Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mazca

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Mazca

Final: (86/4/2); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Mazca (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen,
it’s an honour for me to present Mazca (signature: ~ mazca ^t|c) to you as a candidate for adminship. To begin with the formalities, Mazca made his first edit on Wikipedia 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 [1], [2], [3]). 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 Wikipedia: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.[4][5] 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 Wikipedia[6][7][8][9] (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 ^t|c 16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: The current BLP situation is moving in the right direction but I wouldn't say it's exactly great at the moment. Bad BLPs are pretty much the number one risk to Wikipedia: when real people are hurt by misrepresented information held here, it both damages the encyclopedia's credibility and leaves it open to potential legal action. While any dodgy information is worth dealing with, that which directly impacts on living people is obviously of the highest priority. Recent efforts to tag and deal with unsourced BLPs are to be commended and hopefully will allow us to get a better handle on the situation; but there will always be people out there looking to use us as a vector to disparage others. Thorough processing of unsourced statements in BLPs, removal of unsourceable articles, and conscientious use of semi-protection and (when available) flagged revisions is what we need to continue to do here. BLP will always be an issue for a freely-edited encyclopedia, but we have the potential to greatly improve our situation.

13b. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: I would support a proposal to default to delete, in general. Our poorly-sourced, marginally notable BLPs are in many cases some of our worst articles anyway. The sad fact is that many quasi-notable people end up with a Wikipedia biography for one of two bad reasons: Someone with an axe to grind creates something generally negative in tone; or the person themselves (or a publicist) creates a vanity page generally positive in tone. In both cases, the result is often a page that roughly meets the letter of WP:N, but isn't very good and is hard to source into a proper encyclopedia article. The result is, I think, that we need to reconsider how much-cited essays like WP:POTENTIAL really apply to BLPs. While an article on a computer game or a lizard can harmlessly sit as a bad stub for four years before someone gets around to working on it, a bad stub on a living person really shouldn't sit around. Rather than advocating a "keep and clean up" philosophy on them, AfD participants should really treat BLPs as "delete unless cleaned up". In most cases, a bad article is better than no article at all; but in the case of a marginally-notable living person no article is the better option.

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: Given that the person's been identified, and given that their claims are valid from a review of the history of the article, I'd give serious thought to acquiescing to their request. This would need to be dealt with case-by-case; and if the arguments made to keep the article were compelling then I'd probably keep it. But if no particularly good reasons to keep the article have been raised, the person really is marginally notable, and the person seems to have a good-faith reason to want it deleted, then I'd have no problem deleting it on the principle of minimizing potential harm.

Additional question from Keepscases

14. What is the most impressive magic trick you could perform right now, without any research or practice?

A: I've never been much of a magician - I don't really have the hand-eye coordination. However, I've scared several people with my ability to predict coin-flips due to a technique I practiced. If you flip a U.S. quarter on to the back of your hand and then cover it with your other hand in the standard way, there's is actually a big enough variation in texture between the heads and tails sides that, with practice, you can feel the difference.

More relevant (optional) questions from Toddst1:

15. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?

A: For the good of everyone, my initial response to this question is "not handle it myself". I'm lousy at being sympathetic at the best of times, and dealing with suicidal users on the internet is way beyond my skills and my comfort zone. Given that I could easily make the problem worse, my first and likely only action would be to post on WP:ANI to get some input from others.

16. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?

A: These kinds of posts are always dicey: probably a clear majority of them are just straight-up trolling and vandalism, but in many cases it's hard to tell. In general, I think the guidelines laid out in the Responding to threats of harm are pretty appropriate: if there's any usable personal information or location information, then contacting the authorities is a good plan. If it's someone from the same country as me, I would contemplate notifying the authorities - if it's elsewhere, or the location was unclear, I'd post it to ANI for someone more local to deal with it. In any case, a post to the relevant noticeboard is the obvious thing to do to notify people of the situation.

Question from Dekimasu

17. Have you ever been paid to edit or maintain an article on Wikipedia? Is paid editing on Wikipedia an acceptable practice?

A: No, I've never received any kind of real-life reward or remuneration for any activities on Wikipedia. I have no objection to it on principle - places like the reward board seemingly result in good things for the encyclopedia. Problems arise though, in the cases of people who are paid to distort articles - I've certainly run into more than one editor that's clearly a paid publicist of some kind who works to whitewash articles on specific people. In general, we need to deal with the effects - POV editing - rather than attacking the concept of paid editing itself.

Questions from Tony1

18. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?

