Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mz7

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

Mz7

Final (127/1/0); ended 11:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 11:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Mz7 (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present to the community User:Mz7 as a candidate for administrator. Mz7 has had an account since March 2010, and has been actively editing since 2011. In this time he has accumulated over 11,000 edits to the mainspace, much owed to content building, counter-vandalism and working at WP:AfC. He single-handedly wrote the good article Wings for My Flight and also expanded Vinicius and Tom from a mere few paragraphs to good article status. In addition to mainspace contributions, he is a host at the Teahouse, WP:OTRS volunteer, has performed over 400 non-admin closures, and works at other poorly attended backlogs like CAT:COMMONS. Above all, I find Mz7's kind demeanor to be the most impressive trait. Reviewing his talk page archives you'll see how well he communicates with both new and seasoned editors. All things considered, I find Mz7 to be a level-headed and multifaceted Wikipedian who could do wonders to far corners of Category:Administrative backlog. I thank the community for their consideration in who I believe will become a cherished addition to the admin corps — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm very happy to be co-nominating Mz7 for adminship. While I can't confess to being familiar with his work on the encyclopedia before MusikAnimal mentioned him as a potential candidate, a thorough investigation of his contributions has left me with no doubts that he would make a great administrator. In addition to the areas highlighted above, I found that Mz7 has a good history at AfD (though note that if you use the AfD tool his votes are hidden amongst many edits relisting discussions - the tool tracks 500 AfD edits at a time, not 500 votes) and a solid CSD log, with all the articles that I spot checked being correct tags. I'm also happy to say - once again - that this is an editor who is happy to provide clear and friendly help to new users; a great sign for a potential administrator. Sam Walton (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I would like to thank my nominators for their kindness through this process, and I respectfully accept their nomination. In accordance with the sock puppetry policy, I would like to declare a few alternative accounts: although I created the account I'm using right now in March 2010, I created an account under the name User:The-novice-editor in December 2010, with which I made 3 edits and then abandoned forever. I did not begin actively editing using my current account until late 2011. I also have an alternative account at User:Mz7 (alt) that I use on shared or otherwise unsafe computers to prevent my main account from being compromised. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I see myself easing into the tools as a natural extension of the kind of behind-the-scenes, janitorial work I typically find myself doing already. I’ve worked in both counter-vandalism and the deletion process since early 2012, so I envision myself closing AfDs, evaluating CSDs, blocking vandals, and protecting pages as I continue to work in those areas. More recently, I joined the OTRS team in November, and the administrator toolset would be especially helpful for using revision deletion in response to the emails we receive about gross BLP violations and copyright violations. (I find myself pinging administrators often about those.) The toolset would also be helpful for reviewing files deleted under WP:F11 that have since gotten a permission statement sent to OTRS.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: While I’m certainly not a prolific content creator, I do enjoy writing and improving articles about any topic that happens to catch my interest. I particularly enjoyed working with the Wings for My Flight article. It was a rather obscure book at the time I stumbled upon it—my library didn’t have a copy of it at the time, so I had to take out an interlibrary loan on the book two times. The first time was to read the book, and once I finished it, I started a userspace draft on it, but had to return the book before I could pull enough information to move the draft to mainspace. A few years later, in 2014, to my surprise, the book was republished and received additional coverage as a result. I also had a bit more experience working with research databases then, so I picked up the dormant userspace draft and published a stub out of it. A few weeks later, I took out the second interlibrary loan on the book and began to develop the content summary and background sections of the article. It was an fun experience, and in October 2015, it became my first GA. Beyond Wings for My Flight, I’ve written one other GA, Vinicius and Tom, the mascots of the 2016 Summer Olympics—another topic I enjoyed reading and writing about.

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’ve definitely been involved in disagreements here and there—a natural consequence of the collaborative nature of the project. I think the healthiest approach is stepping back, looking at things from the other side, then explaining your side respectfully, never blowing anyone off, especially new editors. This can be difficult if you believe the other side isn't doing the same for you. While I try not to make mistakes too often, I would warmly welcome feedback if I could have done something better, and the same would hold true regardless of whether I am an administrator. A few months ago, I made the foolish mistake of replacing a secondary source with a primary source on an article covered by WP:MEDRS. It was reverted, I received valuable feedback, and it will never happen again.

