Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Martial Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Martial Law

Final (7/32/10) ending 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Martial Law (talk • contribs) – Enthusiastic. Eager to assist current administrators and bring issues to their attention. Eager to assist new users. (More description in my support indication below.) Nlu (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Position Accepted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial Law (talk • contribs) 14:23, March 7, 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. A couple people have privately informed me of their reservation, but I decided to nominate anyway, because I see these positive characteristics in Martial Law:
    1. Eagerness to try to solve problems.
    2. Eagerness to learn.
    3. Eagerness to try to help others on the learning curve.
    Now, those who had concerns have valid points, and I'm going to try to address why, despite the valid concerns, I am making the nomination anyway -- but also to let Martial Law know that what people might be looking for during and after the nomination process:
    • Not enough article edits. That is a valid point. However, the reason why I think it would be helpful for Martial Law to have admin privileges is not per se he's a great editor (great editors aren't necessarily admins or vice versa), but rather that he is eager to learn and help. I was particularly impressed with how he handled the User:Beckjord situation.
    • Somewhat questionable judgment in his edits. I believe that we all make questionable calls at times; the question is what you do when people let you know that you made a mistake. Again, Martial Law is anxious to learn, and I believe that he would be more than able to learn the admin ropes.
    An additional thought: Martial Law, whether this passes or not, do not consider the opposition comments to be personal attacks; rather, take them as constructive criticism. In fact, I think this process will be very helpful to your maturation as an editor. --Nlu (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: He's been showing a friendly face in our encounters. Deryck C. 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per Nlu. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. moral Support - well, it's not going very well. Please stick around, take the recommendations in the oppose section, and move on with editing. Also suggestion to withdraw, unless you're looking for critiques. Seeing what Nlu has said, though, keep doing what you've been doing and you'll be alright. (And not signing the acceptance of your RfA has GOT to be bad luck...) -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. -- Eddie, Wednesday March 8, 2006 at 04:50
  6. Support I think you would do good. Whopper 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support It looks great. User:Code Napoleon

