Final: (30/4/3). Withdrawn by candidate at 03:36, 26 May 2010.decltype (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and with 88% support, I hereby withdraw my candidacy for adminship. I've learned that I don't have the temperament for it. While I haven't previously encountered Wikistress, Pedro's ridiculous response to my good faith attempt to reduce drama in this RFA—"your arrogance/ignorance or plain foolishness ... is breathtaking"—has exceeded my patience for insults and it's been very hard for me not to respond with direct insult in return. Mate.
Admins encounter that kind of abuse on a daily basis and I've discovered that I'm not prepared to put up with it from Pedro or anyone else. Therefore, I would not make a good admin and I shall return to regular editing.—S MarshallT/C 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall (talk·contribs) – I wish to renominate S Marshall for adminship. That's renominate in the sense of nominating him for a second time; I wasn't the original nominator.
Since his last RFA a year ago, which was unsuccessful due primarily to a couple of joke pages and some concerns over a perception of his position on the BLP policy, he has quietly carried on developing articles, contributing very constructively to deletion discussions (where we often disagree, though his opinions are always expressed with the utmost civility), and general WikiGnomery. Access to the admin tools would be a logical progression and I do hope he will succeed on this second request for them. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nom: I've been wanting to take revenge on S Marshall for putting me through Hell Week in November, and I've managed to persuade him to stand again. He's a good content contributor (currently trying to bring History of Hertfordshire to FA standard), and does fine work at DRV and in contributions at AN/I. He is always thoughtful and often incisive. Two examples: 1. I liked this recent musing on policy that at once showed a good understanding of it and a healthy disrespect for our rules: "To be completely candid I sometimes think Wikipedia works in spite of its policies, not because of them. But equally, there are good reasons why things are as they are; if we didn't have notability criteria and speedy deletion criteria, we'd have drowned in promotional spam years ago; and if admins counted votes rather than weighing arguments, then the outcome would always prefer the person with the most sockpuppets over the person with the best case."[1]; 2. He made an good attempt to mediate the thorny topic of the bilateral relations AfDs here. I'm confident he'll be a fine mop wielder. Fences&Windows 14:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Before I post my formal acceptance, I want to be very very clear on the BLP issue. Nobody's ever accused me of introducing any material that contravenes BLP policy into our encyclopaedia. I would never do so. In fact, I'm responsible via the AfD process for removing more than a few hatchet-jobs about living people; I can't give you diffs for the very worst incidents because they've been oversighted, but I was the one who spotted that the name of a teacher accused of child abuse appeared in the history of one of our schools articles. Even worse, there was also information that could have led to people finding his address. On receiving the oversight request I put in, the oversighters removed a lot diffs and substantially reconstructed the article's history. I take BLP extremely seriously.
The "BLP concerns" are about my opposition to further expansion of our BLP policy. See question 4 below.
With that said, I accept, and thank you Stifle for nominating me.—S MarshallT/C 11:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Since I started on Wikipedia in 2006, I've always been interested in the AfD/DRV process. I would imagine I'm one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors to DRV, and I should think AfD closures will be my main field. You can get a very clear picture of my attitude to AfD closures from reading DRV, and you can also examine the various non-admin closures I've performed at AfD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My largest contribution to Wikipedia has been my edits to the History of Hertfordshire. It's my home county and I'm interested in its history. (I was proud enough of that article to submit it to FAC recently, but it didn't pass. It's been a GA for a good long while, though.) My favourite article of mine is the much smaller Forestry in the United Kingdom. I've done what I think is good work on Battle of Dunkirk, and I've translated about 50 short articles or stubs from the French and German Wikipedias—mostly biographies of women. (I like women.) Some, such as Catherine Bréchignac, Cécile Duflot or Elisabeth Selbert, are about highly notable people that Wikipedia really ought to cover.
But arguably my best contributions are in putting hundreds of biographies of living people into Category:Living people. It's boring work, but it's not something a bot can do accurately, and it's also essential; we can't apply BLP policy unless we know where the BLPs are in our encyclopaedia.
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: I disagree with people on Wikipedia daily, but I rarely find it stressful, and I don't think they find it stressful to disagree with me either. I've never been party to a conduct dispute of any kind. I have been blocked once, by mistake, for one minute in 2008—see here. I'm careful to be supportive in my interactions with new users, but with more experienced editors I tend to be more direct.
That isn't to say I never find Wikipedia stressful. There have been times when I did, particularly when I was newer, and there was one occasion in May 2009 when I was asked to go and redact a mildly bitey remark. (I did; I fixed it within a few minutes, and I apologised.)
In short, while I don't pretend to be infallible, I'd like to think I'm pretty good with conflict.
And now I'll invent another question, because in view of my RFA a year ago, these issues will crop up. I might as well pre-empt them.