One memorable conflict revolved around a new editor who added a trivial detail about a fictional character in a children’s TV series article. It was an extremely trifling matter to have a protracted dispute about, but unfortunately, a conflict did begin when another editor reverted the addition. The new editor was confused, so they added it back in, and I observed as a cycle of edit warring began over this small, obscure detail. After issuing a few warnings about the edit warring that were faced with mounting frustration, what I eventually did was sit down and spend 15-20 minutes writing several paragraphs explaining in detail Wikipedia’s MoS fiction guidelines and how they applied to the article. It worked. The new editor indicated their understanding, stopped reverting, and agreed with the consensus that had developed on the talk page. They even sought my advice later on two occasions: later that month and then the following year. Both of which I responded to with the same level of attention and detail, which were received positively. I believe the lengthy explanations were worth the effort: we successfully retained a new contributor.

As for stress, what I do is go to a quiet area of Wikipedia—such an uncontroversial article topic—and do some basic article development (finding sources, expanding the article, copyediting, adding images/templates). This is a great way for me to ground myself and return to why it is we are all here: to build an encyclopedia. It is especially refreshing when the topic I’m writing about is something I’m genuinely interested in.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Ritchie333

4. Why did you rename your main account from Michaelzeng7 (talk · contribs) to Mz7 in February 2014? PS: If anyone treats this as a reason to oppose the candidate, they can expect short shrift

A: Thank you, Ritchie333. The reason was simply that I felt uncomfortable editing under a username that had my full name inside it. Mz7 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I had declared this to ArbCom before the RfA started, but now that you bring up my old username, I would like to confirm that User:Michaelzeng is also mine. I created it to prevent impersonation. Mz7 (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from BU Rob13

5. You've done work in the file space before, and presumably you will continue working at CAT:COMMONS and on OTRS permissions if granted the mop, so it's important to ensure you understand copyright fully. Please explain whether we can or cannot accept the following images onto enwiki and, if so, whether they should be transferred to Commons. Link to relevant templates or policy/information pages on enwiki or Commons as applicable, please.

• A photograph of a painting by Lucien Biva. The painting was created and published in 1921 in Paris, France.
• A photograph of the Eiffel Tower taken in 2003 at night. The photograph itself is released under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license.
• A computer-generated graphic created by a specific identified employee of Company Co. in 1940 in the United Kingdom. The copyright has always been owned by Company Co. based on their contract with the employee. The company still exists today, and the employee died in 1990.
• A picture of a newly-constructed church by one of the best living architects in Bahrain. The picture is released under the CC-BY-2.0 license.
• A short film filmed in 1900 in the United States which was never published, being uploaded by a historian who recently uncovered it. The author is unknown.

A: I apologize for the length of this answer, but I found that some of these are a bit complicated. I had to do a bit of research on most of them, and I would appreciate feedback.