Oppose

  1. Oppose sorry. His inability to list his RfA correctly gives me pause, also lack of edit summaries for major edits and his low contribution to content. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per Sarah. NSLE (T+C) at 03:58 UTC (2006-03-07)
  3. Per NSLE. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Martial Law should try to add more to the encyclopedia, whether it be through RC patrol, copyediting, adding good encyclopedic content, etc. To this point in time his interactions have mainly been through trying to bring issues to the attention of others via talk pages, rather than making many improvements himself. I'll also note he doesn't need admin rights to accomplish his goals for Question 1. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Eagerness is one thing, but skill would be better. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I hate to oppose, seems like a great editor, but his answer to question 1 is a non admin task IMO. I think he might want to get some more experience doing mundane, janatoral tasks such as NEWPAGE patrol (we need more newpage patrolers, between 12 am -4 am i'd say 60% are tagged for deletion). Mike (T C) 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Sorry, Martial Law clearly means well, and does contribute somewhat to Wikipedia-space, but Bunchofgrapes sums it up pretty well. I've seen Martial Law post plenty of stuff on pages like WP:AN or WP:ANI that I don't think really belongs there. And, of course, his responses to question 1 don't require adminship at all. Dispute resolution and mediation are things that don't require the adminship tools. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in those ways, you are very welcome to do so without the adminship tools. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Per Deathphoenix, I'd agree, I've also seen posts on WP:AN, WP:AN/I which (to me at least) are pretty cryptic, good communications are important. As per others, low edit summary count, answer to question 1 etc. --pgk(talk) 09:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Corrected signed it properly and corrected error. --pgk(talk) 09:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. While Martial Law has over 5000 edits, they are to less than 350 different pages. It is easy to infer from this that he has never been on RC or NP patrol. I appreciate that he has intervened successfully in a user dispute, but I suspect that he is not very familiar with processes and policies. And as per Deathphoenix, dispute resolution does not require adminship. Adminship does not require great editing skills, but it does require some other things that I and others have mentioned, and I hope Martial Law will work on those before reapplying. Stifle 11:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as per above, especially as per Stifle. Also, I'd would really like to see a significant increase in the use of edit summaries. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, needs to use more edit summaries. Needs to have more experience as an administrator. --Terence Ong 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I get around the project a bit and I've only come across ML a couple of times, which is unusual in an RfA candidate; I also reviewed his edit summaries, and in recent days found him adding how-to content (WP:NOT), some contributions which were not as neutral as I'd like ([1] whihc appears to assert that alien abductions are real), so I'm not confident he has the necessary grasp of policy; finally, there are not enough edits to real, encyclopaedic articles. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. This user has a userbox which says, This User may run for and become a Administrator at any time. Sorry, but I don't think so. --BWD (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose 348 page edits and low edit summary usage. Nope. Computerjoe 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose as very premature. Encourage nominee to withdraw and spend a few months actively building the encyclopedia before considering this role. Jonathunder 18:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Yikes! Unsigned acceptance of nomination. 8% edit summaries is just hard to wrap my head around. Sorry, I dislike edit-summary-coutitis, but I'm begining to come around to the benefits of users summarizing their edits. If its true that you are a quick learner then I look forward to supporting you in a few months. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. His admirable eagerness is cancelled out by immaturity and advocacy of questionable claims as fact. He sometimes gives the impression he is responding to what he thinks is the situation rather than the actual situation, the most recent example being him saying above, "Position Accepted", rather than "Nomination Accepted". That isn't a good look for an admin IMMHO. The nominator, Nlu, says Martial Law is anxious to learn, so maybe he could come back some time in the future. Moriori 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. His edit history screams "enthusiastic" (which is a very good thing) but definitely not imho "admin material" at this stage. He doesn't need adminship to fulfill his stated goals. --kingboyk 20:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. I'm sure he'll be a fine editor. this isn't an oppose because he's done something outstandingly wrong, just hasn't been around long enough to firm up an admin level editor status. Staxringold 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Low use of edit summaries for major edits makes me wonder if this candidate will leave reasons when deleting pages.--Jusjih 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Based on past interactions, I've found no indication that the candidate understands basic Wikipedia policies, Verifiability in particular. I don't doubt his good will and enthusiasm, but he's far too inexperienced for me, and his sometimes-idiosyncratic way of communicating confuses me sometimes – I can't imagine what that would be like for a newbie. android79 03:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Moriori, sorry. Adminship is not a trophy. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. No hurry for the powertools kid; use your handtools for a little while, then I'll be o.k. knowing that you have the power to block my arse or delete my wedding pictures. You get the point. --Rob from NY 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Due to the problem with User:Bumpusmills1 and general paranoia. --timecop 01:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, may have over 5000 edits, but lacks the use of edit summaries. He may delete pages without even a reason. --Terence Ong 09:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Weak oppose lack of edit summaries --Ugur Basak 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per concerns raised above. — Mar. 9, '06 [20:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  27. Oppose, give it a bit more time, learn more about the community, don't take any of this personally like Nlu says -- Samir ∙ T C 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per above, mainly the lack of edit summarrys. Prodego talk 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose but not to pile up oppostion. Per all the above oppose votes. Moe ε 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. OpposeAs per all the other oppose votes.Prasi90 13:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. I agree with Android above, it's a bad idea to have people who don't know their way around procedures and policies practising on newbies, however eager to learn they are. ML is very enthusiastic and goodhearted, but I'm often quite nonplussed by his communications myself. Also a bit nonplussed by Nlu taking the initiative of nominating him. Bishonen | ノート 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC).
  32. Oppose -- Sorry; edit sums are very important. John Reid 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Martial Law is an interesting fellow and seems determined but I haven't seen much admin type editing...I suggest doing some RC Patrol, participate in Wikipedia namespace discussions and the article deletion pages for some time yet.--MONGO 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Would like to see more activity in project space. pschemp | talk 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I would support Martial Law on the grounds that his intentions and heart are certainly in the right place. But I think it's a wee bit premature at this point to be nominated. However, I will watch carefully for his responses to questions and potentially swing to a support. No promises however. --DanielCD 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. ML is a very ensthusiastic editor and interesting charachter, no doubt. But unfortunately I cannot support him at this time, for I'm not fully convinced he's not batshit insane. No offense. Some of my nearest, dearest friends and relatives are batshit insane. However, the admin cabal is currently over its quota in this department. So if and until more of those retire or are defrocked, I must plead the Swiss.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    One can make the argument that we're all "batshit insane." :-) In all seriousness though, that comment comes off as a mild personal attack on his character. Do you have anything specific? --BWD (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I moved my vote to neutral after a bit of research. I'll probably support it when he is renominated. --BWD (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I might support in the future, but ... you forgot to sign your RfA. That's just plain bad luck :x — Adrian Lamo ·· 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    To expand slightly, this user's approach to Wikipedia is inconsistent with good administrative practice. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it's not a military hierarchy either, a fact the User:Martial Law seems fuzzy on. Comments like "Be advised that a Admin. is not a janitor. He/she is like a police officer on Wikipedia"[2] are really troublesome in an aspiring administrator.
    — Adrian Lamo ·· 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. But if he comes up again, let's note that these problems were looked at here, and make sure we re-evaluate whether he has learned differently. I think people can leave comments like the "police officer" comment that can become invalid as they learn more, but I also agree the learning likely still needs to be done at this point. --DanielCD 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I know his heart is in the right place, but the opinions here have given me reservations. Raven4x4x 08:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I'm a bit skeptical about this user. JIP | Talk 16:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, leaning towards weak support. Ukrained 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral, well I've changed my vote from Oppose to Neutral. I believe Martial can be a good contributor without the tools. However, if he wants to be an admin, he needs to use more edit summaries and be more familiar with admin stuff. If he can work on this, he can try for another RFA in a few months time. --Terence Ong 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 8% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 2 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Martial Law's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • And a note to the people commenting about the userbox: he did not nominate himself, so I don't see it as really relevant. --DanielCD 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It shows lack of maturity, among other things. --BWD (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hehe. A LOT of things around here show a lack of maturity. --DanielCD 01:27, 10 March 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. Mainly dispute resolution. Seen that most Admins I've encountered have to attempt to solve disputes here, such as recent vandalisim to the Butter article.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The "Wiki-Directory" of Wiki-links found on my user page, so that new Wikipedians can find the wiki-links pertaining to their inquiries. When I find a new Wikipedian, I have them pay my user page a visit, as I Welcome them to Wikipedia, thus they'll see the directory itself. Status of this is that it is still being constructed, have not found all of the Wikipedia links. It also serves as a handy reference.
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. Some minor conflicts, but who has not ? No stress was initiated at all by any of them

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
The above 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Martial_Law_689a.html"