Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MZMcBride[edit]

Final (45/8/1); Ended Sun, 13 May 2007 03:13:45 (UTC)

MZMcBride (talk · contribs) - MZMcBride he been here since May 2005 most notable ones are to Joe Lieberman and List of The West Wing episodes also MZMcBride like to work on U.S. Supreme Court articles. he does a lot of template work on wikipedia as well Oo7565 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept the nomination. --MZMcBride 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I imagine my admin work would include anything that's needed. Specifically, making sure that appropriate editprotected requests are taken care of in a timely manner and speedy deleting material that is clearly un-encyclopedic. [Clarification: By "un-encyclopedic" I mean things that are listed on the criteria for speedy deletion page; e.g., test pages, pure vandalism, attack pages, patent nonsense, etc. Sorry for any confusion.] In addition, helping alleviate some of the backlogs would be a priority as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are most likely in the Template namespace. I truly enjoy template coding and I have created Template:Elementbox and Template:SCOTUSCase, both of which combined many smaller templates. After creating Template:SCOTUSCase, I systematically deprecated the old system for U.S. Supreme Court case infoboxes and made a nice impact in improving WikiProject:SCOTUS. I'm currently in the process of converting the old Elementbox system into using the newly-created template.
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: The only conflict I had that I can remember dealt with placing an image at the very beginning of an article on the left-hand side. I discussed the problem with the other editor and even uploaded a mirrored image to try to resolve the conflict. Eventually, we compromised and moved the image down the page while preserving the original image, rather than using the mirrored version.

Optional questions by Sr13 (T|C)

4. How would you interpret ignore all rules and when would you apply this policy?
A: I think that IAR is a good policy, however, it clearly can leave room for misinterpretation. If a user was making valuable edits and not damaging any other user or the servers, I would see no reason to get upset. I think using common sense and not being a dick are policies that when used in conjunction with ignore all rules, can make Wikipedia a very nice place to be. An example of IAR would be if someone created an infobox and began to implement it without, say, listing it first at the proposed infoboxes page. If the infobox was helpful and encyclopedic, I don't see a reason to require regular editors to read every policy and know every rule.
5. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?
A: I would strongly enforce the BLP policy. I remember the creation of BLP after the John Seigenthaler controversy and I understand the importance of the policy. If a user were to continue to insert information into an article that was clearly inappropriate, I would warn the user, perhaps semi-protect the article, and if those steps don't work, I would block the user. The policy protects individuals as well as the integrity of Wikipedia, and so I hold it in high esteem.

Optical question from The Sunshine Man

6. You say in question 1 that you intend to take part in any admin work whats needed, it would have been better if you had been more specific, however say for example I was repeatedly removing speedy deletion tags from an article I had created and you had deleted it multiple times and I had re-created it several times, what would your actions be? Would you salt it?
A: Wikipedia is a very open project in my mind and it thrives when users are able to contribute freely, so I see salting as a major step, only to be used in cases where there have been ongoing and longterm issues regarding an article. For a user who was continually re-creating an article that was inappropriate and removing speedy delete tags, I would warn the user and then, should they ignore the warnings, I would block the user. If sockpuppets emerged and the article was still being re-created, then I might consider salting the page.

Optical question from Kzrulzuall

7. Recently there has been a case of an admin mass deleting notable articles and blocking respected users. How would you respond or handle the situation if it ever happens again? Would you block the perpetrator? Warn him/her prior? Seek help?
A: Admins are trusted to use their tools for the betterment of Wikipedia, and I don't see any user as able to be above the rules. In the case that an admin account is making malicious or inappropriate edits, I would assume good faith and just suspect that the account has been compromised. In a case like this, where there is obvious and clear misuse, I would undo the actions of the admin, warn the admin on their talk page, and then, if need be, I would block the admin. Once I blocked the admin, however, I would seek assistance from a bureaucrat to figure out what to do next. Abuse of adminship is a very serious offense in my mind and would be cause for desysoping if the edits were made maliciously.