• Since the Lucien Biva painting was created and published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the United States (WP:PD). As a result, it is acceptable to host a photograph of the painting on the English Wikipedia (per WP:IUP#Public domain). The Commons has different rules, however. Per COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, non-US works must be in the public domain in both the US and the origin country in order to be acceptable on the Commons. According to COM:CRTFR, the copyrights on works published in France expire 70 years after the author's death. Biva died in 1965, just a little over 50 years ago. Since it is probably not in the public domain in France, the origin country, this photograph should not be moved to the Commons. I would apply {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
• Ah, this is a very interesting case. The Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain, since its copyright as an architectural work has expired. The issue is the fact that it was taken at night: various lighting on the Tower is copyrighted – Eiffel Tower#Illumination copyright provides a summary of the issue. (France does not have "freedom of panorama" laws, which could have eliminated the need to gain the permission of the copyright holder.) The Commons hosts various photos of the Tower at night: Category:Eiffel Tower at night. The category page links to a few discussions at the Commons, and there appears to be rough consensus on the Commons that "ordinary lighting" is not copyrightable: see this undeletion request and this village pump discussion. However, I get the strong feeling that this is controversial, and it strongly depends on the kind of lighting depicted in the photo. This is one where I would consult the advice of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Commons:Village pump/Copyright before doing anything.
• This one, I'm not sure about. We're looking to see whether the copyright has expired. The relevant information page is commons:COM:CRTUK#Known author, which states that in the UK, The author must be a natural person and cannot be a corporation. The laws in the UK are different for photographs and non-photographs, so it is important to note that a computer-generated graphic is not a photograph. Since we know that the work was created before 30 August 1989 and that the author died in 1990, the information page lists 5 scenarios to determine when the copyright expires, revolving mostly around when and whether the work was published (i.e. made available to the public). In this case, the author died in 1990, so in general we have to wait 70 years after their death—i.e. until 2060—before the copyright expires. For these reasons, I would mark {{Do not move to Commons}} on the basis that the copyright has not expired in the origin country, and since we're not sure when the work was published, and it was created after 1923, I would nominate the file to FFD on the English Wikipedia as a possibly unfree file.
• The relevant issue is the copyright of the church as a work of architecture. Bahrain does not have freedom of panorama laws per commons:COM:FOP#Bahrain, so if the primary focus of the picture was the church, it would have to be a derivative work of the church as an architectural work. Since the church is presumably non-free as a result of being recently-constructed, I would nominate this file for deletion. (If the church were in the background or otherwise a trivial part of the image, the picture may be acceptable under de minimis.)
• The relevant guideline is WP:PD#Unpublished works, which states Works created before 1978: If never published, or published after 2002, the work is copyrighted according to the standard U.S. rules. The "standard rules" state that works of unknown authors ... are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation. In this case, the work was never published, so copyright wouldn't expire until after 120 years—in the year 2020. On that basis, I would nominate this file for deletion.

Mz7 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Deryck C.

6. Thanks for offering to tackle the admin backlog. How will you achieve balance between clearing the backlog quickly and ensuring each discussion item receives adequate participation?

A: While it's clear that we have backlogs, we should still give each individual discussion item its fullest attention. We should never be closing a discussion early or otherwise fail to give each item its full attention solely because there is a backlog. The Articles for Creation project suffered a lot from this mentality a few years back, when it conducted its backlog elimination drives. In the rush to clear the backlog (for the desire of barnstars and other recognition), there were some users who began to sacrifice the quality of reviews for the quantity of reviews. This is extremely undesirable, especially when the wide, wide majority of AfC submissions are by new, inexperienced users—we risk confusing them and driving them away from the project. The project has never run another drive since June 2014. Instead, even if there are a thousand more items left to review in the backlog (which is basically where the AfC backlog was at), I would continue to look at each discussion individually, leaving it open for its proper length. Mz7 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a thoughtful answer in relation to AfC. Does the same attitude apply to FfD and Afd? When a discussion expires, how will you decide whether to relist a discussion or close it? Deryck C. 00:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Deryck, for the follow-up. The same attitude does apply. A special need for careful review and judgment arises when a nomination has received few or no comments. FfD and AfD have slightly different approaches regarding these types of discussions. A large portion of FfD discussions receive no comments—according to the FfD heading, FfDs that are more than 7 days old may be deleted if there have been no objections. However, this does not mean that all FfDs older than 7 days should be closed as delete. We need to examine each nomination rationale individually, giving each the careful review it deserves before acting. If the situation isn't clear or if the nomination otherwise deserves additional discussion, I would either leave a comment or relist the discussion as opposed to closing it as a way of soliciting additional input.