4. Why are you opposed to flagged revisions and expanding our BLP policy?
A: I got an awful lot of opposes in my last RFA because I'm no fan of flagged revisions and I think our BLP policy is strong enough as it is. My views on both of these haven't changed, but that's not relevant; on Wikipedia one submits to the consensus, and a form of flagged revisions together with revisions to BLP have gained consensus. Besides, when one's expressing an opinion, one isn't acting as an admin. My RFA should be about my capacity as an administrator, not my personal views. However you personally feel about flagged revisions or BLP, you don't need to decide whether you agree with my thoughts on them. You need to decide whether you trust me to judge consensus and enforce policy in places where I haven't expressed an opinion.
Beat-the-nom support - Good candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely sensible user. Tim Song (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have noticed this user a lot around DRV/AfD and was a little shocked when I found out they weren't already an admin. Recent more direct dealings have only reinforced my view that they are ready for the tools. Dpmuk (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute - he isn't already? (no, seriously, I thought he was one already) (edit conflict)--UnionhawkTalkE-mail 13:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per last time. Regards SoWhy 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious, conscientious, sensible, experienced. Also, I'm feeling guilty that I gave you a bit of a hard time the last time around :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course. f o x 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. You're the guy I !voted neutral on last time simply because you didn't seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for being an admin. While my !vote didn't really affect the RfA since it was neutral, I've regretted it ever since. Good admins are always a net positive regardless of their activity level. You'll be a great administrator. —Soap— 15:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I've seen this user making cogent comments at AfD. S/He shows ample evidence of having spent time in the Wikipedia trenches, kept a cool head, and demonstrated respect for policy and consensus. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in no small part because of the humility you displayed in your withdrawal at RFA 1 [2] and the excellent sentiments in there (in particular about wanting a mandate from the community). Pedro : Chat 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only concern I found is not enough action taken against vandalism, but that's not much to worry about on top all the good things. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support S Marshall is an excellent candidate for admin. --kelapstick (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support S Marshall is one of the most thoughtful contributors on Wikipedia. Displays sensible judgment while remaining respectful and calm in discussions. Has a great amount of experience and should have been an administrator long ago. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support AfD decisions can clearly be quite tricky sometimes, and itneeds people with a good head for evaluating consensus with respect to policy and who will act in an unbiased and uninvolved manner. I think S Marshall fulfills those criteria admirably -- Boing!said Zebedee 17:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support to, hopefully, offset oppose number 1's logical fallacy. S Marshall has an almost unreasonably cool head, something the admin corps always needs. Şłџğģő 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which logical fallacy would that be? Keepscases (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. Keepscases (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long-term editor with decent content contributions and thoughtful contributions to the AfD process. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues. Aiken♫ 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a good candidate. No problems that I have seen. Hi878 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nom. Obviously. Fences&Windows 20:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good candidate. I am always impressed (even on the occasions I don't agree) with S Marshall's thoughtfulness on matters of deletion. Having the tools will be a significant benefit to the project in this area. Also impressed with backing up a failed FAC with an RFA. S Marshall is clearly a sucker for rigorous community scrutiny...! I have considered the opposes below and will consider any more that follow, but they don't - and are unlikely to - change my mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with cautions in matters of WP:CONSENSUS. The candidate's early Keepclosure on Politicide, (in which the candidate had !voted), resulted in a soft-redirect to Wiktionary by the candidate. I approve of this solution, but this sort of early closure and non-keep Keep might stoke controversy. Please be careful. / edg☺☭ 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. No opinion. —Tommy2010 21:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support IIRC I first encountered S Marshall when I turned up on his talk page asking for a translation of a French source. He was very helpful, and subsequent interactions confirmed my initial good impression. As others have commented, I believe S Marshall to be a thoughtful editor, as demonstrated by his decision not to get involved in a content discussion when I asked him to provide a translation; I think in that instance stating he had no interest in getting involved in the discussion and that the translation would be his only contribution was a smart move. Using discretion when wielding the tools and knowing which areas you are comfortable to use them in is important. In my opinion content work is a big plus for someone who wants to be an administrator as it shows the candidate is here for the right reasons, ie: writing an encyclopedia. Question 4 suggests a great deal of maturity to me and that S Marshall understands the importance of consensus. As for archiving-box-gate below, I'm not convinced it's worth an oppose, but it does perhaps bear commenting on. The action – while perhaps not the best course – appears to have been taken to stem an unhelpful discussion (something RfA is renowned for, although it wasn't the worst by a long shot); it didn't work out that way and perhaps wasn't necessary, but admins aren't meant to be infallible and if you find one who claims to be they're either joking or deluded. People make mistakes, what's important is learning from them and I'm sure S Marshall will take on Pedro's point about unnecessarily curtailing discussion. Overall, my interactions with S Marshall have left me with the impression of a level-headed, intelligent user who will use the tools sensibly. Nev1 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this post, Nev1 is talking about a discussion from July 2009, so for convenience I'll link: here on my talk page, followed by the most recent diffs on Talk:Château de Falaise.