Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Msgj

Msgj

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (37/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Msgj (talk · contribs) – I'm delighted to be able to continue my theme of encouraging template coders at RfA by nominating Msgj for adminship. I first encountered this surprisingly long-standing editor on and around Template talk:WPBannerMeta, where he has thrown an enormous amount of energy and enthusiasm behind updating WikiProject banners to use the latest template features. Throughout this occasionally-controversial process, I have not yet seen him anything less than completely civil and cautious, probably more so than my own approach; I have every reason to suspect that this attitude will continue to be a hallmark of his actions as an admin. His contributions to the development of the template itself have also been invaluable, and it will be of enormous benefit to have another pair of hands able to fix my screw-ups on protected templates :D. While investigating Msgj's contributions I also discovered his sterling work at Articles for Creation, a process he has been heavily involved with for some time, and a task which touches on a wide variety of administrative tasks and would benefit from a number of the admin tools. Overall, a committed and curteous editor who never ceases to amaze me. Happy‑melon 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-Nomination by Tnxman307

I'll keep this short, as HappyMelon has touched on many of Msgj's outstanding qualities. I first came across Msgj when I became involved in the Articles for Creation process. He has been a consistent contributor there, streamlining the submission process, updating the templates that AfC uses, and even expanding the scope of AfC by adopting Images for Upload (which had amassed a sizeable backlog). Msgj is also patient with new contributors, as evidenced by this conversation. A quick glance through the AfC talk page shows not only a dedicated, helpful editor, but an editor who is constantly looking for ways to encourage new contributors and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I've known Msgj for several months now and am sure that if given the bit, he will continue with his terrific work. TNXMan 17:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the generous words. I am happy to accept. Martin 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I would aim to help with any administrative tasks where help is needed or where backlogs occur. There are some areas where I feel my experience here will allow me to get involved immediately, and other areas where I would need to go slowly, tread carefully, and read up on all the policies before acting as an admin. The areas with which I could probably help straightaway include: CAT:EP, WP:RM, and WP:RFPP. Although I don't have a vast experience of working with WP:CSD I am familiar with the criteria and could also help out there occasionally.

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

A: As my nominators have mentioned, my best contributions are undoubtedly connected with my work at WikiProject Articles for creation. I can't remember how I first became involved with this project, but got hooked and genuinely enjoy reviewing articles and giving editors advice on creating articles which meet our guidelines for inclusion. In my opinion this project is of enormous benefit to Wikipedia, by facilitating the creation of quality new articles, educating new editors, and of course by rejecting the large number of inappropriate articles that are submitted. I must have reviewed a good thousand submissions by now I reckon. With the hard work and dedication of our reviewers we eliminated the huge backlog that developed in past years and now rarely have any backlog at all.

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: To be honest there are no conflicts which have become at all heated, mainly because I don't let them. This is only a hobby after all. When a discussion is becoming contentious I will tend to withdraw for some time or ask the advice of others. Nothing needs to be hurried here and things can normally be sorted out more easily if both parties have had time to reflect.

Optional questions from Aitias

4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes, sure. A well-written hangon tag would make me think twice and consider allowing more time. But there are situations (e.g. blatant copyright violation, attack page, etc.) when it wouldn't make any difference and the page should be deleted immediately.

5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. I don't think I will have any hard-and-fast rules, but will be happy to grant rollback to any user who has been editing here for at least a few weeks and whose contributions cause me no concern. I would not hesitate to remove rollback from a user to whom I had granted the right if I saw them misusing it. If it was another admin who had granted the right I would, out of courtesy, likely bring it to their attention to deal with if possible.

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. This is explained in the non-free content guideline. A picture of a living person may not be used unless it can be argued that no new (free) photograph could serve the same purpose as the non-free one. Other conditions would need to be met as well; for example, the picture could only be used in mainspace.

7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. Assuming there is no history of past interactions with this user, I don't believe there would be a conflict of interest in blocking them in this case. I do not own my userpage and so the fact that it is my userpage makes little difference. I would act in the same way regardless of whether it was my userpage, someone else's, or an article.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. Very rarely. A highly offensive and inappropriate username would be one circumstance. Behaviour which was completely off the scale for incivility and/or racism would be another possible situation. I would need to be confident that warnings wouldn't make any difference, and that the user was unlikely ever to make constructive edits.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46:

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant the speedy deletion request?