Optional question by JodyB

8. Could you clarify the copyright issues raised within the last couple of weeks on your talk page? These involve one image, which you have corrected, and a listing of West Wing plot synopsis'.
A: Both of those issues were misunderstandings. In regard to the image (Image:AudacityofHope.jpg), the other editor thought it didn't have a fair use rationale, I am not really sure why (see history). In the other case, an editor who had looked through the West Wing episode articles and the list of West Wing episodes mistakenly believed that I had inserted copyrighted information. I clarified that I had worked to clean up the page and had forked the episode pages, but I did so not knowing that the original content had been stolen. It was another user who added the information (there's a note on my talk page to attest to this).
Please note that you need to add a separate "fair use" rationale for each article where a non-free image is used. This image does still lack a rationale for "fair use" in Barack Obama. Perhaps that is what the other editor meant. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image (added by User:Bbsrock) because after reviewing the page, I don't believe that would qualify for fair use. The book is mentioned very quickly in a single paragraph that discusses all of Obama's works. If not having the fair use rationale for that article is what the user originally meant when I was noticed on my talk page, I still don't know why they were contacting me instead of the user who actually put the image on the Barack Obama article. --MZMcBride 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with your explanation and your understanding. For some reason, image issues are difficult for people to grasp sometimes. You attitude is commendable. JodyB talk 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from CharlotteWebb:

9: WP:NFCC#8 presents the expectation that:
Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose.
How would you interpret this criterion? Give examples based on some articles and images you have previously worked on, for example, television episodes... — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episode articles for the television show Weeds (e.g., Fashion of the Christ and Lude Awakening) are some of the articles in which I believe fair use would apply. The specific shots are described in the article text and the images provide a snapshot of what was occurring during the episode. Also, in the previously-mentioned case, The Audacity of Hope, qualifies in my mind because having a book cover in the article about the specific book clearly "identifies the subject" of the article. Non-free content has been hotly-contested and I'm sometimes bothered when everyone on a page acts as though they are a lawyer. However, fair use rationales help alleviate some of these problems, which is why I try to ensure that images I upload that are non-free content have a fair use rationale. Non-free content should be included when it clearly helps better the article and provides useful information to a reader. --MZMcBride 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)

A: Yes to all. --MZMcBride 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Optional question from Seraphimblade

Being able to interact well with other editors is important for everyone, but especially for administrators. Are there any interactions you've had with other editors of which you're particularly proud? Any you're not so proud of, but learned something from?
A: User:Femto and I had several discussions while I was creating Template:Elementbox, and his feedback was very helpful in finishing it. In a separate case, when another user was removing the religion parameter from infoboxes without prior consensus or discussion, I had a discussion with the other editor and calmly explained that consensus should be formed before any changes are made to templates that can affect hundreds of articles. I even set up a forum and invited that particular user and everyone else to join the forum and discuss the issue. As for interactions that I'm not proud of, there aren't any in particular that I can think of.

