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

Mtz206[edit]

(41/12/5) ended 00:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mtz206 (talk · contribs) – This user has plenty of edits, is always civil even when in a conflict, is already busy doing janitorial tasks: in short, he fulfils WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Nominator support --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I have no reason to oppose--great editor that meets my specs. ―Linux|erist 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support seems friendly and shows a history with dealing with vandalism and troublesome users. Shame about the short nomination though.--Andeh 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Support. I don't see any problems, but I'd have preferred a longer nomination and better answers to the questions. Werdna (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support. I have come across this user numerous times in the past months, am aware of the conflicts with Striver, and the situation with the newbie, Chuck. Kudos to Mtz206 for helping Chuck, and for keeping cool and reason on the more controversial articles. No doubt, Mtz206 will be a great admin and won't abuse the tools. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support: I like the answers, and civility is a much needed addition to administration. (A different) Chuck^(contrib) 04:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Good answers, they take precedence over edit count, candidate demonstrates that they wouldn't misuse the tools.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 05:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per, to be completely accurate, everyone above and in view of the exceedingly patient and cordial fashion in which he has dealt with User:Chuck Marean, a newbie whom others might have disregarded in view of his having (inadverently) disrupted the project several times but with whom Mtz continues to work, demonstrating the temperament, judgment, and moderation that well become an admin. Joe 06:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. More or less meets my criteria, seems unlikely to abuse tools. Willingness to help a new user is a good sign. BryanG^(talk) 06:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Good user that will become a good admin. DarthVader 07:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Merovingian {T C @} 07:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, meets my requirements. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 08:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support meets my requirements. (These days a lot of admins leave this project. ) Anonymous__Anonymous 10:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please pick one. Either support or neutral, not both. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry my bad. I just realized that I already voted yesterday. :-) Anonymous__Anonymous 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You do reallize that anyone can look in the edit history and see that you made the duplicate votes 4 minutes apart and both were today right? - Taxman ^Talk 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? Sorry about that again. Afterall, I'm 50 years old. I'm growing old. :-) Anonymous__Anonymous 11:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15. Support. This is a case where a low number of projectspace edits is irrelevant because the user does not intend to monitor projectspaces as an admin. Seems like a good user.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support lack of project edits is a concern, but I was impressed with the answers to my questions. Yanksox ^(talk) 13:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. I suppose more project space edits wouldn't hurt, but particularly considering the impressive consideration, patience and goodwill he has displayed when trying to guide User:Chuck Marean, I consider it very unlikely that he would do something with the admin tools without fully understanding the consequences and implications of that action. -- Captain Disdain 14:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. The user always being civil in conflicts is a plus.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Very civil contributor. I believe he meets all the requirements to be a good admin. Afonso Silva 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support A look at his contributions shows active participation in wikispace over the last few months. I am confident that he will mop up well. Eluchil404 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Very good contributor. Quick at vandal reverts. KelleyCook 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Excellent wiki philosophy, good contributor, patient with newbies, ability to work with others...what else is there? --Fang Aili ^talk 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per answers to questions.Voice-of-All 00:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Civility is a great asset in an admin. moink 01:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Strongly.--MONGO 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Seems like a great candidate. Also, help is definitely needed at CAT:CSD so he/she'd be a great asset in that respect hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. No problems here. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Conscientious editor who keeps his cool. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Seems to be a reasonable person who's familiar with the encyclopedia. --Delirium 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Yup. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Snillet 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. SushiGeek 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support think that he will be a strong admin willing to take it to vandals and others who break with Wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 06:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Good user. --Tone 14:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Meets my standards GangstaEB EA 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support meets my standards, good answers. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per civility, courtesy and knowledge of policy demonstrated at User talk:Chuck Marean/Archive1. Λυδαcιτγ 14:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support A very civil user who would be a good admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate support. - Taxman ^Talk 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