AfD is similar: even if there have been few or no comments, we still need to examine the quality of the deletion nomination itself: does it present a valid reason to delete, and has it assessed alternatives to deletion? If I agree with the nomination to delete, I will typically add a delete !vote in myself stating so. If I believe there was something that the nominator might have missed, I will write a comment pointing that out. Closing on the basis of your opinion on the matter, especially when there hasn't been substantial discussion, may be considered a supervote, so I would be cautious about closing. If the discussion has expired, there have been few or no comments, and the issue is not obvious to me, I will consider relisting the discussion as a way of soliciting additional input (but usually not more than twice per WP:RELIST). WP:NOQUORUM is the relevant guidance in this case, and after two relists, I would consider closing the discussion on a case-by-case basis, weighing the arguments presented carefully. "Soft delete" and "no consensus" would be common outcomes if there has been little discussion. As Samwalton9 mentioned below in the general comments section, I explain my approach to relisting AfDs a bit more at User talk:MusikAnimal/RfA/Mz7. All in all, I believe that yes, the broader attitude of examining each case individually and thoroughly does still apply to both FfD and AfD. Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

7. In relation to WP:ADMINACCT, do you understand it to apply only to an Admin's administrative actions, or to their general conduct on WP outside their use of tools?

A: I understand it as applying to administrators' general conduct on Wikipedia, even outside their use of tools. The reason for this, in my view, is that ADMINACCT is a natural extension of WP:ADMINCOND's expectation that administrators lead by example. Even without the administrator toolset, it is generally a good idea for any Wikipedia editor to be able to explain why they took an action, and administrators should exemplify that. Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Mz7: Mz7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mz7 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as co-nominator. Sam Walton (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Support No concerns. Has the content skills, and at Talk:Hydraulic Press Channel clearly knows how to resolve a dispute amicably and get consensus. Good AfD and CSD scores. Knows how to placate an upset newbie. The incident mentioned above at User talk:Mz7/September-November 2016#References was actually clarified by Doc James as "not a big deal" so it's a non-issue for me. In short - give him the mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - favourable impression from seeing his activity arouond the wiki. Will be a big plus to the mop-wielding team. Cabayi (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Support more admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support: Clear net positive. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Support. No concerns, will make a fine admin. I honestly thought that you were one already. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Support per nom Jianhui67 ^T★C 12:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
8. Support. Qualified. -- œ^™ 12:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Support - seen this user around. No issues. Patient Zero^talk 12:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Support Mz7 has been helpful to many users, and has participated in many aspects of Wikipedia, and so have the skill needed to work as an admin. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Support Fully agree with the noms, obviously is qualified, no red flags. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 13:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC).
13. Oppose Too slow with Huggle. Nah, just kidding. I don't see any issues with this user, nothing to indicate that they'll wake up at 3AM and delete the Sandbox while Tweeting about their miseries, and clearly a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the encyclopedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    @K6ka: Sadly, admins can't delete the sandbox anymore. Someone decided it was just too tempting. To think we once had such powers... ;-) WJBscribe (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Only because it has 651,118 revisions, and that would kill quite a few server kittens to delete :'( -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

