Question from User:Appraiser
- 5. You and I have had a few major philosophical differences in how we think some articles should ultimately be formated. (I edit several hours per day and I have not had so many disagreements with any one other person here.) I can think of examples where you disagreed with the consensus and proceeded to make the changes you wanted, because you believed that your plan was superior to the consensus of the other users. If you are given adminship, do you vow to refrain from using the tools to strongarm the community in order to get your way in disagreements? Or, will you vow to refrain from using admin tools to do anything controversial on articles in which you have a prior interest? My concern is that the admin tools be used for tasks that couldn't be done by the non-admin user, rather than be used to get your way in a power struggle.--
Appraiser 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. (The articles to which Appraiser refers are the ordinal United States Congresses.) You're right. I could use my newfound powers for evil. However, I am a big fan of consensus, and in these cases it's been 2 favoring your formatting, and 1 opposed. As the lone opponent I'd still like to see more opinions on those matters. What's also happened is that many months later, I've come back to one of the articles and forgotten there'd been any debate at all. So I acted boldly until you or another user remind me, and then I back down. If that's not how you've seen it, let me know. Honestly, I can't promise I won't use my powers for evil intentionally. If I mess-up, then we'll correct it. That's the Wikipedia way. I'll use my regular-registered-user's power to be as bold as possible. The role of the Admin is to be a helper, not a thug. So maybe that's what I can say: I vow not to be a thug.— Markles 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Question from User:Mtmelendez
- 6. There's evidence that you don't use the
edit summary often (
[1]
[2]). 1. Why is this so? 2. Although it's an optional tool, do you understand its importance to the project? 3. As an admin, would you use it more or the same? -
Mtmelendez (
Talk|
UB|
Home) 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. I use it often, but probably not often enough. When acting as an admin I certainly would use edit summaries almost all the time. When acting as a regular user, however, I can't promise I'll be any less lazy than I am now.—
Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Re:Sysoping brings certain powers, but also many responsibilities, including accountability. Though not required, always using the edit summary shows commitment to such accountability towards other users and the project as a whole. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. I use it often, but probably not often enough. When acting as an admin I certainly would use edit summaries almost all the time. When acting as a regular user, however, I can't promise I'll be any less lazy than I am now.—
Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Question from Arky
- 7 In your own words, how would you describe the position of administrator?
Arky
¡Hablar! 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. An admin is a trustworthy person who works to improve wikipedia to a greater magnitude than would a regular registered user. Admins are maintenance people. Like brick-and-morter janitors, their jobs are usually straight-forward and monotonous; however, they carry a big ring of keys (greater technical sysops tools) that could get them into rooms which are otherwise locked off. Hence the trustworthiness. — Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (" Markles* is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.")
General comments
- See markles's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for markles: Markles ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/markles before commenting.
Discussion
- It should probably be "lie" because it is intransitive. List of frequently misused English words#K to L ;-) -- Ali'i 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Support
- Strong support, I have seen his edits for a year and a half now and he is a very productive and civil editor. He does a lot of the grunt work in creating new pages and formatting existing pages. Numerous times when I have been looking for projects or pages to work on I have gone to his user contributions and talk page to find out places where work needs to be done. He has also shown good leadership skills in WikiProject Massachusetts and articles pertaining to the United States Congress. Overall, he is a fantastic editor who should have been nominated to be an admin long ago. -- CapitalR 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per CapitalR. Pat Politics rule! 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Long-time contributor with a strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- I have no concerns that this user will mis-use the tools, which is the most important criterion. -- Haemo 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support, Does great work. He has provided excellent guidance, editing and suggestions for the Congressional Delegation from Pennsylvania, among (many) others. Npeters22 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, no worries here :-) Scarian Talk 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- RfA is about trust. — AldeBaer 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support meets my standards is probably fallen by the wayside like, "no use for the tools". However, adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. So seeing a substantial edit count and not seeing any incivility indications on user's talk page, I trust the user with the tools unless someone can show me a reason not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Newyorkbrad. · jersyko talk 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Newyorkbrad. Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- this is truly an unqualified no-brainer. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jmlk 1 7 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support As a relatively new user myself (less than one year), Markles has been very helpful in my efforts to improve articles under Wikipedia:Project Congress. His counsel has been welcome and his edits have served to enhance my own. Dcmacnut 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support A good editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 07:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support, a highly civil user, think he could help out a lot with the protected edit requests and other template matters. Melsaran ( talk) 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Markles has contributed much to the US Congressional Wikiproject, and has been particularly helpful to me whenever I have questions. Pmeleski 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support An experienced editor, including ample experience with templates, who could be very useful in editing and formatting protected templates. No concerns raised during review of recent contribs. I only hope he'll use more of the edit summary in the future. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 03:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support good user. Acalamari 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support, only positive productive interactions with this user, should have become an admin a long time ago. NoSeptember 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to support. See neutral discussion. •Malinaccier• T/ C 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Looks to have a great set of contributions. Good candidate, although I would like to stress the importance of using the edit summary more. :-) Lra drama 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. Daniel 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support This user has a solid base, and I believe they will use the admin powers with due diligence. Phgao 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. WjB scribe 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Indeed, Daniel said it perfectly. -- Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 00:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think Markles will be a fine admin.-- Chaser - T 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support See nothing that makes me think user will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- One large support to go please I've seen this users action in many edit sums, and is always top-notch. Good experience as well! Digital Ninja 17:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose I do respect the work you have done with Congressional articles and the related stuff, and I think that you are doing great work there. That said, I'm sorry, but for someone who wants to be an admin vandal-fighter, I don't see 1 edit to
WP:AIV in the last 3 months. The rest of the "admin chores" that you mentioned in Q1 were really chores that any user can do already. Also {{
CongBio}} was protected 6 months after your last edit to it, and it really hasn't been touched much since. If you want to go and edit it, go to the "Requests for editing a protected page" section in
WP:RPP.
Panoptical 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I think you are a good editor, but I really don't see any need for the tools. Panoptical has a good point on the WP:AIV edits as well. Vandal-fighting is great and all, and you are doing quite well in other areas, but I just don't see what the tools could help you with. Jmlk 1 7 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Changed to support. Jmlk 1 7 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)- Please consult the archives of WT:RFA for details, but the argument "No need for the tools" has been thoroughly debunked. The question is not "will he use the tools?" but "will he do so responsibly if he ever chooses to use them?" Pascal.Tesson 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Per above. Also gross lack of using the edit summary is concerning. It doesn't seem this editor has much of a use for the tools - adminship is not a reward. --
Ben
chat 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding use of the tools, please see Pascal.Tesson's response to Jmlk17 above. With adminship not being a reward, who said that giving the tools to Markles would be a reward for his work? Acalamari 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Although the candidate is an avid contributer and a fine editor, I suspect that when made an admin, Markles would fairly soon edit
Template:USRepSuccessionBox to the version he has wanted for nearly a year now. He has thus far been unable to convince the other users that his version is superior, but just a few weeks ago he wrote, "It's just a matter of time", meaning that he will eventually get his way. Once the change is made, the Template will be protected, with the justification that it is used in some-12,000 articles. With his admin moniker, he will be able to keep it the way he wants it, without needing to reach consensus. I hope that I am wrong, but I am expressing my reasoning for not wanting him to have the admin tools. My apprehension is due to my not being sure whether he would consider that activity as "thug-like", since he believes his reasoning to be superior to the opposing viewpoints. I believe that the community has many fine editors who's judgment as admins I would trust more fully.--
Appraiser 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is kind of cryptic. What's with the "matter of time" comment?--
Chaser -
T 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what
Appraiser is saying. We're in a tussle over whether {{
ushr}} and {[tl|USRepSuccessionBox}} should point to (for example)
United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota or
List of United States Representatives from Minnesota. At times I've just imposed my opinion by making it link to the one I've chosen.