A: I'm fully supportive of the general need for admins to be accountable for their actions, but I have to say I don't much like the look of that particular process. With the multiple steps, elected coordinators, et cetera it simply seems like yet another overly bureaucratic process that won't end up making much of a positive difference. Encouraging admins to be hauled up and sanctioned via a rather legalistic process for specific, quantized breaches of admin policy is likely to just create busywork and ill will. The current system, by which administrators can request informal review at Wikipedia:Administrator review, or complaints are made as usual at WP:ANI, honestly does work most of the time for minor infractions - and ArbCom have got rather better at decisively dealing with problematic admins if difficulties persist. I do personally advocate some kind of community desysop procedure (in short, I'd suggest giving bureaucrats the technical ability, and allowing them to exercise it if consensus supports it via a user conduct RFC) but I don't think your proposed process is likely to be all that useful in this context.

19. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page?

A: I quite like the summarised version you suggest there. I have no objection in general to our more arcane and complicated policies being available in an easy-to-read form - and that seems like a decent example of that.

20. What is your view on encouraging a pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol), as an alternative to blocking? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases?

A:Sure, if the user apologises sincerely and strikes/removes the comments I'd say that's a good move. Civility blocks of established users are sometimes necessary, and they do need to be dealt with on an individual basis - but certainly in the case of a first offence we need to make the assumption that the user might just have got overly worked up and not meant any genuine harm. In the case of repeat offenders, we need to consider the possiblity that they'd abuse this system by making egregious attacks, then retracting them again after they've had their effect - but in the case of isolated incidents I agree that counseling the user to strike their statement and apologise is often going to result in a happier outcome for all involved.

To answer the second part of the question: admins using their mediation skills if applicable is a good thing, but mediation skills are (a) not exclusive to admins and (b) not necessarily present in every admin. The question to be asked is "In the long term, is this block likely to prevent drama, or inflame it?" - if an admin or other experienced editor can use their mediation skills to defuse the situation, then great; but I wouldn't go as far as to require it. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Seddon

21. What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?

A: I really do love Smetana's Má vlast as a whole - it's so spectacularly varied and yet consistently lovely. As I'm sure is the case with many peoples' favourite pieces of music, I first heard it when I was quite young and it's stuck with me. In general I'm a heavy metal listener, but I can't deny that there's definitely a time and a place for classical music too.

22. Describe adminship in one word.

A: Trust.

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

23a. What policy areas have you contributed to?

A. I've participated in various discussions mostly around deletion policy, most visibly at WT:CSD. Speedy deletion is an area that it's important to keep up to date with, as proposed new criteria come and go quite regularly.

23b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?

A. It's a fairly unlikely dream, I think, but I would personally add an additional, catch-all speedy deletion criterion that somewhat echoes the functionality of {{prod2}}. Namely, for articles that don't fit any speedy deletion criteria but are blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia (I have this kind of thing in mind) an editor could simply tag them with a tag that says something along the lines of "I think this should be speedy deleted as it is blatantly unsuitable for an encyclopedia". Further editors could add an additional template, in the style of {{prod2}}, that agrees with this. If a reviewing admin comes across an article in which three editors in total have agreed with the deletion, and agrees with it themself, then the article could be deleted immediately. If any editor except the page creator came across the article and disagreed with this kind of speedy deletion, then they could remove the template and, again in the style of WP:PROD, force an AfD discussion if people still wanted it deleted. I'm sure there are all sorts of problems with this kind of function, but it's something I've had in my mind for a while and never brought up.

23c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?

A. Within reason, yes. WP:ATA in particular is often misused, but it does have a useful basis: AFD participation is always more useful if you elaborate on your points, and base them on policy. Certain parts of WP:ATA, particularly WP:USEFUL, are often gratuitously mis-cited: a comment that describes why an article is useful in the context of the encyclopedia, and why it helps the reader with what they're looking for, is a very valid keep rationale; while votes that just say the article's useful without really going anywhere should be discouraged. However, I've seen many valid keep arguments that use words like "useful" or "valuable information" dismissed by an ATA link when they really were quite cogent. The example comments given in the various segments of the essay are all-too-common and should be politely pointed out; but one should always read the relevant segment properly before dismissing someone's argument with it.

In short, these essays do have weight in XfD debates because, in most cases, they're sensible. By referring to the essay, you're pretty much referring to common sense and policy interpretation - but this doesn't mean they should be followed blindly.