14. Support per nom. WJBscribe (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
15. Support - I've seen nothing but good things from Mz7. He is eminently qualified for the role and I'm pleased to support. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Support: Mz7 and I have crossed paths a few times, and he's always come across as calm, collected, clueful and supportive to editors new & old alike. Coupled with the fact he's got the experience with content creation/addition and it's a no-brainer for me. Mike1901 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
17. Support this is a definite 'yes.' Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
18. Support Absolutely. No red flags and has credible experience. Lourdes 15:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
19. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
20. Support Okay, I'll be cliched: I thought Mz7 was an admin already and I would certainly approve handing him a mop based on previous interactions I've had with him. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
21. Support sure. I've seen him around, and he's a good editor. Net positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
22. Support; no concerns. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
23. Support. Mz7 is a helpful editor, level-headed, an established content creator, and is just all-around experienced in a lot of admin areas and OTRS. There is little reason not to promote him unless of course, he does something like what the Hydraulic Press Channel is doing, destroying the wiki with a hydraulic press. But yeah, he is more than fit for the tools, and one of these rare editors who both meets all the qualifications and has a very urgent need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
24. Support. I can get behind this. Also, I like when candidates have experience in the tea house. You learn a lot about how to communicate with new users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
25. Support No concerns. -- Shudde ^talk 16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
26. Support, as per Kurtis. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
27. Support A net positive with no concerns. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
28. Support the excellent nominations sum this one up for me - this user has a clear need for the tools and frankly I thought they already were one -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
29. Support - After an in depth review of their talk page and archives, participation at deletion venues besides articles for deletion, articles created, and article talk pages edited most, as well as a more general review of their contributions as a whole, I feel comfortable supporting this request. I found the comments they have made at files for deletion to be particularly insightful. Their answers to the questions so far have been satisfactory. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
30. Support- I think this user is ready. CLCStudent (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
31. Support per nom. Net positive. Joshualouie711^talk 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
32. Support as this is clearly a NETPOSITIVE. No concerns with this candidate. -- Dane ^talk 21:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
33. Support. OK, that cliché about thinking someone was an admin already – hand (or fin) to heart, that's actually the case for me here. A strong range of experience. And the answer to Q3 is a model of what I like to see in an RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
34. Support Absolutely. Katie^talk 22:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
35. Support. Nicely qualified. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 22:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
36. Support. I am familiar with candidate's demeanor as a fellow editor at the Teahouse. The answers to the questions add to my high regard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
37. Support Seems clueful. Has enough content experience to know what it's like in the trenches.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
38. Support good idea — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
39. Support liked answers to 3 and 6. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
40. Support one of those "thought they already were" kinda deals. Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
41. Support. I went back to September 2016 and checked a great many of the applicant's edits and messages, and I was favorably impressed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
42. Support been around long enough, has content creation experience, clueful in limited involvement at AfD, good answers to questions, good noms. Get on board. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
43. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
44. Support. Long-term editor with excellent communication skills. Content contribution is on the low side for my taste but there's enough to clearly demonstrate competence. I particularly commend the editor's patient, careful interactions with newbies. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
45. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
46. Support Trustworthy and experienced candidate. lNeverCry 05:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
47. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
48. Support - Qualified candidate. J947 05:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
49. Support Has experience, is trustworthy and experienced. Will make a great admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
50. Excellent all-around editor that I've seen around the wiki, plus a nom from MusikAnimal to boot. Easy support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
51. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
52. Support. The answers to the copyright question were mostly good. Mz7 For that third one, you got the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Per {{PD-US-not renewed}}, the image almost certainly fell out of copyright at some point in the US, but it would have been restored under the URAA. As an aside, the important "nitpick" on foreign copyright terms here is that, even if a copyright is owned by a corporation, you usually use the date of death for the known author to determine the copyright term. This isn't true in all countries (e.g. {{PD-India}}), but it is in the UK. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

    Ah, I see now. Thanks for the feedback. As I read it, the URAA would restore the copyright in the US, which will expire 70 years after the author's death per the UK's laws—until 2060 in this case. Mz7 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

