Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Martinp23

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

[edit] Martinp23

Final (15/16/8) ended 15:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Martinp23 (talk • contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia for quite a while now, and although I was quite inactive on my registered account for a while after first registering it, I'm pretty sure that in that time, and before getting a registered account, I was making smaller anonymous edits. Recently, I've been doing comparatively little work on articles themselves, being more concerned with primarily reverting vandalism, and also wading through WP:AFC (when I have access to a tabbed browser), welcoming new users and doing NP patrol. I've recently been on a wikibreak, which will account for my recent breaks in contribution (I had no access to a PC :( ). Although perhaps relatively inexperienced in terms of edit counts to other users, I feel that I know as much about anti vandalism and my other wikignomish pursuits as those with much greater edit counts. To this end, I feel that I could make as much use of Admin tools as users with higher edit counts than myself, using the tools to clear speedy deletion backlogs, block vandals, carry out moves quickly and efficiently and (most importantly for me) clear backlogs of images and media to be deleted. Thanks for reading my nom, and I welcome all comments. Martinp23 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept - self nom Martinp23 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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: I'd first like to go through Category:Images_and_media_for_deletion and delete what needs to be deleted. As well as doing this, I'd help to keep on top of speedy deletions and XfD noms, as well as keeping on top of WP:AIV, although this seems to be kept on top of quite well anyway at the moment. In my spare moments (!), I'd like to really get involved in dispute resolution as an administrator, using protection powers to cool down disputes. Finally, I'd use additional admin tools to help with page moves.

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

A: I am pleased with my anti-vandalism work across wikipedia, and would like to continue with this in the future. I think that it is extremely important to encourage new users to come to wikipedia and contribute, but unfortunately wikipedia's current speedy deletion process deletes the first contributions of many new users, and the impersonality of the SD notices can drive users away permanently. To try to combat this, I have created a template message which I hope will help to encourage genuine users to stay Template:Firstarticle.

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: I have been in conflicts on wikipedia - most often only when I have invited myself into them using WP:3O. The most infamous of these (in my opinion) was the mess at Sculpture of Ancient Greece, which eventually resulted in an RfC for one of the main proponents in the dispute (brought by another user) to which I contributed. (The RfC was for Ste4k - now banned). I want to try to resolve disputes rather than cause them, an ambition which administrative powers would help me with (for issuing 3RR bans and page protections).

Optional Question from Royalguard11(taken from CrazyRussian): If promoted, would you add youself to Category:Administrators open to recall? If you would, what actions would you take if recalled?

A: If I were to be made an admin, I expect that I would join Category:Administrators open to recall, if it still existed WP:CFD#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall. If I were recalled, my course of action would be to firstly address the problems of those who had asked me to go through a recall. If those users felt that, after this, there was still a problem, I'd pass through another RfA to gauge the community's opinion, and if they were to feel that I should stand down, I would. I think that the whole admin-recall process should be officialised, and all admins made compulsary members. Instead of my current choice of going through another RfA, there should, in the future, be a special system for re-judging current admins in which those who have problems with the admin can easily voice their opinions (but different to an RfC, in that simple Support or Oppose votes are needed).

Comments

• See Martinp23's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit Count Using Interiot's Tool 2 alphaChimp ^laudare 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - though he does not meet my requirement of 300+ project-space edits, his answers to the questions and his nomination paragraph make me want to support him. Kalani ^[talk] 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. DarthVader 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Somewhat low on the experience end of things, but I don't see that as a compelling reason to oppose in this case. Seems like someone who would make good use of the tools. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Has been active for 3+ months, has 1500+ edits including plenty in project and talk spaces. Everything I see is good. Eluchil404 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, I see no reason why he should not be an admin. His number of edits may be a little low but this editor has shown he understands policy and as a result edit number is unimportant. SorryGuy
6. Support, I have been temporarily cured of the flu!--Andeh 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Has a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Seems like he would be a good admin. Don't care too much about edit count. Good luck. -- Jared Hunt August 14, 2006, 14:13 (UTC)
9. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. G.He 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Edit count is sufficient in my opinion. WARNING TO SELF: Editcountitis is contagious. --Gray Porpoise 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support after a well writen answer to my question. I believe it would be good for you to have the mop. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Edit count doesn't mean much (although there's certainly a difference between 500 and 5000). I'm pleased with what I've seen from this user and I have seen him around fairly frequently. He's kind, supportive of new users, and a good vandal-fighter. Let's give him the mop! :) Srose (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support --HResearcher 07:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Siva, Sorry, and Srose; inasmuch as, pace BlueValour, with whom I rarely disagree, I think Martinp's understanding of merge/redirect, etc., to be fine, even as I think his procedural handling of the AfD to have been less-than-perfect; and consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 05:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose as fails my personal standards in terms of edits. I would have done a neutral, but someone has to start. Please see Viridae's comments below. Ifnord 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose not quite ready yet. I would definitely give my support with a few more months' contributions and a non-self nomination. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Edits need to be boosted. They are a reflection of experience. AdamBiswanger1 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
4. weak oppose Seems like a good editor, but with just 1700 edits and (essentially) only 3 months editing, its a bit early to tell. come back soon! --heah 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose - per CrazyInSane --T-rex 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Please read through WP:RFA/ST to get an idea of what most people's standards are, I don't consider mine that difficult to attain. Themindset 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Wouldn't it be helpful, given the relatively vague nature of your criteria, to tell the candidate specifically how they fail to meet them? Saying "you fail to meet my standards" is fine, but it's also totally useless if you want the user to improve so that they can meet them in the future. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment "Nominee must be people person, hardworking, civil, trustworthy, helpful, kind, temperance, friendly, have good manners. An understanding of the english language, have a good vocabulary. Understands the workings of Wikipdia and a be good tutor. I find post counts and time on Wikipedia factor toward the above but may not necessary reflect on the person character. Last thing I want to see is another power tripping Admin that deletes the hardwork of other people for the sheer pleasure of destroying other people's work. While I understand there are limits to wikipedia bandwidth, and server hard drive space. Admin should be open minded, and flexible to variation, and have a broad understanding of what is useful everyone else, rather then what is just useful to me. I feel Admin must be intelligent, wise, clever, happy, unstressable do gooders, that has the time to be on Wikipedia, and that will take the time to both smell the roses, and keep things organized with a clear mind." per WP:RFA/ST in regards to Massiveego --Stubbleboy 02:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   i.e. "relatively vague criteria" is being rather generous. In practice their application seems to be, "will oppose for any old reason, or none". Alai 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment That's my point: how can someone oppose without citing the specific reasons for doing so? As the above text demonstrates, these particular standards are so vague that it's not only impossible any candidate to reasonably prove that they live up to them, but it's also impossible for them to improve themselves. RfA is not a vote, so what is the purpose of opposing without any indication of the reason? RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   Masssiveego said in the edit summary that his reason was the nominee's inexperience. I've asked him to put the explanation on the page, but he responded that he'd rather explain his reasons "after an election".--Kchase T 10:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