General comments

• Links for Mazca: Mazca (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mazca can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• With regard to question Q5 and Q6 on this RfA, please  Note: [10]. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, I do appreciate that those questions could be a little personal. I don't have anything too interesting to say to them myself so it's no problem as far as I'm concerned. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  All right then. :) — Aitias // discussion 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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 | ^Talk 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Thought he was already an admin support. –xeno^talk 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
5. (5 (!) edit conflicts) Good luck! :) — Aitias // discussion 17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Xeno. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 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^{T♦Nominate!} 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 ¤ [Talk] 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 / ^C)} 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 ^Cunkelfratz!`
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)
35. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. No reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support - reasoned (and reassuring) answer to the question I posed, and meets my expectations for candidacy. Best of luck with the RfA. Coldmachine^Talk 23:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Keepscases (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - I always thought Mazca was an admin. Not sure why, but that's a good thing, I suppose, because I didn't think he was a crappy admin. That said, the fact that I trust EVula implicitly and based on the candidates answers to my questions, which I very much appreciate his view on each, I fully support this candidate. لennavecia 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Support per xeno and J.delanoy. -t'shael ^mindmeld 00:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose — EVula Cabalist =p ... OK, pardon my French, but it's about fucking time. I was thinking Mazca would make a good admin months ago, I even said so on his talk page. Nothing has come to my attention to make me change my mind. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Doesn't look like a bad candidate to me. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues. I must express my concern that the number of questions posed to candidates may be becoming excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Good grasp on policy and excellent demeanor; I'm sure he will be an asset with the mop. Shell ^babelfish 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Absolutely! Per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
46. Great user. Well-reasoned, moderated, responsible: suitable for the job. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Net positive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Qualified candidate. Unconvincing opposes. You'll do well with the mop. =) Aditya ^α _ß 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Good candidate, will make a fine addition to our "ranks" with the mop. His speedy work is exemplary at many times and when I reviewed it 2 months ago at his request, I did not find any serious errors. Regards SoWhy 09:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support- Cliched- but genuinely thought this user was an admin :) PerfectProposal 13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Support, generally agree with all of the above. Also agreed with NYB, KT and many others that the number and difficulty of the questions is a bit of an issue. If for some reason we can't get consensus on a guideline, then at the least I suggest we make the case to prospective candidates in the Guide that it's not usually in their interest to answer every question. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Has clue, temperament, tenure and experience. Also I like to see a speedy tagger who also uses prod when appropriate. ϢereSpielChequers 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
55. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
56. Support--Giants27 (t|c) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Excellent user Triplestop (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Innocent until proven guilty, and no problems as far as I can see. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - I thought you were an admin already! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
60. Support People with the temperament and skill to do audits are exactly what we need in syops. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
61. I always thought he was rational. -- Mentifisto 06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
62. Support as I see no evidence the tools would be abused and I find the oppose opinions to be unconvincing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. Always been a sensible voice in my experience. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
64. Support. No issues, seen you around, can be trusted with tools. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
65. Oh, heck yeah. Seriously, it's about time, mazca. Keeper | 76 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
66. Support, no problems with this user, good edits. Wizardman 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
67. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
68. Support, I recognize the signature and I'm not recalling anything negative about it. You have good answers to the questions (15 in particular I like - this position will put you outside of your comfort zone at times, but you have a good idea of how to handle it), and I don't see any reason to oppose. Article work is helpful, but not everything; all I ask for is clue and good responsibility. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. I agree with Hersfold's first statement. I think I'm starting to associate the user with the format of their signature. I seem to remember positive interaction with Mazca. I am comfortable with him having a mop. Valley2city^‽ 05:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
70. Support I don't see why there would be any issues. hmwithτ 15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
71. Another Ambrosian asking to join the sysop ranks? How can I say no? :) GlassCobra 23:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
72. Late to the party support Typically I won't pile on when the outcome no longer is in doubt, but I have been favorably impressed by this user repeatedly, and I wanted to absolutely confirm my confidence for granting use of the tools. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
73. Even later to the support An extremely clueful user whom I've had pleasant experience after experience. Again, not to pile on the support, but this is one support I just can't bear to delay. Cheers. I'^mperator 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - I was reviewing him, but then I just got so busy IRL; everything I've reviewed of him seems good, so I'll support. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 15:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 15
76. Support - over 4,000 edits, sufficient time on board, at least 400 edits in Wikipedia, good barnstars, etc. C-nom by a person I respect. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
77. Support "just sufficient time" on board :) -- Tinu Cherian - 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
78. I've always thought that Mazca is a decent and sensible peron. Acalamari 16:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Definitely in the "thought he already was" category.--Aervanath (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Good record. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. Looks good. — Σxplicit 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
82. Support. Yep, looks good to me. One two three... 10:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting vote by sockpuppet. Aditya ^α _ß 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Support. — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting vote by sockpuppet. Aditya ^α _ß 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