—S MarshallT/C 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Perfect combination of humor, mainspace contributions, specialty contributions, and interwiki translations. Yes, the collapsable did push me a little closer to the fence, but c'mon: Are we really going to jump from Support to Oppose because of one mistake out of an otherwise brilliant handling of his RFA? I think not. Cheers. MobileSnail 23:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding editor. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support- (a) Clear reason to have the tools, (b) Sufficient experience to use tools with minimum of mistakes, (c) Acceptable conflict resolution skills and ability to learn from mistakes, (d) No reason to believe he will deliberately misuse the tools. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - solely because he has a Flying Spaghetti Monster logo on his user page. I would just like to cancel out Keepscases' equally ridiculous !vote rationale with my own. I am an active Pastafarian, and I find it extremely offensive that someone would label it is as "absurd". SnottyWongtalk 03:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mockery of people's deeply held religious beliefs. It is possible to not believe in religion, and/or not want it to be any part of government, without pretending to believe in something absurd, ready to pounce with the "it's just as likely as Jesus!" confrontation. You want religion out of government? I want fake religion out of Wikipedia government. Keepscases (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I lol'd. Hopefully, so will the 'crats. :) f o x 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, Fox. Keeps, you know that I share many of your views, but the image of "FSM" without a link to the page, along with "Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them" right underneath it, seems to me not to shout "you're wrong!" and rub people's faces in it, it seems like a thoughtful call to reasoned discussion. Can you give any links where he's been inappropriately confrontational? This isn't a challenge; I'd like to see them if they exist. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I have the time (or, frankly, the motivation) to be looking through links, but I consider that symbol to be offensive at best, perhaps even hateful. Unless religion plays some part in how Wikipedia is run, there is nothing to "protest" here--and even if Wikipedia were to become religiously-affiliated (which I'm quite sure it won't), the owners have the right to do whatever they wish. Keepscases (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... maybe the best thing to do would be to ask.--UnionhawkTalkE-mail 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepscases is entitled to his opinion, folks. No purpose is served by further argument.—S MarshallT/C 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncollapsed - it breaks the numbering. Also, Keepscases' subsequent comment is relevant in determining the sincerity of the oppose. –xenotalk 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) Rfa is not a vote [3] 2) Heading off discussion by collapse box at your own RFA seems extremly wrong headed and way to forthright 3) I can only assume you'll use similar tricks with the admin tools to quell commentary and to achieve consensus by counting numbers. No thanks. Pedro : Chat 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while you've every right to oppose my candidacy for any reason you think fit, I do think your conclusion is unsupported by the evidence there. I don't think it's "extremely wrongheaded", or "way too forthright", to seek to protect those who oppose me from remarks that might be seen as badgering that originate from my supporters. It might be so if I did it the other way around, but you can see that that particular edit was against my self-interest. I also don't agree with characterising it as a "trick", as if it were in some way underhand, when I think it's rather clear that Keepscases' mind won't be changed. You're right to point out that I should have used the word "!vote" rather than "vote", though.—S MarshallT/C 21:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given your user page I am utterly mystified how you could possibly interpret the word "trick" as an intimation that I imply your actions are underhand. If my blackberry automatically makes a different noise depending on the sender of an email message it's a good trick. If someone points out on Wikipedia you can use magic-words - well it's a neat trick. So I'm not very impressed with that rebutall, to be honest. Further I'm bemused you seem to think that I didn't notice that you left the oppose but archived the comments against the oppose. I assume that you want this to make you look like some knight in shining armour - "hey look at S.Marshall - prepared to leave the oppose but remove the comments against it". Well not to me mate - your arrogance/ignorance or plain foolishness in pointing out that it's "against my self-interest" is breathtaking - particularly in light of the main reason I gave for my initial support. Clearly I was wrong and I strongly oppose you as an administrator on this project. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly lost here. S Marshal was, I believe, trying to do the right thing. I get the sense that you agree he was trying to do the right thing. If you felt he was trying to be underhanded I'd get your oppose. But, if I understand you correctly, you don't think he was being underhanded. I could see how you might think it shows poor judgment. I'm lost on the "tricks to quell commentary" if you don't think anything is underhanded. And I've not clue where the "achieve consensus by counting numbers" thing came from. Help? Hobit (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per above comments. Also I don't think he has enough content focus, only about 50% of his edits are to articles and their talkpages. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the last thing we need is another admin who is weak regarding BLPs. Absolutely not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully per Pedro's oppose. Could've at least moved it to the talk page or something rather than just hide it, leaving the impression that the discussion is closed. —fetch·comms 20:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as per the collapsing incident here, and the response to it. I am concerned that you would think that collapsing a discussion with the rationale that there is no purpose to further discussion/argument, especially one which you are involved in/that pertains to you, is a good idea. However, on the most part, you seem to be a good candidate for adminship, thus I am not lead to oppose. However, I feel uncomfortable supporting here. Whilst badgering is something to avoid, stifling discussion with the sole reason of avoiding drama on a legitimate comment could be problematic with some areas of the project. Wikipedia only works because consensus is gained through discussions, and even if they may become heated, passionate, and involve users views, they should still be allowed to take place if they are constructive in any way. Apologies if I am over-reacting, but this does worry me somewhat. --Taelus (Talk) 22:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Waiting to fully investigate candidates contributions, currently leaning towards support. Immunize (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2010 (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.