8. No go for support - oppose per CrazyInSane. --Bigtop 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose needs some more experience, should try again soon. CFIF (talk to me) 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose I'd like to see some more experience. Michael 05:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Just needs more experience overall. More *fD experience. More IfD expereince. More editing. I see a lot of welcoming user with vandalproof. Welcoming users is important. However, with only ~2000 edits, there needs to be more substantial edits, more Fairuse image review and cleanup. More vandal warning and reporting to AIV. Try building a stub up to an interesting article-- with a list of refernces at the end. Find a subject that intersts you. Dig up some information and add it to Wikipedia. :) Dlohcierekim 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose Nothing at all wrong with gnomish, minor, or semi-automated edits (I'd kinda have to say that, wouldn't I?), but 1700 edits consisting largely of such isn't really enough to judge someone's suitability in a meaningful way. Either a lot more of the same, please, or a wider range of editing to judge your "latent experience" by. Alai 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose - needs more experience.--cj | talk 05:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong oppose. See attempt to premature close an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grassfield Elementary School. Applicant quite failed to understand the difference between a 'Delete/redirect' and a 'Merge/redirect'. Further, instead of simply accepting that the closure did not have general acceptance, a vigorous defence was mounted. BlueValour 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    I invite anybody who sees this to look at the AfD in question (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grassfield Elementary School) and make their own decison as to whether I should have closed it. I stand by my actions, as the discussion in the AfD, started by BlueValour, was that he wanted Grassfield Elementary School deleted as he had merged the content into another article. Needless to say, when I saw this, I though "why isn't he doing a redirect", so I closed the AfD as a nonadmin (as the process didn't require an admin under the deletion guidelines and under WP:BOLD (:P)) and carrie dout the redirect. BlueValour objected to this, and reverted my changes, removing my vote as he did so (which was probably an honest mistake). So I tried to discuss my action with him, but they came to a deadlock and I stepped away, leaving an admin to decide. The deletion of an article which has been merged into another is surely a violation of the GFDL, and so breaks Wikiepdia's core policies, which is why I did what I did, and closed the discussion early (as well as to take some strain off admins). If the actions of nonadmins in closing simple AFDs cannot be accepted by members of the community, why is the policy even in place? I'd be happy to hear wht other editors thought of my actions - thanks Martinp23 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment - the above AfD has been closed, with the conclsion that I was correct in my interpretation of the rules. Martinp23 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment - My main concern is not that you closed this AfD but the way that you handled things. Admins should be looking for concensus not arguing strongly in favour of their point of view. At the moment, in my opinion, you do not have the interpersonal skills for adminship. BlueValour 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose. 2053 edits is much less than what I expect from an admin. Not only that, but he has more User talk edits than article edits. Try again with about 3-4000 more edits (especially article edits) & don't self-nom. You are a great contributor, but I won't support you until the issues above have been cleared up. Jorcoga^ETC. 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Per above comments, but mainly noting low edit count in mainspace (600) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning oppose however. Seems to inexperienced and a self-nomination. Relatively small amount of contributions (little over 600 mainspace edits) and only been here since the end of January 2006 after which the nominee states he was initially inactive for a considerable time (began contributing actively since April 2006). [1] It will take alot to change me from turning to oppose.--Jersey Devil 22:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I like your contributions and I can see no reason to oppose. You have involvement with AFDs and lots of RC patrol. I just don't think you have been contributing at this level for long enough. Keep it up, come back in a couple of months And I would be happy to support you. Viridae^Talk 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral leaning Support I do think some more experience (in the form of editing across all spaces) is necessary, but the candidate has a great track record of vandalism reversion, and the extra buttons would enable to him to be even more effective in that respect. The candidate (like all RfA candidates) is to be commended in asking for the extra responsibility, as he/she has demonstrated an eager willingness to further help the project hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral leaning Support also - Hoopydink took the words out of my mouth; and will probably change my vote upon newer questions. I will add that my personal interactions with Martin have been very popular grr... positive - I just cant believe this is his 23rd RfA! ;) - Glen 01:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   • This isn't his 23rd RFA, the 23 is part of his name. Stubbleboy 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Neutral per Viridae. Metamagician3000 12:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral per above neutral comments. I would give support in three months. Stubbleboy 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral per GIen. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Merovingian - Talk 07:20, 16 August 2006 (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.