Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MJCdetroit

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

Final: 14/26/5 ended 15:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

MJCdetroit (talk · contribs) – MJCdetroit has been an editor since Dec 2005 and in that time has done a lot of geography related work, including finishing a task I started over a year ago to include US measurements (along with the metric) in all 50 US state infoboxes. He's been working on infoboxes for a variety of countries, replacing country-specific templates with the generic (customizable) Template:Infobox Country - earning a barnstar in the process. He's been doing a fair amount of vandalism reverting lately as well and I think will make a fine janitor admin. Rick Block (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted—MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Clearly. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Seems to be a conscienscious and civil editor with broad experience. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support A civil user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Somewhat narrow experience overridden by what appears to be a strong sense of communication with fellow editors; therefore, unlikely to abuse. RadioKirk talk to me 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per Siva and RK. Addition: Having read MJC's lenifying responses to Tawker's questions, even as I don't think all of those responses to be fully correct, I apprehend that the user properly understands the role of the admin, to-wit, to carry out the consensus wishes of the community and to act with deliberation and moderation, and most doubts I had with respect to this user are resolved. Joe 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support meets my criteria. ShortJason 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment This user ShortJason has a contribution history of approximately 160 edits, with around 60 of them being edits to the article namespace and the rest apparently being RfA votes or user talk requests to vote on RfAs. TigerShark 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This coment is about ShortJason, and not MJCdetroit, right? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. Sorry if that wasn't clear. TigerShark 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support. Looks like a hard working and civil wikipedian that I have no reason to suspect would abuse admin tools. Shanes 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support The answers to Tawker's questions sold me. I really believe this would be a good choice. Yanksox 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. My interaction with this user has been very positive, and he seems to be a hard-working and consistently good editor to me. —Nightstallion (?) 06:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Lapinmies 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support This user initiated the effort to standardize the many City related infoboxes and continues to participate in the project. One of many efforts he has participated in to improve and standardize article presentation. harpchad 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support good editor. --t ALL IN c 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per Yanksox. SushiGeek 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - per my questions -- Tawker 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose for very low edits of Wikipedia namespace and insufficient overall experience. Please use edit summaries more often for minor edits.--Jusjih 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, too few edits to Wikipedia namespace. Naconkantari 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose to few edits to Wikipedia namespace. ForestH2
4. Oppose per User:ForestH2 Also, I saw few reverts and no warnings or reports to AIV. As blocking vandals is one of this user's tasks as an admin, I would like to see more experience iin that area. However, this is user whom I believe I can support in the fututre. Just needs more experience. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 22:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Not enough experience and no clear need for the tools. Has never posted to AIV, and so has never been far enough through the vandalism escalation process to require the ability to block. The only experience of deletions is a few instances of voting on infobox deletions. TigerShark 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose too few namespace edits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Admins need to be involved in the community. --Cyde↔Weys 01:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose, lacks of community involvment and Wikipedia-space edits. --Terence Ong 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Fails my criteria. My criteria for min. no of edits at start of nom are 1300; 15% in project space – both not met. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:41 UTC (2006-05-30)
11. Oppose per above, will support in a few months with some more experience. Also, you can help with articles with unsourced statements and NPOV disputes without being an administrator! --Rory096 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Make that strong oppose, doesn't have a confirmed email address. --Rory096 06:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Make that strong strong oppose, first two photo uploads are copyvios. --Rory096 07:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And so are another picture and an article... --Rory096 07:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose per Rory096 and Cyde. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. ... aa:talk 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Not enough user interaction, will support next time though. --digital_me^(t/c) 18:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose, a little light on experience yet. It's possible to revert vandalism, to work on NPOV disputes, and to work on articles with unsourced statements without being an administrator. Actually, if you have an interest in those areas, that would be a good way to build up your experience; that way, you'd have more to talk about next time you apply for an RFA. --Elkman 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose, insufficient experience with Wikipedia namespace suggests a lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose – doesn't seem experienced enough, more talk and project edits would be a step in the right direction – Gurch 08:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose. Needs more experience. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mailer Diablo's criteria is very close to violating our making a point policy, I might add. SushiGeek 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you say that? He genuinely believes admins should have helped in at least one FA, because this is an encyclopaedia. It may be a bit misguided, but it's in good faith. --Rory096 06:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose - need more exp/edits, don't think anyone has gained admin status with so few edits?--Andeh 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not true at all. Hermione1980 was made an admin with 911 edits. Nicholas Turnbull was made an admin with ~750. Phroziac was made an admin with about 1,100. Also, I was made an admin with about 1,400 edits. SushiGeek 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose on experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. Someone who posts clear copyright violations should not be an admin. Rebecca 07:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose I'm sorry I have to oppose, because you really do seem like a great user, but your experience isn't the type of experience that admins need. Steveo2 11:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose Per concerns expressed above, by Tigershark and Sarah Ewart. --Wisden17 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. Per comments above. (Come back in a few months with a few thousand more edits and we shall see.)--SomeStranger (T | C) 17:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 04:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. Insufficient experience concerns me, but your answers discourage me from voting oppose. Royboycrashfan 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral on the fence — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. Seems like a great user, but mainspace edits are lacking. Almost there! DakPowers (Talk) 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. You need more significant mainspace edits and better use of edit summaries, and perhaps a bit more overall experience. Would support if these issues improve over the next few months. Kafziel 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• See MJCdetroit's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply]