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MZMcBride before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • ZOMG!!! User failed to sign form XFD-D42-X5 and E32-34T-3S! No really, edits in namespaces really don't mean much. I don't see any history of disruption, seems to be temperate from the contribs log. Really failing to fill out form XFD-D42-X5 (number of edits in some namespace) is not something I'd hold against an editor. Folks lets keep in mind adminship is not a big deal, and try not to make our canidates jump through too many hoops. After all MZMcBride has replied to these optional questions very well :) —— Eagle101Need help? 02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmm, I also have to note that this user has absolutly 0 edits in Table: namespace! So I guess there is no way this user can be a sysop until he has experiance with that namespace... or can we just people to figure it out. :) Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus not numbers. This is a very good candidate. Give him the mop. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked through this user's contributions, I am convinced that the opposer's claim that he does not interact with other Wikipedians is simply false. At WP:VPT he has been a friendly and helpful presence. Chick Bowen 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support per nom Oo7565 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for his edit summary usage and for his mainspace edit count. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Adminship isn't a big deal, and I know that he's clearly knowledgable in basic areas such as CFSD, AFD (despite the # of project-space edits), AGF, etc. Will make for a fine admin. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support He seems like a reliable user and is active at wikipedia so why not?--James, La gloria è a dio 14:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Actively contributing more than 4.500 mainspace edits over more than a year without a block is sufficient for me not to assume he'd BJ/DM. Over 600 edits to template space demonstrates involvement behind the scenes. I wouldn't ask for more, but he also seems to be a level-headed and helpful guy. looking through his contribs didn't spawn any disqualifying diffs. Putting candidates through the hoops for not perfectly conforming to one's own idea of flawless contrib apportionment should be given due weight. —AldeBaer 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, for lack of sufficient reason to oppose. No indication that the tools will be abused. --Phoenix (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per all above. Adminship is no big deal. The opposers have raised concerns that the vague description of CSD ("clearly unencyclopedic" material) but that doesn't concern me, since the CSD criteria for articles are geared towards excluding content that is clearly unencyclopedic (e.g. nonsense, attack pages, topics with no assertion of notability, blank pages). Walton Need some help? 17:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per the candidate's good record of mainspace contributions and dedication to the project. If this nomination does not succeed, the nominee should buttress his article work with increased participation in Wikipedia space, including on admin-like tasks, to ensure the success of a future nomination. Newyorkbrad 17:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Although he may have a low Wikipedia space count, I an very satisfied with the answers, which show a clear understanding of policy. Sr13 (T|C) 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: Candidate gives calm, reasonable answers and has a clean history. That aside, my weirdness threshold is passed by some of the Oppose voters. Are we seriously basing votes not even on the merits of the nominee but whether the nominator is eloquent enough for our liking? Gosh, I can see it now, potential candidates turning down nominations. "No offense, buddy, I'm flattered, but I want a nominator who can give a good stump speech on my behalf, and you don't measure up."  RGTraynor  20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --ISOLA'd ELBA 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - don't really understand the concern about wanting to delete unencyclopedic material - seemed to be a perfectly reasonable explanation. Ok, his user talk and project space are fairly low, however there are plenty of main space edits. Addhoc 00:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Newyorkbrad and my familiarity with MZMcBride's quality work with WP:SCOTUS. · jersyko talk 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Seems levelheaded and unlikely to cause trouble. Can easily learn on the job. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 03:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I can support him and trust him with the tools. I'm sure there's a learning curve to being an admin and I think he will climb it just fine. JodyB talk 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support See no evidence will not make a good admin. Davewild 17:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - we need more admins who are well-versed in image policy; not only is that one of the current hotspots in controversy, but various image-related tasks tend to get backlogged more than many others. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Uber Strong Support - I think he'll do a fantastic job. bd2412 T 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I see no worries that this user can't learn responsibly on the job about functions they are not already well-versed in. Good answers to some of the optional questions, especially the thoughtful replies on Fair Use. -- nae'blis 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support (struck neutral) due to great answers to optional questions, demonstrates ability to communicate well. – Rianaऋ 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support based on editing history and answers to questions. -- DS1953 talk 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: Activity in project seems consistent, plenty of experience, and edit summary usage is excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seems like a fine editor and questions were all reasonably answered and showed good sense--St.daniel Talk 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Although you're not perfect, adminship's not a big deal. We need more administrators, and while you haven't done too much stuff yet, I really don't mind us giving you the mop. (So I support. ) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. ugen64 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, partially per AldeBaer. I've been consistently impressed with MZM's template coding knowledge, helpfullness, and civility in my many interactions with him. Plus another lawyer admin would be great in dealing with FU-images if it ever catches his interest (hint, hint).