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

Martinultima[edit]

Voice your opinion (2/18/3); Ended 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Martinultima (talk · contribs) - I've been with Wikipedia for several years now (I think since sometime late in 2004 or early 2005). I've created several articles, from little known children's authors to well-known computer applications. I'm not quite as active on Wikipedia now but I do occasionally make minor edits, particularly to try and reverse vandalism, and I also have experience as a MediaWiki admin for my own site. I'm mostly running so I can better revert vandalism, and maybe handle other small projects here and there... Martin Ultima [ multima - talk - contribs - leave message ] 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Hmm, not going to argue :-)

I'm withdrawing my request. I can understand those of you who agree we need more active admins, but honestly, if your sole reason for being against is something as silly as a signature, quite honestly I don't want to be in the same user community as you. (And they wonder why free projects like Linux or Wikipedia never catch on?)

Thank you for your time and consideration, and bye-bye. Martin Ultima, without the fucking image sig! 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and incidentally, my bad, it was DistroWatch.com that I created – I created that one a while back (at the time there wasn't a DistroWatch article anywhere), they'd since moved it and done a redirect. Martin Ultima, without the fucking image sig! 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly I'm hoping to deal with vandalism - I usually attempt to manually edit things back if they've been vandalized, but reverting's considerably easier and more effective. Plus I can help with other small tasks here and there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think QEMU, DistroWatch, shutdown, Story Time, and the Vivian Vande Velde articles are the ones I'm most proud of, as well as a few edits to the Artemis Fowl articles. They're somewhat rough, but some of them (QEMU especially!) I think were pretty important articles which no one else had yet created.
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: Yeah, I'll admit. I've had issues. Mostly over stupid stuff I'd done without thinking, on impulse, that sort of thing. I've gotten better since I stopped being quite as obsessive a contributor ;-)
4. Question from Real96: What does WP:IAR mean to you? And, in which cases will you use WP:IAR?
5. Question from Real96: What Wikiprojects have you been involved with?
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

7. After reverting vandalism, how are you going to warn the users who vandalize. And, would you watch the WP:AIV for reported vandals when your are an administrator?--U.S.A. cubed 03:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Nick

8.You are requesting the community grant you extra tools - primarily the ability to block users, the ability to delete material and the ability to protect or unprotect pages. Could you provide some examples of when you found it frustrating or inconvenient not having these tools and how you would have used them ?

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Martinultima before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support I'm not asking myself if you need the tools, only if I think you will abuse them. I don't think you will, so here's a support. Frise 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support - I think you're a good editor, but sadly your RfA is unlikely to pass this time round, as you jumped in too early. I suggest you withdraw, wait 6 months and chalk up 2500-3000 edits, then I'll nominate you myself. You could also consider applying for admin coaching, or an editor review. Walton Need some help? 11:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. You need to have more experience editing articles, interacting with other users, and in project areas. Most candidates for adminship have several thousand edits. While sheer numbers aren't important, experience is, and so is enough article editing and interaction to give a sense of who you are as an editor and what kind of admin you'd make. Come back after a few months of regular editing. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Image in signature. Naconkantari 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Have to oppose due to your signature. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 02:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose of the articles you mention in your answer to Q2, QEMU if the only one you've edited in the last six months (you edited that in the beginning of February) and you have never edited DistroWatch. WP:SIG is very clear that "Images of any kind shall not be used in signatures.". You have fewer than 500 edits in total and have only made three edits in the last two months (apart from two to this RfA). Your answer to Q1 is poor, especially as the Undo feature gives you almost the same abilities as the Admin's revert tool. Your talk page shows you don't have a good understanding of image uploading policy, and this from the header on that page is really unacceptable: "If I decide to give myself a barnstar or two here and there, I think I deserve the right to do so... and make a few exaggerated claims along the way." Altogether this adds up to an obvious oppose, sorry. Gwernol 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Just not active enough to be given tools. I agree the user has longevity at Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily mean a good, all-around editor. Jmlk17 05:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Fewer than 500 total edits - roughly 100 of which have been to the candidate's own userpage. Also, oppose per Gwernol. --Tim4christ17 talk 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose No need for sysop tools. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 06:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Gwernol has written everything I was planning to write. Also, I do not trust Martinultima with the tools due to the comments on his talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I'm not happy with the level of commitment to the project nor the answers to the questions. No real justification as to why the user needs admin access. User is able to contribute significantly to fighting vandalism without this. Edit summary usage for major edits is too low also. It might be wise to withdraw this RfA. Adambro 10:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I don't feel that this person needs the sysop tools right now. Sr13 (T|C) ER 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose usually I don't consider edit counts that much in RFA, but 500 edits are just too few for an admin candidate over two or three years. The image in the signature indicates a lack of familiarity with the policies. Additionally, your answers do not convince me of your need for the tools. —Anas talk? 11:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I cannot in good conscience support a candidate whose user page says "As of February 2007, I’m no longer regularly contributing to Wikipedia". Kelly Martin (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, sorry but 400 odd edits in two and a half years shows distinct inactivity and per your answer to question 1 - there are many easy ways to revert edits made by vandals, say Vandalproof for example, I don't think you have a need for the tools. The Rambling Man 16:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose: Plenty of time here but a lack of edits. While the inactivity is a problem I also am not quite sure why you would need the tools. Especially since you are "not quite as active on Wikipedia now". Also your edit summary usage is quite low for major edits and suffering a little in minor edits.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose You need more editing experience before I support. Captain panda 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, not enough recent edits. And get that stinking picture out of your signature. --Phoenix (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I can't support the picture and more edits are needed. Gutworth 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. STRONG Oppose, per Gwernol. Violating WP:SIG is worthy of a strong oppose in my opinion. Funpika 19:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral Due to Question 3 and pending answers to my questions. Real96 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - as per "I'm not quite as active on Wikipedia now ". We need very active admins because we already have a bunch of people who became Admins and then just Disappeared..Sorry..--Cometstyles 02:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral There's no reason you can't revert vandalism without sysop access (especially if you use Twinkle or Vandalproof, but I do it "by hand"). Other than that, you haven't provided a satisfactory reason for needing the tools. YechielMan 03:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but the canadate would need to be an administrator to block reported vandals at WP:AIV.--U.S.A. cubed 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is why does the candidate want the tools; he hasn't suggested that he wants to do that. Gwernol 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know that a canadate had to state why he/she wanted the tools on an RfA.--U.S.A. cubed 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask the canadate.--U.S.A. cubed 03:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category