Appraiser has disagreed and we're at a stand-still. I think that
Appraiser is concerned that I, as an Admin, will make the decision the way I like it, and then protect the templates.—
Markles 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand what Appraiser is saying. I don't understand what you meant.-- Chaser - T 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Well here's the details: {{
USRepSuccessionBox}} currently links to [[United States Congressional Delegations from {{{state}}}]], but I think it out to link to [[List of United States Representatives from {{{state}}}]]. The Delegations articles are complete and the List articles are not. However, once complete, the List articles will have far more detailed information that would be more pertinent. I have argued that we ought to link to the as-yet incomplete List articles, but
User:Appraiser wants to stay with the complete Delegations articles. To satisfy
User:Appraiser, I have been slowly completing the List articles which would make our disagreement moot. I've gotten some of them done and I thought that other editors would have helped out by now (alas, I was overly optimistic). Recently, I decided (unilaterally, I'll admit) that enough of the List articles were complete, and I changed {{
USRepSuccessionBox}} to link to the Lists. Yes, I think linking to the Lists is superior (as
User:Appraiser claims above). I think I'm
Being bold, but I understand the importance of consensus on Wikipedia. There hasn't been a consensus on this issue one way or the other and the last time it was debated was back in January 2007. So after my most recent change to the List articles, Appraiser argued that they were still too incomplete, so I reverted myself. I wrote on the talk page (and the Edit summary) that it was just a matter of time; meaning someday soon they would be complete. I think that we should link to the incomplete pages which will encourage their further development. Do you follow? —
Markles 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks for that very thorough explanation.-- Chaser - T 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- One of my frustrations with Markles has been our failure to communicate effectively with each other. My concept is to link to the Congressional Delegation articles, all of which have links to the subarticles—the Senate and Representative articles—when they exist. My reasoning is that the delegation articles have mostly just names shown graphically to show periods of influence, where ideally the Senate and Representative articles will have much more detail about each legislative member, which the reader can access if he wants more detail. His writing here indicates that he doesn't understand the concept of general articles which link to subarticles with greater detail. We have a different vision about how these should be organized with very few others interested enough to chime in about it. If Markles uses his admin powers to impose his concept, the result may be discouraging to others.--
Appraiser 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:Appraiser is right: we have different visions. I do understand the differences discussed by User:Appraiser, but this is really not the place for this discussion. What is relevant is User:Appraiser's concern that I would use Admin power to impose my vision. To which I reply (hopefully dispositively): that won't happen.— Markles 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what
Appraiser is saying. We're in a tussle over whether {{
ushr}} and {[tl|USRepSuccessionBox}} should point to (for example)
United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota or
List of United States Representatives from Minnesota. At times I've just imposed my opinion by making it link to the one I've chosen.
Appraiser has disagreed and we're at a stand-still. I think that
Appraiser is concerned that I, as an Admin, will make the decision the way I like it, and then protect the templates.—
Markles 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is kind of cryptic. What's with the "matter of time" comment?--
Chaser -
T 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that Markles need more experience in admin related activites before he becomes a sysop. I also believe that he can accomplish his tasks without the use of admin abilities. Finally, I'm slightly worried about not using edit summaries. His "laziness" as he stated, may carry over for his "editor mode" to "admin mode". Icestorm815 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
It seems like the user would relish the idea of being a crazy vandal fighter, with the powers to block whoever gets in their way. While I don't mind this, they didn't sound like (in the answers to the questions) they would be doing this for Wikipedia, but would be doing it for power. It's just a gut feeling, but I couldn't go either way.•Malinaccier• T/ C 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [If replying to this comment, please do so on my talk page along with this page. Thanks!]
On the contrary:
A) I won't relish it at all - it's just something I'll do from time-to-time.
B) I wouldn't be crazy - it doesn't mean that much to me.
C) Nobody could get in my way - there are no individual ways, just the Wikipedia policies.
— Markles 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, your reasoned approach without anger has persuaded me to change to support. I just couldn't ignore the feeling I had, but this simple response has qualmed my fears. •Malinaccier• T/ C 23:57, 12 September 2007 (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.