--Chaser - T 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. per answer to question 9. Errabee 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak support Am a bit concerned with lack of XfD experience. If MZMB does become an admin, I hope he will be responsible enough to limit his use of the admin tools to areas where he has sufficient experience. Pascal.Tesson 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Candidate has a great deal of experience in the Template: namespace and has expressed interest in helping with protected edit requests. I have seen him around there and have no reservations, based on what I've seen, in supporting. We need all the people we can get with the temperament and skills to edit templates. CMummert · talk 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support my old rule of thumb... if the opposes would apparently not have been made if the edit counter had screwed up and put a 0 on the end of some of his counts, then there's no reason not to support. People would like him to have more user talk and wikipedia namespace edits, but apparently have no problems with the edits he has made there... so it's just an editcount thing. Anyone can make "per nom" comments in 500 AFDs to pad their count... so I don't see the count as very meaningful, especially if people can produce no actual examples of a lack of knowledge on process or communication. Anyway, 2 years and his biggest conflict was over image placement? Seems like he knows how to edit effectively and not annoy people. Should make a good admin. --W.marsh 21:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support The answer to Q11 releives concerns about lack of User talk edits for me. Good mainspace contribs too. GDonato (talk)
  33. Support, I do see a good record of interaction with other users. I was a bit concerned to see reinsertion of a large number of fair-use images in List of Weeds episodes after they were cleaned up, but that was months ago and I don't see any indication that it's been repeated, nor any other more recent cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support Clearly a good editor. Knows all the processes. Perfect for admin. Twenty Years 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - The candidate has a good knowledge of process and policy, and I see nothing that makes me think he would abuse the tools. Experience on the Wikipedia main-space does not concern me in this case. Camaron1 | Chris 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Gives a convincing impression of sanity. I have no problem with candidates who are not policy/process wonks, and trust the user will simply read the relevant policy or procedure before carrying out an unfamiliar administrative action. - BanyanTree 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Solid mainspace contributor. As many have noted, not the most 'rounded' candidate by some metrics, but then again we are writing an encyclopedia, eh? -- MarcoTolo 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No problems of significance have been raised; the user has ample experience and is interested in administrative work, I see no reason not to give the tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No reason to oppose. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. S Changed from neutral... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Has demonstrated that he's more than capable of communicating civilly and clearly with other users. No qualms. James086Talk | Email 05:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 13:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per quality not quantity Obscurans 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Edits to Village pump indicate plenty of understanding of the way things work around here. Smart enough to pick up whatever else he needs as he goes. Chick Bowen 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Why not. User shows a general understanding of the rules; not worried about the editor going crazy, and if they do, revert it. Adminship is no big deal. T 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm sorry, but my weirdness threshold is way passed here. Nomination that doesn't really explain much, nominator who recently warned an admin about using edit summaries, and both nominee and nominator seeming to live near each other. With the fact that "clearly unencyclopedic" is not a speedy criterion, I have to oppose. -Amarkov moo! 05:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the lack of participation in projectspace means it's hard to trust that you won't misuse the tools. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "seeming to live near each other". Could you explain? Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions indicate that you both have similar editing patterns. This is in no way an accusation of sockpuppetry, and in fact, I'm not entirely sure why I mentioned it. That's what I get for editing late at night. Ignore that part please. -Amarkov moo! 15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course aware that it could be interpreted as ABF, right? If you really want to retract that statement, why not strike it? —AldeBaer 02:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I did strike it. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While your interpretation of his answer to question #1 is one possible way to read it, I think reading the answers in the way that is least favorable to the candidate is unhelpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't see why it should be interpreted any other way. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do you think an editor who gives a friendly reminder to an admin has broken a rule, and would not be suitable for adminship? I'm curious, as you stated, it wasn't even the nominee but the nominator. the_undertow talk 04:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you told me that you wrote an article yesterday, I would assume that you did so in line with the relevant policies. Similarly, if you were applying for adminship and mentioned that you wished to fight vandalism, I would assume that you meant to do so in line with policy. This user has stated that he wishes to assist with the speedy deletion of unencyclopedic material, an important administrative task, and you have assumed that he intends to do so in a way not compatible with policy. This assumption to me seems unfair; surely, you would not want your own comments to be read in this fashion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate has clarified what they meant, so it's immaterial. Oppose stricken. -Amarkov moo! 05:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Less than 250 edits each in the user Talk and policy spaces show that the candidate needs to spend more time performing admin-related tasks to benefit from being granted the admin tools. The answer to question one requires more precision - which areas is the candidate interested in - copyvios, images, CSD, etc? Evidence of participation in the given area(s) in the candidate's contribtutions? The nomination also requires more explanation regarding the eligibility of the candidate for the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 09:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Needs more user talk and Wikipedia space edits to show experience in those fields before I support. Captain panda 13:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) changed to neutral[reply]
    Are there any other problems? —AldeBaer 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the candiadate has a great deal of experience in the template namespace. CMummert · talk 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per (him) -- Y not? 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per answers to questions. You don't speedy delete things because they're unencyclopedic. --Spike Wilbury 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be vague, but I'd tend to assume that it doesn't indicate a misunderstanding of the WP:CSD criteria - aren't nonsense pages, attacks, blank pages etc. unencyclopedic by definition? Walton Need some help? 17:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put. —AldeBaer 21:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All pages which should be speedy deleted are obviously unencyclopedic. That does not mean that all obviously unenecyclopedic pages should be speedy deleted. -Amarkov moo! 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidate has now clarified his answer to specify that he is referring to speedy deletion candidates. I anticipate that the closing 'crat will therefore disregard this oppose. bd2412 T 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose One week ago was told by iridescenti: "I note you have removed the prod notice from Spring Breakdown with the comment "All films are notable even in the future". " and replied "i do need to read the guildlines more closly " Deep apologies--it was the nom who made that remark, not the candidate DGG 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    hey dgg did you DGG did you get that for mine talk page because i think thats from mine not his so thats not fair to oppose someone he no idea about that.Oo7565 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 80-odd user talk and 320-odd talk edits is unacceptable for me, as an RfA candidate needs to demonstrate their ability to interact positively before I support them for getting the one tool which results in more acrimony than any other. Daniel Bryant 00:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have opposed for the same rationale, but I think the sheer numbers are better viewed in conjunction with his basically flawless history of positive communication on the project, including avoiding controversy where he has no opinion and responding coolly and constructively where he disagrees. Two good examples are this comment when the SCOTUS project was dealing with a difficult editor and this comment advocating keeping the SCOTUSCase template the same.--Chaser - T 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I note, however, that MZM has more template talk page edits than you do, Daniel Bryant. Different editors (and administrators) must be allowed to have different priorities, I think. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The severe lack of participation in areas where admin actions are undertaken needs to be remedied before I can support this candidate. Xiner (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that candidate has a great deal of experience with templates, which have a lot of admin actions due to protected edit requests. Candidate has not suggested he is going to start off by closing XfD requests. CMummert · talk 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Xiner, who put the matter very succinctly. Candidate obvious exhibits a good temperament: with added experience, I'll be happy to support in the future. Xoloz 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Daniel Bryant and Xiner. The only things more important for an admin than dedication and technical wiki proficiency is the ability to interact with the wikpedia community. The distribution of his editing leads me to believe that he belives otherwise. Aside from that a valuable editor that I hope to see at RfA again after some more work in needed areas. NeoFreak 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Xiner, but I hope the candidate will return after some more experience. Mangojuicetalk 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

You're obviously a great user, but your interaction with other users is somewhat limited. I hate to count numbers, but only 80 user talk edits out of 6000 is a pretty small figure. Administrators need to be communicative, and I have very little to go on to tell me that you will be able to handle all the questioning and fingerpointing that comes with the job. – Rianaऋ 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. – Rianaऋ 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Per objections noted above, I cannot support as yet. Your answer to my question is reasonably good, although a steward, not a bureaucrat needs to be consulted for desysoppings. A little more communication to other users, and I'll support.--Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 07:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to support per answer to Seraphimblade's question.... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending answer to my question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Moved from oppose per concerns of other vote. Captain panda 13:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride&oldid=1147966872"