Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MJCdetroit 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] MJCdetroit

(47/0/1) final Andre (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MJCdetroit (talk · contribs) - MJC has been editing Wikipedia consistently for two years now, with at least 50 edits per month since December 2005. He is one of our leading experts on templates, with over 100 edits each to Template:Infobox Settlement and Template:Infobox Country. He also contributes to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and other administrative jobs.

Riana and I reviewed MJCdetroit in March 2007. We both agreed that he was ready to acquire the mop, but for some reason it has waited until now.

For the record, MJCdetroit failed in a previous request for adminship in May 2006. I trust that the concerns expressed then about inexperience and insufficient community interaction have long since abated. Please join me in welcoming MJC into the cabal. Shalom Hello 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Wizardman: I am pleased that MJCdetroit has decided to take the plunge into adminship, he's certainly ready now if he didn't feel that he was 3 months ago. As mentioned, he's mainly a template guy, working in TfD, infobox settlement, etc. but he does have some good mainspace work, making plenty of edits to the FA Detroit, Michigan. He seems like a very competent user and would certainly be of value to Wikipedia as an admin. Wizardman 03:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Youngamerican: In addition to spending the last 14 months addressing the concerns of the last RfA, MJC has managed to make himself into one of Wikipedia' preeminent experts on template design and maintenance. I imagine MJC as an admin would help ensure that Wikipedia's templates stay fresh and secure (vandals are getting smarter about how to cause the most havoc). It is always nice to see an editor who wants and needs the mop for all of the right reasons, and this is such a case. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Thank you, —MJCdetroit 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Note: In order to save the nominee some time and effort, I have copied his responses to questions in the cited editor review from March/April 2007. He is free to remove these excerpts and/or add further comments. Shalom Hello 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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: There always seems to be admin backlogs and I wouldn't mind helping out where I can in areas such as Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, 3RR, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. [from Editor Review]
Post Scriptum: My admin work would be limited at first. MJCdetroit 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Lately, I'd probably have to say {{Infobox Settlement}} and the edits associated with it. In order to implement an automatic unit conversion feature in the template, all articles using that template had to first be prepared so that there would not be any expression errors. It was a lot of work, but the result was a smooth transition and a more uniformed look and function to the template and pages that use it. [from Editor Review]
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: User:Tasc, but then again...who hasn't a conflict with him? He is now blocked indefinitely for his conflicts. I dealt with him the way that anyone should deal with such a situation — through mediation. [from Editor Review]
4. (Additional optional question from LessHeard vanU) I notice that there are blank edit summaries in your count, including this month. Are there any reasons for this, or can you give instances where you feel a summary is not required.
A:Probably that the edit was very minor or sometimes I've hit the return key (enter on a PC) by mistake, or hit save too soon and it saves the page. I usually try to put something down.
Are you aware that you can set a edit summary reminder prompt in your "my preferences" section (under the "Editing" tag)? LessHeard vanU 21:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I am now. Thank you.MJCdetroit 05:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from O (talk)

5. Why did you save a test revision on a live article?
A: I was trying to solve this problem: Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Giant_space.
6. I'm a little concerned by this revert. Why did you use a generic revert summary here?
A: A user had created three specialized de-centralized versions of Geobox Settlement. This goes against the long standing practice of standardizing infoboxes and not specializing them. This user was changing settlements in Louisanna and I was going to revert his changes using popups but decided not to as it would probably be a waste of time. I only reverted two pages before I changed my mind; one was reverted manually with a not so generic summary and the other (the one you found) using popups with its generic revert summary. Those two were reverted back by that editor, as I suspected that they would have been. Since I'm not a main editor at Geobox Settlement, I just placed those infoboxes up for deletion here and informed the editors of Geobox Settlement of these infoboxes and the TfD (to which they all agreed to delete them). The same revert edit that I performed was performed again by User:VerruckteDan within a day or so after my edit was reverted.
7. What is the importance of giving an explanatory revert summary?
A: To avoid questions like this on any up coming RfAs and to make the exact reason for the revert clear.
8. When should admin rollback be used? When not? When to use a personalised revert summary?
A:When a user is obviously vandalizing pages. Rollback shouldn't be used to revert good-faith edits. —MJCdetroit 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/MJCdetroit Requests for adminship/MJCdetroit 2

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support yes I'm aware it hasn't been listed on the main page yet... It is amazing what you find lurking other editor's talkpages. I've not run across MJCdetroit in quite a long time, but the few times I did in the past I found the editor to be constructive. Nothing makes me thing they will abuse the tools... plus if MJCdetroit can surive Detroit, they can survive a few vandals.--Isotope23 talk 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as co-nom. Yeah, it's not up yet, but I'm impatient. Wizardman 20:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Great work with templates. Consistency is spot on. I trust this user. the_undertow talk 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I nominated him before and see no reason not to support him now. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I supported 417 days hither, and nothing in that which has transpired since suggests to me that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be other than quite positive. Plus, although adminship is not a trophy or reward, someone who comes from Detroit (cf., that majestic Midwestern metropolis whence I hail) deserves something nice in what must otherwise be an exceedingly bleak existence. :) Joe 04:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Candidate has demonstrated calm dedication in working steadfastly for over a year since his last RfA. That alone commands my respect, and Joe's endorsement above seals the question. Xoloz 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Lots of experience, great work with templates. Good candidate. Lradrama 10:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support He has plenty of experience and is well respected already. There is no concernhere that he will abuse the tools. JodyB 12:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support —Anas talk? 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support —AldeBaer (c) 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support- The candidate answered the questions the way I like them; short and sweet. Good luck! --Boricuaeddie hábleme 19:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support 3 co-noms must mean something! :) Looks like a good potential administrator. Aillema 19:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Excellent editor, will be a great admin. Lexicon (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - I see no reason to oppose Corpx 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong support excellent nominators and an excellent candidate. Acalamari 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support per my con-nom. Just the sort of user that needs the tools as Wikipedia continues to grow. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. No complaints. J-stan Talk 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Nothing wrong, you should be a good admin Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I've seen this user around many times. Deserved. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Minor matter cleared up, very civil, and unlikely to run amok with the buttons. LessHeard vanU 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support as I don't see a reason not to. --S up? 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I've noticed this editor many times and had wondered myself why he had never been given the mop yet. Trusilver 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support -as per LessHeard vanU..--Cometstyles 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support I reviewed MJC's contributions pretty thoroughly at some point earlier this year, and found only good things. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support: I trust this editor with the tools. — mholland (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support, have only had positive dealings with the editor. —Nightstallion 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Wikipedia is better for you being here. ~ Infrangible 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Met him many times on Wikipedia. I must appreciate especially his hard work with Infobox and its development. Admin tools will help him make a better job. - Darwinek 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - Impressive contribs. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Moral oppose - Please you're wasting our time here :P Just give him the mop already! Giggy UCP 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Per Giggy! Jmlk17 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Answers to questions are very good, no specific edits jump out at me (except for the ones I asked as questions, but were cleared up), and a great user. (→O - RLY?) 03:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support as nominator. Shalom Hello 12:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support.Lustead 13:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    Support Great editor! —Moldymort 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC) indef blocked vandal
  39. Support No problem with an admin who focuses on templates, which are often underlooked (TfD backlogs for instance). If you have the time and will (I don't anymore) I hope you will standardize and maintain other templates as well. –Pomte 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Appears pretty well experienced (you have to be to work with templates), and per this discussion, he's willing to work with other editors to achieve a consensus, even in a sticky situation. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. You dug deep! I am very impressed! —MJCdetroit 03:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support dedicated contributor.--cj | talk 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Knows his stuff; is very pleasant to work with; could make a great use of the tools.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support- seems to be a good candidate. Aminz 09:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support per nominators. Peacent 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support- Good candidate, NO reason to believe this individual will abuse the tools, good experience, good edit count. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Everything looks good to me. --Fire Star 火星 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Waiting for response to further comment on Q.4 (hint, hint!) LessHeard vanU 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Changing to support following polite response to comment. LessHeard vanU 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Long-term editor with sterling work on templates. However, non-template mainspace contributions seem rather minor, and few, if any, Wikipedia space contributions unrelated to templates make me wonder if the editor's current breadth of experience is suitable for adminship. Espresso Addict 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    6308 mainspace edits is few? Maybe I read this wrong, since that doesn't seem right, could you elaborate please? (I'm not trying to grill you or anything, just curious.) Wizardman 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    I reviewed MJC's last 500 mainspace edits, as I do for all candidates on whom I comment, and they were almost all addition of templates; however, the 'few' in my comment applied only to Wikipedia space (<500 edits). I've added a comma to my comment in an attempt to clarify. Espresso Addict 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, alright. Thought you meant mainspace as opposed to wikispace. Okay, fair enough. Wizardman 20:46, 22 July 2007 (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.