Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Msgj

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

Msgj

Nomination

Final (98/0/2); Closed by Rlevse at 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination by Happy-melon

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 acceptance

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.

Q's from flaminglawyer

10. In your own words, no copy-pasting: Explain the core principles of blocks and bans. Also, explain the distinction between the two. Also, include a real-life analogy between the two.

A. A block is a means by which we can use the software to stop someone editing the encyclopedia. A ban is a formal revocation of editing rights by the community. A real-life analogy? Hmm. A block is a pair of handcuffs; a ban is a jury verdict?

11. Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable/experienced in/on the majority of WP policy? What could you do to improve your experience/knowledge in the areas in which you lack?

A. I am familiar with the policies and guidelines in the areas in which I have worked. My AfC work has given me experience in a lot of the core policies (e.g. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, ...) and recently I have been working with IfU which has filled in some gaps (WP:IUP, WP:NFC, ...). Naturally there are areas which I am not familar with (to pick a random example, I have very little idea about what an open proxy is) and if the time came when I did choose to work in these areas, I would of course read up on the policy beforehand!

Question from Seddon

12. What is your favourite piece of classical music, and why?

A. This is actually the hardest question yet :) I couldn't put my finger on one piece but I was lucky enough to see Alfred Brendel last year. He was playing all sorts (Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, ...) and it was mesmerising. I do enjoy classical music from to time, but it tends to be folk that gets the blood flowing for me.

Humourous, optional K50 Questions

13. Write a haiku about your contributions to Wikipedia

A. 大全を　書く読む事が　楽しいね。 (With apologies to any Japanese speakers for the pain inflicted by my basic Japanese.)

14. What WP:CSD criteria would best meet the Main Page, in your opinion?

A. As the main page is not an article but is located in article space, it is clearly in the wrong namespace and could be deleted as a G6 technical deletion. Although this is a humourous answer to a humourous question, I do support the argument that the main page would reside more appropriately in the portal namespace.

Optional questions from Uncle G

15. Posit that it is the 26th. What would you do upon encountering the following discussions, and what would your rationale be?

1. Old revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing with meaning
2. Old revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Faiths Forum
3. Old revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabiana Jones

A: With the caveat that I have not had an enormous amount of experience at AfD and so do not intend to rush into closing these discussions, I will do my best at answering the question. (I have converted the links to permanent links of the version at the time the question was posted, to be clear about which version is being discussed.)

1. This one is a close call, but I find User:Arsenikk's comment extremely helpful and persuasive. The main argument for keeping the article was based on the number of google hits. But until a new term becomes widely used it is just a neologism and does not belong in an encyclopedia. This discussion could be relisted, but it is unlikely to attract any more comments as well thought out as Arsenikk's. My conclusion is to delete.
2. The consensus is to keep. As several editors have pointed out, although the article is currently not written in a neutral tone, it is far from an advertisement. It is lacking in reliable sources (with just one currently) but a quick web search shows me that there are several other likely sources available to establish the notability of this forum.
3. As there are no comments except the nominator's, this one should be relisted to give more people a chance to participate and hopefully reach a consensus.

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)

• Tell me I didn't start this by using  Works for me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton (talk • contribs)
  • User:Wadester16/YourFault... with many thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Err, I'm sure we can both get slices of the blame pie. Something about m:Voting is evil, I think. 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
• For anyone still trying to get in on the post-a-pointless-box-with-my-vote deal, see Category:Image with comment templates for some ideas. flaminglawyer 01:13, 19 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)

    That's just greedy... :D Happy‑melon 08:40, 19 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)
      • It's one that no doubt would give Noam Chomsky hours of fun. Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 23 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)
40. Support User has been around since Feb 2004 and outstanding track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong support the candidate, neutral on above graphics. Wizardman 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Support per answers to questions, clearly recognizes that WP is not a webhost and the undercontruction template does not create a homestead here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
43.  Works for me No reasons not to support this user at this time. Razorflame 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - helper of article creation and various experiences? Good to go for adminship. --Caspian blue 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - has clue, will travel. Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Support No issue. America69 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose. Answers to questions suggest user is a sock of Geometry guy. Support. My first interactions were in disagreement with Msgj and was impressed by the response. Apart from his great contributions, editors who handle disagreement well are exactly the kind of admins Wikipedia needs. Geometry guy 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Majorly talk 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards by having barnstars on userpage, no blocks, and due to no memorable negative interactions elsewhere. Wow, unanimous so far? Is that rare? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - I feel comfortable entrusting this user with the responsibilities of adminship. kilbad (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Oi, who stopped using the silly vote templates? This level of seriousness cannot be tolerated :D. Accordingly, I shall at this point take the opportunity to say how  Great! I think this candidate is... Happy‑melon 08:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Shupport ...who among us can't be pleased by a friendly set of handcuffs? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - I don't often bother with a support in the 50-0 RFAs (maybe it's a natural aversion to running up the score), but the response to #10 is just great. Absolutely outstanding. --B (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Clearly a trustworthy and knowledgeable candidate. Rje (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Candidate shows strong knowledge of policy and civil interaction with others users. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. The amount of colorful images in this section lead me to support! (Well, not really… mostly because the candidate is trustworthy and all.) DiverseMentality 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
57. ↑, ↓, ←, →, A+Start.... Oh, I mean Support, obviously. I'm sure Martin will do fine. Gazimoff 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

    Get it right, dammit! It's ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start! MuZemike 04:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