39. Support Based on actual edits and period of involvement with the project, I have no concerns that Mtz206 will abuse sysop privileges. It is irrational to assume that few project-space edits conclusively means lack of policy understanding. Today it is lack of these edits, tomorrow it is to many of those edits. Remember kids, editcountitis can be fatal! Perhaps it is a good thing that Mtz206 is willingly to work with the policy that is there, rather than change it. --Jay(Reply) 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Seems to deserve it and won't abuse the tools. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Good user -> good admin Nevermind2 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose Sadly, the lack of project-space participation does not give me confidence user understands wiki-process. This is especially relevant given that the editor's answer to Question 1 lists tasks that require project-space experience. Xoloz 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment. I suggest you please also take a look at Mtz206's User talk space contributions. [1] For the admin tasks he has indicated willingness in, "edit disputes, vandalism and incivility", as well as speedy delete, I think those involve engaging users on their talk page (and article talk) much more so than Wikipedia and project namespaces. He has also participated in WP:AFD discussions. From what I've seen in talk page discussions, he has demonstrated good understanding of policies and how to apply them in dealing with linkspam, vandalism, edit disputes, and speedy deletion candidates. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per Xoloz - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per Xoloz AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. I just don't see the kind of project experience that I'm looking for. Doesn't meet my admin criteria. --Cyde↔Weys 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak oppose per Cyde and Xoloz. Kimchi.sg 20:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per Xoloz. Cynical 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC
8. Oppose sorry. My personal RfA standards require a minimum project participation. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Does not meet the level of all round participation that I like to see in candidates. --Wisden17 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose More project edits would be helpful. — The King of Kings 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Wikispace participation is necessary because of the admin's role in interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy.—Perceval 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose, lack of Wikipedia namespace edits suggest low policy knowledge. Additionally, admins often need to work with categories and templates, so getting some experience with these would be helpful. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral you should have at least 200 edits to pages under the Wikipedia Namespace. Anonymous__Anonymous 10:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please pick one. Either support or neutral, not both. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user now has 198 edits to pages in the Wikipedia Namespace. I change my vote to Support Anonymous__Anonymous 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral, great user, though I would like to see some more project edits. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral project edits. Computerjoe's talk 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral per all above. Roy A.A. 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral needs more wiki namespace edits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral more wiki namespace edits will be better --Jusjih 06:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User's edits.Voice-of-All 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Viewing contribution data for user Mtz206 (over the 3331 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 700 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 15, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 16, June, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 95.35% Minor edits: 99.02%
Average edits per day: 83.36 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 481 edits) : Major article edits: 99.71% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3331 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.09% (3)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2.82% (94)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 25.22% (840)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 46.77%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1467 | Average edits per page: 2.27 | Edits on top: 15.04%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 49.14% (1637 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 10.51% (350 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 27.59% (919 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 9.88% (329 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 56.32% (1876) | Article talk: 11.74% (391)
User: 3.45% (115) | User talk: 21.22% (707)
Wikipedia: 6.36% (212) | Wikipedia talk: 0.72% (24)
Image: 0.09% (3)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.09% (3)

• See Mtz206's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• See Mtz206's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]

Username Mtz206
Total edits 3214
Distinct pages edited 1492
Average edits/page 2.154
First edit 03:04, 16 June 2004
 
(main) 1823
Talk 380
User 111
User talk 680
Image 3
Template talk 2
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 191
Wikipedia talk 23

• See Mtz206's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: As an admin I would help manage ANI by addressing edit disputes, vandalism and incivility. I would also actively monitor CAT:CSD to enforce SD policies. I would also occasionally monitor AIV and block vandals when necessary. Of course, I would continue monitoring pages for vandaldism, POV, linkspam, etc, and continue with routine maintenance (wikification, stubsorting, spelling, new page monitoring, etc).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Of course, I don't own any pages and spread my edits and monitoring around quite a bit, but I do pay closer attention to ensuring NPOV in articles I am most familiar with. For example, I have worked hard to maintain NPOV in John Sexton, given recent events at NYU regarding the GSOC (campus paper actually wrote an article about my monitoring the page [2]. My edit history also shows I pay a lot of attention to popularly vandalized pages (Yankees, BSox, Google, Barry Manilow, etc), which I'm pleased to help keep clean. I also am pleased when I'm able to identify and revert instances of systematic vandalism [3] or linkspam [4]. I also try to use templates to help educate new editors, especially regarding copyvio or nn articles: recent examples: [5] [6]. I'm also pleased with learning to monitor new pages for possible speedy delete candidates (which of course aren't around to show you), and also have helped wikify and stub many new pages (none stick in my mind to brag about).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Most recently, I have been trying to help guide/educate/mentor User:Chuck Marean which has required some patience and endurance. You'll find many comments on his current talk page and archive that should show how I try to manage conflicts/stress. I also have had conflicts with User:Striver over POV edits and pages. Again, my comments and reactions are on his talk page and archive: [7]. I also upset editors when I nominate their pages for SD, and occasionally get vandalism in response to those actions. In general, I tend to address issues in a formal and direct manner, using "please" and "thank you" like my mother taught me, and then bring issues to WP:ANI or WP:3O if necessary. If you asked anyone who knows me, I try to avoid conflicts, but I am always willing to discuss and make rational, rather than emotional, arguments.

