca would misuse the tools. Timmeh!(review me) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support Trustworthy editor who I've seen around. Good luck! Dotty••|☎ 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. I really did think he was a (good) administrator for the longest time. I have no problems with Mazca, and would be happy to see him as an administrator. NW (Talk) 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support. No reason to oppose. Otisjimmy (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support. Good contributions. Sensible & trustworthy. Axl ¤ 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  15. Thought you were an admin, quite honestly. Doing a great job at the minute, I'm sure that will continue. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support' Bam! I vote for thing I like. :P 'The Ninjalemming' 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  17. (edit conflict) Support per Garden. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support per above. tempodivalse  18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support - Without hesitation. Wisdom89 (T / ) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  20. Has the experience and clue to work as an excellent admin. ceranthor 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support Well, the pair of noms is going to be tough to beat I'd think, but I thought I dig around a bit anyway. Couldn't find anything negative. I think we need more quality admins., and I think this candidate will be one. — Ched :  ?  19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support per nomination (though EVula's was too long). PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    You have no idea how tempting it is to reply with just "that's what she said". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
     iMatthew :  Chat  20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Commons has enough of those pictures, I don't need to contribute more. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  23. I thought the candidate is already an admin (this sentence has two meanings, but this is good one).--Caspian blue 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support User has been around since May 2006 and as per nom of Aitias and EVula.Good track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support The oppose section doesn't give me cause for concern. Meetare Shappy `
  26. Support Excellent candidate.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  27. Support. Very knowledgeable editor, I'm surprised you aren't an administrator already! Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  28. Support Impressed. rootology (C)(T) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  29. Make it so Dlohcierekim 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  30. Support You have enough experience to do the job right. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  31. Icewedge (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  32. Support Excellent user. -download ׀ sign! 22:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  33. Support Yay for mopness. Renaissancee (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  34. Genuine-fall-off-the-couch-thought-he-was-one-moment. Pedro :  Chat  22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose Lack of audited content contributions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Question: when you say 'audited contributions', what exactly do you mean? Good articles? Articles with peer reviews? Editor reviews? Just for clarification purposes. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Generally GA/FA building, but if they are heavy into reviewing and PR I usually take that into consideration as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Question: What does content contributions have to due with Administrator tools? I need to know. Renaissancee (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'm not confident that this editor has sufficient experience to be empowered with Admin tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Hi there, ChildofMidnight. Do you have any specific areas where you think Mazca could improve? He has been here for 15 months and has about 4,500 edits per the nomination statement; both of those have generally been considered enough for adminship, though of course you may have different standards and ask for more general or specialized work. Sincerely, NW (Talk) 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Per erotic discussion in the support section. Syn 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Well I for one don't mind saying I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? Groomtech (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    It's a reference to support #22 and subsequent comments. –Juliancolton |  21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with the candidate? LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mazca Add topic