53. Support - Very good editor; definite net positive. Very competent editor; no concerns. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
54. Support. Capable and trustworthy contributor, I see no negatives. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
55. Support: Ditto! Seems both capable and trustworthy... a nice guy! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
56. Support: Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
57. Support Will use the tools well. Spencer^T♦C 15:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
58. Support. I haven't seen any concerns/red flags and user will be a net positive. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
59. Support. Clueful, careful, and kind—i.e., a model Wikipedian. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
60. Support. No red flags, fine editor, trusted nominators, good answers. Go mop. Yintan  22:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
61. Support Very good candidate XyzSpaniel Talk Page 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
62. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
63. support why shouldn't I?Mahveotm (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
64. Support Looks good. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
65. Support. I concur with the nominators. In particular I find Mz7's communication skills to be above-average. Risker (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
66. Support. The thoughtful response to Q5 shows this is the type of person suited to be an administrator. VegaDark (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
67. Support NETPOSTIIVE. Mkdw ^talk 00:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
68. Support. A fine editor, happy to support. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
69. Support. I see no reason whatsoever not to bestow the tools on this editor. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  01:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
70. SupportNo evidence they will misuse the tools.--MONGO 03:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
71. Support I like the looks of this editor. Strong communication ability, good article writing, good conflict resolution. More candidates like this, please! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
72. Support Experienced and thoughtful editor. Full support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
73. Support I have no reason to believe that they'll do anything wrong. What limited exposure I've had to them has been pretty good and I have a good overall impression of them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
74. Support An excellent balance of contributions. I like his constructive aapproach to discussions as seen on the April Fools' and Teahouse front page issues: Noyster (talk), 14:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
75. Support Good candidate. FITINDIA (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
76. Support No red flags, and help with the backlogs is always welcome. Miniapolis 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
77. Support, seems like they will be a net positive. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
78. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
79. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
80. Support – Thoughtful, helpful, clueful, experienced. I like the volume of NACs in particular, and the nom from MusikAnimal carries weight. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
81. Support - On top of everything, I like the attention paid to the issue of encouraging new users. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
82. Support: Good answers to the questions and a strong history as an editor. Thank you for volunteering to do the work that needs to be done.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
83. Support - Looks like an excellent editor. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
84. Support, do not see any issues at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
85. Support excellent candidate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
86. Support largely based on previous observations of the editor and a review of the Q&A. No concerns. --joe decker^talk 00:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
87. Support Balanced thinker, content creator, WP:RETENTION-like attitude. --JustBerry (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
88. Support - No issues at all with the nominee's responses. Unlike the lone opposing vote (as of the time I write this), I find erring on the side of caution to be a positive attribute for an administrator, especially a new one. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
89. Support: Consistently thinking about the whole project, good RfC closer, both a content creator and infrastructurally minded, unusually even tempered, and intelligent and thoughtful. I can't find any fault that makes me think the tools put into this editor's hands could in any way not be a net positive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
90. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
91. Support - No concerns here. A welcome addition to the admin corps. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
92. Support - I see no problems.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
93. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
94. Support I could have asked one of my curly questions, but I am very satisfied with the answers to Q5, which was very tough. There are some nasty corner cases. I was also impressed by the answer to Q7. It's correct, of course, but I liked the reasoning. In practice, the distinction between what is and what is not an admin action are often not understood. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
95. Support - no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
96. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
97. Support as meeting my standards. He's a bit deletionist at AfD for my taste, but that's OK. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
98. Support - Mz7's edit percentages are the kind that usually provoke me to oppose (35% mainspace is really very low), but for a number of reasons, I think that in this case it's worthwhile to support. I hope that I don't regret doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
99. Support Good experience in several areas of the project. Diligent. Very good temperament and communication skills. Has established trustworthiness. Donner60 (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
100. Support TheGeneralUser (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
101. Support - no concerns here, and will be a good addition to the admin team. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
102. Support - very impressed with your research and response on the copyright question. I have no idea personally if you're right, but you obviously did your homework. You'll do great with the mop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
103. Support No red flags + solid record = net positive. The Oppose votes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
104. Support The oppose doesn't have a leg to stand on.L3X1 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
105. Support precious original appreciation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
106. Support. See my follow-up question above and retracted weak-oppose vote below. On the whole, Mz7 will be a net positive as an admin. Deryck C. 17:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