Question from User:Appraiser
- 5. You and I have had a few major philosophical differences in how we think some articles should ultimately be formated. (I edit several hours per day and I have not had so many disagreements with any one other person here.) I can think of examples where you disagreed with the consensus and proceeded to make the changes you wanted, because you believed that your plan was superior to the consensus of the other users. If you are given adminship, do you vow to refrain from using the tools to strongarm the community in order to get your way in disagreements? Or, will you vow to refrain from using admin tools to do anything controversial on articles in which you have a prior interest? My concern is that the admin tools be used for tasks that couldn't be done by the non-admin user, rather than be used to get your way in a power struggle.--
Appraiser 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. (The articles to which Appraiser refers are the ordinal United States Congresses.) You're right. I could use my newfound powers for evil. However, I am a big fan of consensus, and in these cases it's been 2 favoring your formatting, and 1 opposed. As the lone opponent I'd still like to see more opinions on those matters. What's also happened is that many months later, I've come back to one of the articles and forgotten there'd been any debate at all. So I acted boldly until you or another user remind me, and then I back down. If that's not how you've seen it, let me know. Honestly, I can't promise I won't use my powers for evil intentionally. If I mess-up, then we'll correct it. That's the Wikipedia way. I'll use my regular-registered-user's power to be as bold as possible. The role of the Admin is to be a helper, not a thug. So maybe that's what I can say: I vow not to be a thug.— Markles 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Question from User:Mtmelendez
- 6. There's evidence that you don't use the
edit summary often (
[1]
[2]). 1. Why is this so? 2. Although it's an optional tool, do you understand its importance to the project? 3. As an admin, would you use it more or the same? -
Mtmelendez (
Talk|
UB|
Home) 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. I use it often, but probably not often enough. When acting as an admin I certainly would use edit summaries almost all the time. When acting as a regular user, however, I can't promise I'll be any less lazy than I am now.—
Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Re:Sysoping brings certain powers, but also many responsibilities, including accountability. Though not required, always using the edit summary shows commitment to such accountability towards other users and the project as a whole. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. I use it often, but probably not often enough. When acting as an admin I certainly would use edit summaries almost all the time. When acting as a regular user, however, I can't promise I'll be any less lazy than I am now.—
Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Question from Arky
- 7 In your own words, how would you describe the position of administrator?
Arky
¡Hablar! 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- A. An admin is a trustworthy person who works to improve wikipedia to a greater magnitude than would a regular registered user. Admins are maintenance people. Like brick-and-morter janitors, their jobs are usually straight-forward and monotonous; however, they carry a big ring of keys (greater technical sysops tools) that could get them into rooms which are otherwise locked off. Hence the trustworthiness. — Markles 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (" Markles* is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.")
General comments
- See markles's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for markles: Markles ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/markles before commenting.
Discussion
- It should probably be "lie" because it is intransitive. List of frequently misused English words#K to L ;-) -- Ali'i 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Support
- Strong support, I have seen his edits for a year and a half now and he is a very productive and civil editor. He does a lot of the grunt work in creating new pages and formatting existing pages. Numerous times when I have been looking for projects or pages to work on I have gone to his user contributions and talk page to find out places where work needs to be done. He has also shown good leadership skills in WikiProject Massachusetts and articles pertaining to the United States Congress. Overall, he is a fantastic editor who should have been nominated to be an admin long ago. -- CapitalR 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Per CapitalR. Pat Politics rule! 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Long-time contributor with a strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- I have no concerns that this user will mis-use the tools, which is the most important criterion. -- Haemo 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support, Does great work. He has provided excellent guidance, editing and suggestions for the Congressional Delegation from Pennsylvania, among (many) others. Npeters22 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, no worries here :-) Scarian Talk 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- RfA is about trust. — AldeBaer 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support meets my standards is probably fallen by the wayside like, "no use for the tools". However, adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. So seeing a substantial edit count and not seeing any incivility indications on user's talk page, I trust the user with the tools unless someone can show me a reason not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Newyorkbrad. · jersyko talk 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Newyorkbrad. Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- this is truly an unqualified no-brainer. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jmlk 1 7 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support As a relatively new user myself (less than one year), Markles has been very helpful in my efforts to improve articles under Wikipedia:Project Congress. His counsel has been welcome and his edits have served to enhance my own. Dcmacnut 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support A good editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 07:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support, a highly civil user, think he could help out a lot with the protected edit requests and other template matters. Melsaran ( talk) 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Markles has contributed much to the US Congressional Wikiproject, and has been particularly helpful to me whenever I have questions. Pmeleski 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support An experienced editor, including ample experience with templates, who could be very useful in editing and formatting protected templates. No concerns raised during review of recent contribs. I only hope he'll use more of the edit summary in the future. - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 03:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support good user. Acalamari 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support, only positive productive interactions with this user, should have become an admin a long time ago. NoSeptember 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to support. See neutral discussion. •Malinaccier• T/ C 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Looks to have a great set of contributions. Good candidate, although I would like to stress the importance of using the edit summary more. :-) Lra drama 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. Daniel 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support This user has a solid base, and I believe they will use the admin powers with due diligence. Phgao 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. WjB scribe 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Indeed, Daniel said it perfectly. -- Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 00:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think Markles will be a fine admin.-- Chaser - T 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support See nothing that makes me think user will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- One large support to go please I've seen this users action in many edit sums, and is always top-notch. Good experience as well! Digital Ninja 17:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose I do respect the work you have done with Congressional articles and the related stuff, and I think that you are doing great work there. That said, I'm sorry, but for someone who wants to be an admin vandal-fighter, I don't see 1 edit to
WP:AIV in the last 3 months. The rest of the "admin chores" that you mentioned in Q1 were really chores that any user can do already. Also {{
CongBio}} was protected 6 months after your last edit to it, and it really hasn't been touched much since. If you want to go and edit it, go to the "Requests for editing a protected page" section in
WP:RPP.
Panoptical 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I think you are a good editor, but I really don't see any need for the tools. Panoptical has a good point on the WP:AIV edits as well. Vandal-fighting is great and all, and you are doing quite well in other areas, but I just don't see what the tools could help you with. Jmlk 1 7 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Changed to support. Jmlk 1 7 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)- Please consult the archives of WT:RFA for details, but the argument "No need for the tools" has been thoroughly debunked. The question is not "will he use the tools?" but "will he do so responsibly if he ever chooses to use them?" Pascal.Tesson 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Per above. Also gross lack of using the edit summary is concerning. It doesn't seem this editor has much of a use for the tools - adminship is not a reward. --
Ben
chat 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding use of the tools, please see Pascal.Tesson's response to Jmlk17 above. With adminship not being a reward, who said that giving the tools to Markles would be a reward for his work? Acalamari 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Although the candidate is an avid contributer and a fine editor, I suspect that when made an admin, Markles would fairly soon edit
Template:USRepSuccessionBox to the version he has wanted for nearly a year now. He has thus far been unable to convince the other users that his version is superior, but just a few weeks ago he wrote, "It's just a matter of time", meaning that he will eventually get his way. Once the change is made, the Template will be protected, with the justification that it is used in some-12,000 articles. With his admin moniker, he will be able to keep it the way he wants it, without needing to reach consensus. I hope that I am wrong, but I am expressing my reasoning for not wanting him to have the admin tools. My apprehension is due to my not being sure whether he would consider that activity as "thug-like", since he believes his reasoning to be superior to the opposing viewpoints. I believe that the community has many fine editors who's judgment as admins I would trust more fully.--
Appraiser 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is kind of cryptic. What's with the "matter of time" comment?--
Chaser -
T 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what
Appraiser is saying. We're in a tussle over whether {{
ushr}} and {[tl|USRepSuccessionBox}} should point to (for example)
United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota or
List of United States Representatives from Minnesota. At times I've just imposed my opinion by making it link to the one I've chosen.
