Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarSch

MarSch
Better luck next time. Thanks for voting. -MarSch 11:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

final (1/11/6) ending 15:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to edit protected pages related to the Main Page. I want to clean up there code by removing superfluous HTML. Bad code in the templates employed on the main page spills over and the problems this creates are "solved" by yet more code on the main page itself. Yesterday (11 May) I found an unclosed unordered list tag which readjusted the margin of subsequent content on Main Page (table free). This was "solved" by including everything following in division tags. I requested the tag be closed and it was. I have 556+ edits. -MarSch 16:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) "Why do we need an admin who isn't going to help out with administrative chores? That's what admins do, by and large." Yeah, okay... Support. – ugen64 03:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Why do we need an admin who isn't going to help out with administrative chores?  That's what admins do, by and large.  I also question whether an editor with only 306 mainspace edits (a sizable chunk of which appear to be just adding portals or creating redirects) has sufficient community experience to be an admin.  No evidence of participating in RC patrol; only minor evidence of participating in VfD.  Spend some time doing janitorial work, come back in three months.  Kelly Martin 17:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Useful effective editor but lacks experience and shows no commitment to admin tasks. --Theo  (Talk) 18:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) To be a admin, one must accept all of the responsibilities, and then take on all of the jobs as well. Will support when interest in administrative tasks is shown. Bratsche talk  random 20:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) This editor does not appear to understand the prime purpose of admins, and as such cannot be promoted to such a level. Rje 01:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Reluctantly oppose. Seems like he means well but 300 edits is a bit too few.  Please, come back a little later.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree with the above. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) There's a reason why this is a self-nomination - this user is obviously unknown in the Wikipedia community. Thus, not appropraite to be named admin. Harro5 22:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Doesn't seem to want to do any of the real duties of an admin, only to muck about with the HTML on one page --Cynical 14:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Being an admin is more than just working on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Sorry mate. Only 300 edits to the article space. I failed an adminship nomination because of that once (only 360 edits in total at time of nomination.) Scott Gall 07:45, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
 * 11) Inexperience and over-eagerness are the sticking points for me.--Cyberjunkie 14:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Based on the "not a big deal" principle, I see no reason why someone with admin status must seek out janitorial tasks, but with only 2 months here I suspect that the user may be too inexperienced to function effectively as an admin and is a bit too much of an unknown.  Guettarda 20:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't see why anyone would want to edit the main page. What if he destroyes it? --Jontsang 21:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's always the "History" tab, isn't there. Guettarda 21:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Will support at 1K edits; otherwise, he has a willingness to work and take on admin chores. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 07:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems like a good user unfortunatly, Mar has too few edits to become sysop in my book although I'd gladly change to support when he reaches 1000 edits.--Comrade Nick  @ )---^--  09:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm telling all of the people who I vote for the same thing: I think the edit count is a poor way of determining admin ability, so if you only have half a thousand edits, I don't think that's a problem. However, let me give you some advice: participation in a few things such as VfD would be very helpful. Looking at your edits, I'm not sure if you've helped out in a major way in terms of getting an article up to Featured Article status. If you can find yourself an article, dedicate about a week's worth of time and effort, and get it up to FA status, I will immediately change my vote to strong support. Of course, this vote will most likely be over within before that, but when you're ready to go back up for RFA again, I will make good on my word. Linuxbeak | Desk 13:55, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * indeed I have not. I'm currently working on some technical things, like the portal skeleton template which I've just finished, which you can view in use at Physics portal. MarSch 17:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Inclined to oppose because of short time here--my first candidacy was rejected though I had far more edits than the instant candidate--but comments above regarding overreliance by voters on sheer numbers has made me reconsider to vote neutral. Have not encountered the candidate, but if defeated I'd urge him to follow the same advice I was given:  come back a little later.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * If you see any problems with the Main Page, you could bring it up in Talk:Main Page, which isn't protected. --Deathphoenix 17:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a few layout things which bother me and I have used talk:Main Page for a question and Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries for a suggestion, but the first was quickly archived because Main talk just gets too much traffic to do anyhting usefull and to the second I have gotten no response in nearly a week.MarSch 17:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have reasked at Talk:Main Page/intro, but also no response so far. Seems to me like there are far to few people minding the protected pages.-MarSch 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit counts, for those who care: 306/92 article, 61/6 User, 34/29 Wikipedia, 0/1 Image, 21/9 Template, 1/1 Category. Kelly Martin 17:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * where do you get these extended statistics? MarSch 17:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Same place I do: Special:Contributions/MarSch, choose a namespace, start counting. – ABCD 13:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I anticipate helping to keep the protected pages in order. This may not be a chore listed on any of the above-mentioned pages, but it probably should. I don't anticipate seeking out too many other chores, but will keep my eye on Administrators' noticeboard and the various pages for deleting stuff to help out.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am pleased about creating portal for attracting attention to portals and my recent rewrites of portal skeleton which you can view in use at Physics portal. I am also pleased about my edits to Laplace operator. An overly rash edit elicited much discussion and I was convinced to put back some stuff I had deemed unnecessary before. Subsequently User:linas added a lot of content and most of the credit for improving that article is his. The article improved a whole lot and the discussion was constructively concluded, so I remember it fondly.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. There was some conflict, if you can call it that, over Laplace operator as remarked above. Was resolved by discussion. Almost the same for Affine space, except that here I am unconvinced but in the minority and thus I sighed and searched for other things to edit.
 * I personally disliked the initial edits by MarSch to Laplace operator, and found that even repeated discussion seemed to be unable to resolve the matter in a satisfactory way. I was rather distressed that I had to restate my case multiple times, on multiple occasions, and that the matter was not considered closed until I performed a major re-write of the article, putting it into more-or-less its final, current form. I did not want to edit Laplace operator, but stepping in became the only way to resolve the dispute. linas 17:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A bit overdramatized in my view, but judge for yourself at talk:Laplace operator and also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. -MarSch 17:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)