Optional Questions from Yanksox

4. In your opinion what is the most important aspect of being an admin? Yanksox 01:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: IMO, the most important aspect of being an admin is the responsibility to act on behalf of the community to support the five pillars that define this encyclopedia project. I take each of the pillars seriously, and strive to ensure their application in each edit I make and come across. As an admin, you act as a trusted member of the community to enforce policy in support of the 5P - a responsibility I'm ready to take. Specifically, I view the ability to delete unencyclopedic pages, protect pages from vandalism and block users from vandalizing or being disruptive as crucial administrative duties in this regard. (Admititly, I'm less versed in the nuances of fair use and GFDL, so I will take a back seat on most issues related to the 3rd pillar). --mtz206 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Sorry for tacking another one on, you don't have to answer it. What do you think is one of the greatest burdens facing Wikipedia? Yanksox 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think one of the biggest burdens for WP is managing the tensions between reliability and openness. As an encyclopedia, WP must strive for accuracy, neutrality and reliability in its articles. Yet, as a wiki, WP must foster openness, including anonymous editing. While increasing accountability by requiring registration in order to edit a page might help maintain reliability, the negative impact on the spirit of openness likely outweigh any gains in reliability. (I might be convinced of requiring logins to edit; I just haven't heard the right argument yet) Instead, WP must encourage collaborative writing, consensus-building, fair (and flexible) application of rules, while empowering users to be bold in their contributions. The burden for, then, is maintaining such a community committed to the dual nature of reliability and openness. This requires the collective efforts of both admins and non-admins to monitor pages, educate users, enforce policy, etc. So, after writing all this, perhaps the real burden for WP is no different than any other organization or project: attracting and retaining users dedicated to the project's goal. (geez, I feel like I'm talking around your question - if I haven't answered it, please let me know) --mtz206 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: I feel that admin actions not explicitly covered by policy should be discouraged, yet considered on a case-by-case basis. WP's policies, rules and guidelines are meant to further the encyclopedia project, and consistent adherence to process and application of policy is a necessary ingredient for the project to succeed. But if an admin acted outside these policies as a good-faith effort to protect WP's quality, then the actions could be accepted as exceptional circumstances in the spirit of "Wikipedia not having have firm rules." However, a pattern of breeches of policy in bad-faith should be dealt with by either temporarily restricting certain admin privileges or, if necessary, placement on administrative probation or even de-adminship --mtz206 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Nobleeagle (Talk)

Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

A: (great question) One source of frustration that adminship will help alleviate is the feeling of helplessness as I watch vandalism occur. The constant reverts, warnings, waiting for the vandal to strike seconds later. In these obvious cases, the ability to block quickly rather than posting to AVI and waiting for another admin to take action will be helpful both for my state of mind and WP overall.

But another source of frustration that adminship won't directly address is the limited specificity of speedy deletion criteria. While monitoring new pages, I often come across articles that clearly fall under WP:NOT, but don't quite qualify under WP:CSD - especially articles that clearly fail WP:CORP or WP:WEB. I've engaged in discussions with other editors regarding CSD, and it seems the frequency of such articles being deleted just doesn't match those of WP:BIO, for which there is a speedy delete remedy; thus there isn't an apparent need to modify the CSD. For me, though, it can be frustrating to place the PROD, explain to the creator, likely have the PROD removed by the creator, and then go through the AfD process where the consensus is frequently unanimous. While process is important, it seems that the particular conditions for which CSD exists are somewhat arbitrary, and that the time of many editors would be saved if more articles could be speedied. Being an admin won't help solve this frustration directly, but perhaps by participating in the actual deletion process of speedied pages will help me both understand the logic behind the current policies, as well as help me articulate and justify any suggested changes that I have. --mtz206 (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2006 (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.