Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride

MZMcBride

Voice your opinion (17/6/2); Scheduled to end 03:08, 13 May 2007 (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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

Questions for the candidate

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

General comments

• See MZMcBride's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for MZMcBride: MZMcBride (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support per nom Oo7565 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support for his edit summary usage and for his mainspace edit count. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Blue^{talk to me} 13:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
10. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
12. Support --ISOLA'd ELBA 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
14. Support per Newyorkbrad and my familiarity with MZMcBride's quality work with WP:SCOTUS. · jersyko talk 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. Seems levelheaded and unlikely to cause trouble. Can easily learn on the job. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 03:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
17. Support See no evidence will not make a good admin. Davewild 17:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't understand "seeming to live near each other". Could you explain? Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Um... I did strike it. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

But I don't see why it should be interpreted any other way. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The candidate has clarified what they meant, so it's immaterial. Oppose stricken. -Amarkov moo! 05:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
2. 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)

   Are there any other problems? —AldeBaer 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Per (him) -- Y not? 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per answers to questions. You don't speedy delete things because they're unencyclopedic. --Spike Wilbury 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

   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)

   Well put. —AldeBaer 21:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

5. 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)

Neutral

1. 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. – Riana_ऋ 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
2. 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)