83. Support. Good luck! I see every reason (look at the 84 above) to support and none to oppose. --Airplaneman (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
84. Support - seen mazca around, like what I see; answers and nom statements look good too.  Frank  |  talk  18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
85. Support will do well with the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
86. Last minute support, even thought it's unnecessary. You'll make a good admin. Jozal ^(talk) 11:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose Lack of audited content contributions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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)

   Nothing to do with the job per se, everything to do with the candidate's temperament, communicative and collaborative skills, and commitment to building a quality encyclopedia, which is important whether an admin or lay editor. People have personal criteria, that's one of mine. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   What does content contributions have to due with Administrator tools? This is a silly question. Without content contributions, how can one understand the core policies of WP such as WP:V, WP:RS, and so on? Without understanding the core policies of WP, how can one use the admin tools properly? WP is not a social club where people socialize with each other. WP is an encyclopedia. AdjustShift (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Even a huge library needs a dude with a vacuum cleaner. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   A dude with a vacuum cleaner in a large library can't stop a scholar from entering the library, but a en.wikipedia admin can stop a scholar from contributing to en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Anyone can turn off a potential contributor, not just our admins. That's the problem with grand hypotheticals like that; they are usually grand enough that they encompass both your own argument and the counter. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Did I say "only admins can turn off a potential contributor"? I was responding to Stifle. His comparison was unjust. AdjustShift (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   I certainly wouldn't enter a library if there was a man with a vacuum cleaner trying to stop me! ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 21:53, 14 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)

   Well, perhaps I'm missing something, but reading through the nom statement there was very little indication of substantial content contributions. And Admins do deal with disputes related to content building, a rather core part of the building of this encyclopedia. Is this Admin intending to use their tools only in cases of pure vandalism and for other gnomic work? Because I've had bad experiences with Admins who haven't much clue about the issues and problems that arise in actual article work. Many appear to have limited knowledge and poor judgment in responding to situations for which they have limited experience. A broader Wikiworldview is necessary in my opinion. Unfortunately, dealing with the core work of encyclopedia building seems to be a great hindrance to Admin candidates, because experience dealing with disputes is often held against them, unless they were able to please all those involved which is a bit much to ask. Vandal reverts on the other hand are uniformly popular, but give very little insight into how one manages themself under stress and trying circumstances. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Not enough article work. Except Iron Maiden, the candidate hasn't edited any other article heavily. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a social club. Those who don't do much article work shouldn't be in a position to tell others what to do and what not to do. AdjustShift (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Administrators aren't in a position to tell others what to do or what not to do (anyone can warn editors, or report them to AIV); they are merely trusted with tools to enforce our policies and guidelines. Slight difference, but it's the crux of my objection to your statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Anyone can warn editors or report them to AIV, but only admins can block editors. AdjustShift (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   If an ordinary guy were to say "Don't do this; otherwise, you may get arrested", I may not listen to him; but, if a cop were to say the same thing, I'll listen to the cop. AdjustShift (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Eh, fair enough. We don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to article work in regards to adminship, but that's largely irrelevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Admins are not cops. Kingturtle (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   Only theoretically. Admins have the power to block editors. AdjustShift (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Anyone who allows himself to be nominated by admin Aitias, a vicious abuser of editors providing valuable content, cannot earn my trust.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

   EVula, a bureaucrat, also nominated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 16 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 | ^Talk 21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   What does that have to do with the candidate? LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   WP:SARCASM. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Wait, there's erotica? Lara goes to get her whip. لennavecia 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, I see it now, as the actress said to the bishop. Groomtech (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure that discussion is the opposite of erotic. Tan | 39 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Tan: Erotic is subjective, not objective. Little Mountain 5: Neutral comments play no role in granting adminship. Julian you were correct, and I feel the same about this as Groomtech does. Syn 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

2. On the fence per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. It is good that the candidate has a few barnstars and looking through discussions in which we both participated, usually even when we disagree, the candidate seems reasonable or open to changes, but just a couple of the DRV experiences, such as one concerning a pretty clearly "no consensus" bilateral relation that closed as delete, which he endorsed, has me somewhat reluctant as to how he could read consensus when closing such discussions. Again, only a handful of instances, somewhat cancelled out by other more pleasant encounters, so not enough to really oppose on, but enough to give me a pause for saying to support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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.