Appraiser has disagreed and we're at a stand-still. I think that
Appraiser is concerned that I, as an Admin, will make the decision the way I like it, and then protect the templates.—
Markles 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand what Appraiser is saying. I don't understand what you meant.-- Chaser - T 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Well here's the details: {{
USRepSuccessionBox}} currently links to [[United States Congressional Delegations from {{{state}}}]], but I think it out to link to [[List of United States Representatives from {{{state}}}]]. The Delegations articles are complete and the List articles are not. However, once complete, the List articles will have far more detailed information that would be more pertinent. I have argued that we ought to link to the as-yet incomplete List articles, but
User:Appraiser wants to stay with the complete Delegations articles. To satisfy
User:Appraiser, I have been slowly completing the List articles which would make our disagreement moot. I've gotten some of them done and I thought that other editors would have helped out by now (alas, I was overly optimistic). Recently, I decided (unilaterally, I'll admit) that enough of the List articles were complete, and I changed {{
USRepSuccessionBox}} to link to the Lists. Yes, I think linking to the Lists is superior (as
User:Appraiser claims above). I think I'm
Being bold, but I understand the importance of consensus on Wikipedia. There hasn't been a consensus on this issue one way or the other and the last time it was debated was back in January 2007. So after my most recent change to the List articles, Appraiser argued that they were still too incomplete, so I reverted myself. I wrote on the talk page (and the Edit summary) that it was just a matter of time; meaning someday soon they would be complete. I think that we should link to the incomplete pages which will encourage their further development. Do you follow? —
Markles 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks for that very thorough explanation.-- Chaser - T 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- One of my frustrations with Markles has been our failure to communicate effectively with each other. My concept is to link to the Congressional Delegation articles, all of which have links to the subarticles—the Senate and Representative articles—when they exist. My reasoning is that the delegation articles have mostly just names shown graphically to show periods of influence, where ideally the Senate and Representative articles will have much more detail about each legislative member, which the reader can access if he wants more detail. His writing here indicates that he doesn't understand the concept of general articles which link to subarticles with greater detail. We have a different vision about how these should be organized with very few others interested enough to chime in about it. If Markles uses his admin powers to impose his concept, the result may be discouraging to others.--
Appraiser 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:Appraiser is right: we have different visions. I do understand the differences discussed by User:Appraiser, but this is really not the place for this discussion. What is relevant is User:Appraiser's concern that I would use Admin power to impose my vision. To which I reply (hopefully dispositively): that won't happen.— Markles 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what
Appraiser is saying. We're in a tussle over whether {{
ushr}} and {[tl|USRepSuccessionBox}} should point to (for example)
United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota or
List of United States Representatives from Minnesota. At times I've just imposed my opinion by making it link to the one I've chosen.
Appraiser has disagreed and we're at a stand-still. I think that
Appraiser is concerned that I, as an Admin, will make the decision the way I like it, and then protect the templates.—
Markles 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is kind of cryptic. What's with the "matter of time" comment?--
Chaser -
T 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that Markles need more experience in admin related activites before he becomes a sysop. I also believe that he can accomplish his tasks without the use of admin abilities. Finally, I'm slightly worried about not using edit summaries. His "laziness" as he stated, may carry over for his "editor mode" to "admin mode". Icestorm815 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
It seems like the user would relish the idea of being a crazy vandal fighter, with the powers to block whoever gets in their way. While I don't mind this, they didn't sound like (in the answers to the questions) they would be doing this for Wikipedia, but would be doing it for power. It's just a gut feeling, but I couldn't go either way.•Malinaccier• T/ C 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [If replying to this comment, please do so on my talk page along with this page. Thanks!]
On the contrary:
A) I won't relish it at all - it's just something I'll do from time-to-time.
B) I wouldn't be crazy - it doesn't mean that much to me.
C) Nobody could get in my way - there are no individual ways, just the Wikipedia policies.
— Markles 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, your reasoned approach without anger has persuaded me to change to support. I just couldn't ignore the feeling I had, but this simple response has qualmed my fears. •Malinaccier• T/ C 23:57, 12 September 2007 (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.