9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A. I'm bunching these two together because I think they are not significantly different. Essentially we have an article which is bereft of useful content. It probably meets criteria A3 and A7 and so technically could be deleted. However we want to avoid biting this user and we should give them a chance to create the article which, who knows, may some day be listed as a featured article. Having said that, I wouldn't wait long - I think waiting an hour would be more than generous in this case, and if it still met the criteria then I would delete it and explain why.

General comments

• Links for Msgj: Msgj (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Msgj before commenting.

Discussion

• For anyone wondering why the proportion of my contributions to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces are relatively high, that would be my AfC work which mainly occurs in these namespaces. Martin 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• As I will not be sending thankspam I would like to thank in advance anyone who contributes to this discussion. Martin 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Having worked with him at AFC and knowing what a good job he does over there, I have no problems supporting.--Giants27 TC 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
3.  Works for me –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Large number of edits on many different pages. Seems helpful and friendly at AFC. Be on the lookout for both "MSGJ" and "Martin" in sigs, guys. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, I changed my signature a few months ago. Thought "Martin" sounded more personal than MSGJ! Martin 20:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Support Can't find anything disturbing. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Looks real good from my quick review. Noms are very persuasive as well. Helpful established editor. I like the help the creation of articles emphasis. Strong trust Msgj will be a good reliable admin. --NrDg 20:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Very good editor, and useful in many different parts of WP. No concerns here. FlyingToaster 20:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
8. At last I can do it without fear of my talkpage and watchlist being flooded with AWB template crap ;-)--Patton^t/c 20:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - Looks good to me, no reason not to.--Res2216firestar 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
10.  Works for me - Proud to be #10. Msgj should do good with the tools. :-) --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - A weird username, but I can see that he is a worthy candidate. Simon^KSK 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

    For more on weird or interesting usernames, see User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

    Haha, interesting page. These are my initials. Sorry if it's weird; I didn't choose them ;) Martin 23:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

12. Support - iMatthew // talk // 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Unless I missed something appalling, this user should do quite well where they wish to work. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Based on my experiences with Martin, mainly at AfC. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - speedy tagging looks generally good. Not afraid of PROD, AFD - which results in a lot less errors. probably could've been stubbed rather than speedied, but that's the clostest I can find to a bad choice, which isn't bad at all. WilyD 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Pile-on support - don't see any problems here. Seems a highly productive user, who should make a good admin. Robofish (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - a civil editor to the community, will do good with the tools.--TRUCO 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Looks good. LittleMountain5 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - I trist MSGJ, and hopes that he does good at adminship. Xclamation point 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - As long as you promise to push the big red button. — neuro^(talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
22. What's with the weird symbols? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    Ssh! I didn't understand, but I carried on the bloody thing. That's the key, man. — neuro^(talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    Too many symbols → Facepalm –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    Facepalm Facepalm (always wanted to make that my reply to a facepalm. :P --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

23. Checkuser is not for fishing I mean, support. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    CheckUser?! o_O Might as well do User:Juliancolton/Faces or or or or ∞... --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    And  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: says... NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

     IP blocked,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust,  CheckUser is not a crystal ball,  Clerk assistance requested:,  Confirmed,  Likely,  Possible,  Unlikely,  Unrelated,  Additional information needed. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 13:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

24. Support w/o graphic, but with question - Happy-melon screws up? :O —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    Was that a full sentence? :| — neuro^(talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

25. Nothing to suggest this user will misuse or abuse the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
27. . We need more template coders. Review of some contributions looks good. More later as needed. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - As co-nom. TNXMan 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Bizarre-looking RFA, but the candidate is far from bizarre. Quite a bit of experience, good answers to questions, has a handle on policies and procedures. Useight (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Absolute support seen user around WP:AFC and has had good experience with user. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Have seen around and always in a good way - low drama quotient and solid worker. Orderinchaos 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
33. This user has a clue support Looks like a clean past, clueful user, and will be a good addition to the admin cohort. And don't even think about facepalming me :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

    Facepalm :P --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

34. Support - clueful editor and per past interactions Matt (Talk) 07:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, looks like an excellent candidate who has made a major contribution to Wikipedia and could make an even better one with additional tools. No concerns noted. Imagine this vote has a large, flashing, explicit image with it just to upstage the various icons above. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Note: Decorate this RFA more, then take a break, eat some cheese and..... Huh? What? Oh, right.. Support, per above. :) Colourful RFA, by the way. :P --Knowzilla 12:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support I see no problem with this user (although I am wondering why his RfA attracts the childish behavior above ) SoWhy 12:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Looks good to me. — Aitias // discussion 13:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support, can't see any reason not to. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral