Wikipedia:Editor review/MJCdetroit

MJCdetroit
It has been brought to my attention that I should try to become an administrator. Therefore, before attempting to gain admin status, I figured it would be a good idea to be reviewed by my peers before proceeding with a RfA. MJCdetroit 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Without doing a "proper" review of your editing pattern, I'll comment on your prospects for adminship. First, a lot of second-time applicants are successful if they have improved in the meanwhile, as you have. Second, you have strong credentials with contributions for more than a year, in various namespaces.

In your RFA, if you decide to do it, you need to be more clear and assertive than you were in the last RFA, or in your first two answers here. RFA voters like me are looking for someone who has demonstrated expertise in multiple fields. You have done this - but you haven't clearly articulated it. In the "contributions I'm pleased with" question, you should mention your work on various templates and your article contributions. The edit counter says you have 69 edits to Detroit. Did you add content or images? Did you fix spelling mistakes or revert vandalism? Have you done similar work for other articles? We want to know. In the "sysop tools" question, mention your work in TFD, and suggest that you would close TFDs and maybe CAT:CSDs (which include some templates), in addition to the other backlogs you mentioned. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
 * In an RfA, the user might wish to mention template protection-unprotection in what he would do with admin tools. Savvy RfA participants like hearing someone use specifics beyond the usual "admin backlog" answer.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits look pretty good, but please put on some pants before you submit an RFA... it's cold in Michigan.--Isotope23 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah but it will give the neighbors something to talk about&mdash;MJCdetroit 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Lately, I'd probably have to say Infobox City 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. 
 * 1) 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?
 * 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 &mdash;through mediation.
 * 1) Optional question from youngamerican: In terms of either content or technical issues, in what areas of Wikipedia do you feel that you have developed a certain level of expertise?
 * Wouldn't say I'm an expert but I have become very familar with the workings of infoboxes and templates. Also copy editing articles to manual of styles section on measurements.
 * 1) Optional question from riana_dzasta: What sysop tools would you find the most useful, and what activities would you use them for?
 * 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 Suspected sock puppets.
 * 1) Optional question from riana_dzasta: Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * If I am even considering it then they must have done something very distrubing to even get to that point. I would hope that blocking would be used as either a last resort (they won't respond to me or continue their wrong doing) or perhaps as a way to force them to take a step back from a heated exchange (with personal attacks) or an edit war (3RR).  I've been around a while, I know how I am expected to conduct myself and so should other established users.
 * 1) Optional question from riana_dzasta: Your first RfA did not pass due to your lack of interaction in the project space. Currently, approximately 3% of your edits are to the project space. How important do you feel it is for an administrator to be involved in WP:space, and how do you intend to use sysop tools given that you do not appear to take part in very many XfDs, RfAs, and other so-called 'admin hotspots'? (No accusations here! Basically just a rehashing of my first optional question.)
 * I have proposed many templates for deletion. Many of the country articles used their own infoboxes, all looking different from one another until I put all of them up for deletion and standardized all the country infoboxes to Infobox Country.  I tend to be an inclusionist when it comes to articles.  As for RfAs, I tend to vote for editors that I have had interactions with in the past.  Also, I was one of the first editors to join WikiProject Infoboxes and I have been involved with WikiProject:Countries and WikiProject:Cities.  In fact when I am done here I plan to review the Madrid article as requested in the project talk page.
 * 1) Optional Question from riana_dzasta: Under what circumstances should a page be protected? Are there other methods to avoid protection?
 * This question just recently came up at Template:Infobox City because that template is used on over 3,000 pages. One change to that template could affect all the other pages that use it.  I said that I would be in favor of protecting it even though it would be harder of me to edit to it; but that's what a sandbox and the talk page is for.  Semi-protection has worked well in the past on pages like United States and George W. Bush.
 * 1) Optional Question from riana_dzasta: In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
 * Some admins I am sure do more work than others and are more involved than others, but I wouldn't necessarily say that that makes them "good". I think that it is easier to define a "good" admin by first defining a bad admin.  Anyone who rushes to judgement, anyone who can not be fair or impartial, anyone who does anything that maybe viewed as administrator abuse would certainly be classified as bad.  As long as the administrator does not fit that mold, then I consider them to be good.
 * 1) Optional Question from riana_dzasta: In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * I think that administrators hold a slight technical advantage over regular editors, but it's not that big of a deal. It's just an extra tool in the toolbelt. It's like being on a construction sight and the the foreman entrusts a certain worker with the keys to the toolbox to help all the other workers.  The foreman can just as easily give the keys to someone else, just like the ArbCom can take away the admin's powers if needed.  As far as a political position, I feel that administrators shouldn't view their position as political.  Thinking that this position has some type of political advantage could lead to clouding someone's views on a certain issue.
 * 1) Lucky bonus question from riana_dzasta ;) : Three parts; a) If successful, will you consider the admin recall category? b) Take a look at Category:Rouge admins - would you see yourself there? c) What is WP:IAR and what situations do you feel its application is warranted?s
 * a) If it's just an extra tool in the toolbelt then being open to having it taken away more easily than ArbCom would be a way to show my intensions and that I could be trusted with said tools. b) Sound like fun. c)WP:IAR is not a blank check to do whatever you want. I remember someone tried to used this when they wanted to totally rewrite the WP:MOSNUM.  One person against, well everyone didn't work out too well&mdash;even with the "Ignore all rules" concept.  The community will still decide what is acceptable.  As for when is it warrented...I couldn't think of a situation...sorry.
 * a) If it's just an extra tool in the toolbelt then being open to having it taken away more easily than ArbCom would be a way to show my intensions and that I could be trusted with said tools. b) Sound like fun. c)WP:IAR is not a blank check to do whatever you want. I remember someone tried to used this when they wanted to totally rewrite the WP:MOSNUM.  One person against, well everyone didn't work out too well&mdash;even with the "Ignore all rules" concept.  The community will still decide what is acceptable.  As for when is it warrented...I couldn't think of a situation...sorry.