58. Divided between Support and Strong Support α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Strong Support first time I didn't dig as deep into edit history - answers to questions are the best I've seen yet. Very solid concept of what this site is about. — Ched (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Very constructive. -- Mentifisto 03:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Yes, please. MuZemike 04:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Heading RIGHT to WP:100 supports support... What's with the smilies? K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support I fully support this editor gaining access to the mop. I Grave Rob (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Knowledgeable. Experienced. Worthy. ←Spidern→ 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Rejected ... I mean support, per my RfA criteria. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support The answers to the questions were spot-on and you seem very responsible. Also, Brendel's Mozart is laced with gold, so no argument there! Themfromspace (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Support. Born to be an admin :) —Eustress ^talk 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Looks like one of the ‘good guys’ to me - I'm sure he'll make a great administrator :) -- Marek.69 ^talk 07:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. A no brainer. Good luck, Msgj! Malinaccier (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support Reasons: 1.) the editor who nominated. 2.) The answers to questions. 3.) The edits I've seen by the candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) (voted once already - sorry)— Ched (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

70. Support I can see no good reason why this candidate cannot have the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Support I've encountered this editor before; seems trustworthy. Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Support Well qualified. -download | sign! 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Solution happy, minimal ego overload. --KP Botany (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Support, although taking up Majorly's challenge below, I see that you are somewhat vague about your folk music tastes. If you are a fan of The Incredibles I think we should be told :) Ben MacDui 10:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Positive interaction on WP:AFC. Very kind user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

76. 	♥ − 0
    lim
    	x
    x → +∞

    Extreme folk-rock support. — CharlotteWebb 17:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Support -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Looks good to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
79. Support One of the best candidates I've seen. NSH001 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. —_macy 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. Good editor. --Carioca (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
82. — Jake Wartenberg 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
83. This user is always striving to improve wikipedia. Seraphim♥ 00:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Excellent user and outstanding editor. Good luck Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
85. Support per non-wimpy answers to the questions and demonstrated history of encyclopedia building. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
86. Strong Support Can see this user becoming a very good admin :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 07:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
87. Support: Dedicated, intelligent, will ask when he's not certain. Maedin\^talk 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
88. Support - Yes you are a good candidate, you meet my criteria with no trouble. You should make a good admin. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
89. Support per everything I see here and in the user's actions. Timmeh! 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
90. Strong Support Perhaps won't make a perfect admin, but we need more, and he'll do good. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
91. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
92. マーチンよ、大志をいだけ！ Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
93. Support – looks good, especially the template-coding credentials. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 07:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Excessive icons on the support page notwithstanding (and obviously not really relevant to my thinking!) this is a clearly experienced editor who gave some really good answers to the questions. --Ged UK (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
95. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
96. Support — JoJo • Talk • 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
97. Support – TheLeftorium 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
98. Support - Great editor, polite to rude people on user talk, lots of backstage work already.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose This section is looking unnaturally empty. A candidate cannot go unopposed ;) Majorly talk 22:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1.  Later The number of edits in 2004 scares me a bit; wikiholics have been known to be infamous admins... :) I'll wait for an answer to my Q's before finalizing this, but my gut tells me to go neutral (as usual) and I think that's where I'll stay based upon my prediction of his answers to my questions. flaminglawyer 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yep,  Confirmed neutral. Answer to Q10 is less than stellar and a bit terse. A for Q11 is good; admitting that you have a problem is the first step in solving it. flaminglawyer 02:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (Change to support, no joke on that). Sorry to ruin the party, but I must say that this game with the graphics in the support section has thrown me back (I know this is no the candidate fault). Grating sysop privilege is a serious business with long standing implication for the project. I don't know the candidate, so I rely in the support section as one of the resources to learn about the candidate standing with the community. I will wait until I see more substantial support arguments for this candidate. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   Shouldn't that be Neutral? :D To set joking aside, however, do you really think that any of the editors who have supported above did so purely so they could use a comment template? That they would not have done so otherwise? I think you do them a disservice to believe that if you remove the humourous graphics you are not left with an evaluation of the candidate's merits like any other RfA. And I am extremely glad that this discussion has moved in the direction of lightheartedness rather than towards the flaming pits of burning sulphur that too many RfAs have of late become. :D Happy‑melon 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   No offence intended, but you should never, never rely on the comments of the supporters/opposers/neuters. Check their diffs, investigate the candidate yourself. WilyD 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   I don't rely only on the comments. Again, sorry if I don't have a sense of humor but grating the power to block, protect, and delete should not be a lightheartedness process. I don't think that editors that supported the candidate did so just to use the graphics, but they do a disservice to the discussion and to the candidate by filling this discussion with graphic junk. But I'm aware that my observation is not about the candidate potential, so I will stop and review the candidate's past performance. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral I do not support a potential administrator, or any user for that matter, having a signature that does not match his or her actual username. Keepscases (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   Why not? I'm more curious than anything else... Happy‑melon 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   It's totally confusing, of course. If there is a user named "Martin", he will be thought of as an administrator should this RfA pass. And no one will remember the real administrator's account name. Keepscases (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   It's a fair point and something I'll keep in mind. As I mentioned above I changed my signature because I felt that "Martin" was more personal, and I think this is important especially as I often deal with new users in my work. I was first welcomed by User:UtherSRG in 2004 and I remember wondering at the time whether this was a real person writing to me or some computer program, which is probably why I never replied to his message! Martin 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   You could try something like Martin^Msgj. Just a thought. Geometry guy 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   Nice suggestion. It works for me. Martin^Msgj 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   You have my support for administrator, I'm just going to leave my neutral so people will notice it and think about it, because I have seen a lot of signatures lately that don't match usernames at all and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Keepscases (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   It will still show up if it's indented.... Dekimasuよ! 06:04, 24 February 2009 (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.