Username MJCdetroitTotal edits 1296Distinct pages edited 703Average edits/page 1.844First edit 13:37, December 2, 2005 (main) 753Talk 32User 30User talk 64Image 9Template 222Template talk 85Wikipedia 77Wikipedia talk 24

• All user's contributions using User:Voice of All's tool (at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS). Joe 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Viewing contribution data for user MJCdetroit (over the 1296 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)Time range: 149 approximate day(s) of edits on this pageMost recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 29, May, 2006Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 2, December, 2005Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 80.64% Minor edits: 64.75%Article edit summary use (last 512 edits) : Major article edits: 98.81% Minor article edits: 68.48%Average edits per day: 8.32 (for last 500 edit(s))Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 20.06% (260)Unique pages edited: 643 | Average edits per page: 2.02 | Edits on top: 10.26%Breakdown of all edits:Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 41.74% (541 edit(s))Minor edits (non-reverts): 37.81% (490 edit(s))Marked reverts: 4.63% (60 edit(s))Unmarked edits: 15.82% (205 edit(s))Edits by Wikipedia namespace:Article: 58.1% (753) | Article talk: 2.47% (32)User: 2.31% (30) | User talk: 4.94% (64)Wikipedia: 5.94% (77) | Wikipedia talk: 1.85% (24)Image: 0.69% (9)Template: 17.13% (222)Category: 0% (0)Portal: 0% (0)Help: 0% (0)MediaWiki: 0% (0)Other talk pages: 6.56% (85)

• See MJCdetroit'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: Besides the typical protecting of pages and blocking vandals, I probably can help from time to time with Articles with unsourced statements and NPOV disputes, —MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A:Template: Infobox Country. I switched most of the single use country infoboxes over to the infobox country standard. This was a very time consuming task because I was also updating the figures and double checking facts as I went along. There are almost 200 countries that use this template. Of the list that I was using there are only a few countries that refused the switch.—MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Yes, conflicts over the Israel article. I thought I handled it very civil. I knew my edits were bringing the article more in line with the Manual of Style—to which the admin agreed. The person that I had the conflict with was involved in many conflicts with other editors and administrators. That person was blocked from editing for a while. The only way to deal with such conflicts is calmly and hopefully it can be resolved using the manual of style guidelines.—MJCdetroit 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. Why would you need admin powers when it appears that you could accomplish all that you need without those powers? Yanksox 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I can and have accomplished a lot without the administrator status but it would be nice to have that extra tool on my tool-belt (so to speak). One more trusted solider (admin) to hold off the invading vandals and to help with the conflicts between the worker ants (editors). I think that I have proven myself. Proven, that I would not abuse such a position. Besides, abuse by anyone—editor or admin—is usually reported quickly and dealt with.

I'm also a bit on the fence on your RfA, below are my optional questions which help me decide -- Tawker 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)[reply]

1. You find out that an editor, who's well known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

   Answer— I would have to assume that there is some type of evidence (Request for CheckUser) and not just my Columbo intuition coming throught. If I suscepted some negetive socket puppetry going on, then I would do a request for CheckUser. If the evidence shows that it is a sock puppet of the editor, then the sock puppet can be tagged and blocked. Also, a message should be left with/for the well-known editor to basically say (nicely) —stop it or the sockpuppeter tag will be added to your main account. The fear of being outted would probably bring the editor back into line.

2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

   Answer— It sounds like the other admin may have jumped the gun a little, but I wouldn't hold it against that admin. One of the two was willing to try and work through the differences. The other continued to war. I would still try to engage the both of them and submit comments. If rejected, then I would lift the block on the one editor (consider it time served) with a stern warning to be civil (if hostile language was used) and leave the other editor blocked for a little longer for failure to communicate.

3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

   Answer— I have seen that the 24 hour block can sometimes have little effect on an editor who has been a problem. If a user has more than one block in the past, the next block should be even longer— 48 hours, 72 hours, etc.

4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

   Answer— I think that some type of community concensus would be needed; more than just one admin at least. They could be blocked for a time until such concensus could be gained.

5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

   Answer— I have seen where the admin has stated that he/she suspects that sock puppets are being used and stated so in the conclusion. I've seen where names of new editors have been struck through and the vote not counted. If that were a possibility, I would try that. If not, it is better to error on the side of caution and no consensus. It would probably go back to AfD if it was truly warranted.

6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

   Answer— I guess it depends on what is being requested to be deleted. An article on how the Queen and the Pope kill puppies could probably be deleted with a smaller number of votes than an article on Methyl Ethyl Ketone.

7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

   Answer— If true—isn't that a good enough reason to have more administrators?

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   Answer— I've done a lot of work helping to edit some of the infobox templates that affect a vast number of articles. In that time I have seen how the benefit of being an administrator can help solve disputes, give accolades to the deserving, and keep articles safer. It would be a tool that I could use to help improve Wikipedia.

9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   Answer— Some do and others simply put on the administrator "hat" when they need to.

Comment: Good questions. I hope my answers sway you to the support side of the vote. In any case, thanks.—MJCdetroit 02:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rory096

1. Your Wikipedia email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now?

   A

The above 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.