107. Support WP:TTWOA. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
108. Support - fits the bill. bd2412 T 22:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
109. Support - Work looks good in AFD, quality contributions over quantity. ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
110. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
111. Support I am happy to support this candidate. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
112. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
113. Support—per above; no major problem. —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
114. Support... I've seen the user around and they've built up positive name recognition with me. Answers above seem honest and good enough for me to think user is trustworthy. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
115. Support. Looks good. Glrx (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
116. Support Solid record, no red flags. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
117. Support - Impressed by candidate's answers for what is a communication intensive position. Leaky Caldron 20:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
118. Support as appears trustworthy. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
119. Support No concerns and no red flags. – The Bounder (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
120. Support No concerns.--Catlemur (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
121. Support piling on. A fine candidate. Bradv 03:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
122. Support with great pleasure. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
123. Support I haven't interacted with the candidate personally, but they seem to be qualified for the mop and would be a net positive. The participation at AFD, although limited, is quite accurate. My only suggestion is that it would be helpful for the candidate to take part in more AFD debates and to perhaps initially avoid closing contentious AFDs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
124. Support. Seems like a generally clueful editor. No evidence has been presented here that would suggest he would misuse the tools. Appears to be a net positive. Like Lemongirl said, above, go easy at AfD to start with and you should do fine. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
125. Looks like a competent candidate with a use for the sysop bit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
126. Support; Mz7 seems level-headed and cordial and has voiced a willingness to take a cautious approach to deletions. "With great power comes great responsibility." Please tread carefully in your new shoes. ;-) --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
127. Strong Support The candidate easily meets my simple RfA criteria: a) User's work in content creation and support of new users easily make him a net positive to the project; examining his contributions leads me to believe that he will be an even further positive with the bit. b) Candidate frequently demonstrates kindness. The candidate's work in the Teahouse is particularly impressive, and has swayed me from an ordinary statement of support to a strong support. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Weak oppose (Moved to support.) (Mainly because I expect perfection when an RfA looks like it's heading towards 100% support!) I think Mz7 is a terrific editor with good breadth and depth of contributions and a good understanding of policy. In particular, I agree strongly with him that we should use our utmost effort to retain new editors at AfC and that deletion should be the last resort at AfD. I also think that his participation in discussions so far has shown a temperament that will make him a good sysop. However, having read Mz7's answers to my question and wider opinion on deletion processes, I'm concerned that he will err too much on the side of caution when he tries to tackle the administrative backlog. The caution needed to avoid scaring away new editors is different from the caution needed in tackling administrative backlog items with insufficient participation, because deletion and protection etc are fundamentally reversible. I fully expect this RfA to pass despite my opposition and I guess discontent with the length of the backlog will eventually make Mz7 bold to take decisions in FfD, RfD, and other administrative discussions with low levels of participation. But I wish he had a bit more prior experience on that front, so I wouldn't have to worry that his potentially undue caution might cause the size of backlogs to remain unnecessarily large. Deryck C. 17:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Deryck Chan, I'm not sure why you think the possibility of Mz7 being too cautious is an issue. Isn't a preference to avoid possibly making the wrong decision a good thing? Enterprisey (talk!) 03:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  I'd rather have an admin that is too cautious than an admin that isn't careful enough. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  I agree that caution is good, though in an open-source project the impetus is often on taking decisions and I have my reservations that Mz7's caution may turn into undue hesitation. This is an issue that, I feel, deserves to be highlighted in an RfA that would otherwise be 100% support. Deryck C. 15:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not refuting your opinion, nor am I pushing you to move to neutral (or even the general comments) where your argument would also be effectively highlighted, but I did want to say I think most of us start with being overcautious. Mz7 may imply this in his answers, as I did in my RfA, but in practice admins will quickly learn where corners can be cut in the interest of optimal maintenance. Initially being hesitant about pushing buttons is the right approach, and something I've even come to expect from new admins. I don't think this undue hesitation is any bit a detriment either; an admin with this trait would still equate to a net positive. Nonetheless I do find your remarks helpful, and I'm sure Mz7 will take them to heart — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  An empty oppose section in an RfA is not a vacuum that requires something to fill it, or a reason to !vote in opposition to an admittedly strong candidate on thin grounds. The basis given for opposing is completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose. While Mz7's contributions are generally fine, I don't think that he has enough participation at AfD – only nine !votes in the last six months. (My personal expectation is a minimum of 3–4 !votes per month.) I note that Sam Walton states "I found that Mz7 has a good history at AfD (though note that if you use the AfD tool his votes are hidden amongst many edits relisting discussions - the tool tracks 500 AfD edits at a time, not 500 votes)." I don't think this implies that Mz7 has !voted more times in the last six months. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

General comments

• Note of disambiguation: The nominated user account is not the same as MZMcBride, Mzajac or Mr.Z-man. Samsara 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Deryck Chan: In regards to your follow up question: I asked a similar but slightly broader question before this RfA at User talk:MusikAnimal/RfA/Mz7, which you may wish to read to save Mz7 re-iterating what he already wrote on the topic, which was quite extensive! Sam Walton (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2017 (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.