Meta:Requests for adminship/MJL

MJL

MJL (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Not ending before 15 April 2022 17:36 (UTC)

I was speaking with some users about my old request for limited adminship. It was pointed out to me that I would probably pass a regular request for adminship since I have the minimal required experience. I am on Meta occasionally, and I will every so often run into a problem that requires me to request help from sysops on here and the like.

If granted, I will mostly just limit myself to noncontroversial clerking, anti-vandalism where I see it on my watchlist, and marking pages that need translation as ready. This will likely lead to a higher activity rate here than I currently have for the obvious reasons.

For the record, I would not have made this request if I wasn't strongly encouraged to do so by a few highly respectable members of this community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral thanks for offering your help, but activity on meta is a bit too low in my opinion. --Johannnes89 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean of "noncontroversial clerking" in your reason? Stang 10:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stang: I'd like to monitor Requests for comment and remove invalid entries (like that user talk page which is on there). That kind of thing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a user talk page there? I only see a page in the user space. That is of course caused by the use of a template, which doesn't require admin rights to "fix". --MF-W 17:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was when I wrote that. Either way, a better example probably would've been closing this RFC which doesn't require any steward action. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I switched to my phone. It's still there (but not on desktop). User talk:Liefernando1. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the RFC, yes, it's time to close it and no steward attention is needed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for your help! AlPaD (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unfortunately. Concerns with limited activity levels and no obvious need for the tools. Assuming you increase your activity levels, I'd be happy to support a future run :) -FASTILY 05:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose m-w admins can impact projects globally, as such I first look to see that candidates have significant administration experience/support from content communities first. I can see myself supporting LA requests without this for certain technical tasks here (but not for non-technical things like closing RFC's). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hello, can you please clarify who are the "few highly respectable members of this community" you mention in your RfA? Thanks, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Urbanec: Yeah, it was TNT, ACN, and one or two other people I'm blanking on right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As just a comment, "noncontroversial clerking" is a bit of an oxymoron in terms of RFCs. --Rs chen 7754 18:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Xaosflux and Fastily. Hulged (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn I appreciate the feedback, and I will try to increase my activity levels on this project for the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]