Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall

Add links
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.

S Marshall[edit]

Closed as Withdrawn by user at (51/25/6) on 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) SoWhy 10:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

S Marshall (talk · contribs) – S Marshall is a dedicated editor who produces valuable content and contributes constructively to content and to policy discussions. He has been editing WP since May 2006 and is active at AfD, Deletion Review, and RfA. He keeps a cool head and shows good patience, and helpfully explains policy when needed. In sometimes heated discussions he is a calming influence and a voice of reason. He's worked with other editors on essay constructing a guideline for the notability of professional journals, and S Marshal is always inviting and open to participation and collaboration. He also helps out reverting vandalism and is a careful copyeditor. His linguistic skills (he translates from German and French) are a definite asset to our project. I believe he will make an excellent administrator: his record inspires confidence that he will never abuse the tools and that he will use them responsibly and appropriately. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I've regularly seen S Marshall's contributions to AfD and DrV and based on those contributions I've encouraged him to accept a nomination as an administrator. I've found his contributions to be level-headed and policy-based, even when I find myself in disagreement with him. Interestingly, when I went to his talk page for that purpose I found two others had just done the same thing.

While it is his work in AfD and DrV that caused me to think he'd be a good administrator, he also has done work in article and list creation. He's translated a number of articles from the German and French language Wikipedias ([1], [2], and [3] are good examples) as well as created a number of lists of dinosaurs (the List of African dinosaurs for example). He also does a fair bit of copy editing (see [4] for the most recent example) and generally improves things around here.

I believe his interest in the encyclopedia and dedication to the policies and guidelines therein will lead him to be an outstanding administrator. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

It's a privilege to co-nominate S Marshall for Administrator. He's a calm and reasonable fellow who has no apparent plans for world domination or abusive activity of any sort. I am confident that he will continue to serve the Wikipedia community with good judgment, collegiality, and respect for our guidelines. He is very responsible and I know that he will make good use of the tools. I encourage everyone to support his candidacy for office at least once. I understand that many will be tempted to support more than once for this extraordinarily qualified candidate, but think to yourself, "what would S Marshall do"? and please exercise restraint. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
With no small amount of trepidation, I accept.

I want to say that I've been approached as a possible admin on several occasions by several different users, and always declined because I didn't feel ready. I still don't feel ready.

I'm here because four separate editors asked me to step up to the plate on the same day. In fact, I'm obedient to a consensus that I should be here; clearly their perception of me is different to my own perception of myself.

Because I'm genuinely not sure if I'm ready for this, I would particularly welcome reasoned opposes. In some ways, it would be a relief for me to fail.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With 69% support (being 50/24 when I typed this) and, I think, most of the useful remarks having been made, I'm now going to withdraw my candidacy on the basis that even if the closing crat should for some reason decide to promote me, I would not now accept. I would feel I had an insufficient mandate from the community to perform the admin role.

Some of the results did not surprise me, but others did, and I have learned a great deal from this exercise.

As I expected, deletionists at AfD with whom I have interacted many times have tended to find a reason to oppose; but what did surprise me was the near-1:1 correlation between "inclusionist-support" and "deletionist-oppose". I had thought the outcome would be less extreme than that, and it tells me a lot about the issues I would face in the case of a future RFA.

As I expected, I was opposed by those who favour drastic revisions to our BLP policy, though I think in this case the opposition was more open about the real reasons for their opposition. I think that in any future RFA, I will continue to face substantial opposition from deletionists and from those who favour very extreme action on BLPs.

I was expecting support from the DRV regulars, being a small group of editors with whom I often interact, but I was surprised and delighted by its strength.

I was also pleased by the support I've had from the RFA regulars. (My support peaked at 32/5, or 88%, where many RFA regulars had voted but few others.) I also enjoyed having some of my own habitual questions thrown back at me, since I can now show that I do not ask questions that I could not answer. :)

The concerns about experience were, as I feared when I started, probably well-founded, but that's a self-solving problem.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I've always focused on deletion, and I intend to remain very focused on it: specifically, deletion of articles. (I know little, and care less, about media for deletion.) I may also help with dispute resolution from time to time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: a) In the deletion field, I initiated discussion and gained consensus for two changes to DRV policy and procedure: First, a "no consensus" at DRV no longer automatically defaults to "endorse" (it's now at the closer's discretion whether to relist), and second, DRVs now run for seven days rather than five to match with the AfD process.

b) In dispute resolution, I helped with Syed Ahmed, a disputed BLP. I persuaded User:Black Kite to unblock the protesting editor (who was User:Amicaveritas, blocked for a disruptive editing pattern; and it turned out that Amicaveritas was closely connected to the article's subject). Then, in conjunction with User:Gwen Gale, I participated in a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page about allegations of criminal behaviour on Ahmed's part, and from a position of edit warring and reverting, the article now appears to be stable.

c) In translation, I've brought over from the French Wikipedia a biography on the president of Europe's largest research institute (Catherine Bréchignac), a biography of the leader of the French Green party (Cécile Duflot) and numerous others; and from the German Wikipedia I've brought over a biography on Günter Mittag, the central figure in the history of the East German planned economy, and biographies of two members of the German Supreme Court, among numerous others.

d) In content organisation, I was responsible for a number of lists of dinosaurs. They're a content fork from the featured list List of Dinosaurs, but per WP:CLN they're needed because they provide alternative ways of organising the content (sortable lists, timelines, etc. that would make the main article much too big for useability). Some of these lists are still works in progress.

e) In article creation from my own research, I've been less active; because I'm fortunate enough to speak other languages, I can add more value to Wikipedia in less time by translating other people's research than by doing my own. Still, I haven't entirely neglected article creation, and I have four of my own articles to my credit. (I'm not counting redirects or stubs).

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: Because I'm so active at AfD and DRV, most of my edits are in contentious or disputed areas, and I'm a man of my own views and opinions. I think it's fair to say that I disagree with other users on a daily basis.

I'd like to think I've done so without giving serious offence, but, when you focus on those areas, stress happens. For example, I once slung a bureaucrat and former Arbcom member off my talk page with a flea in her ear (diff: [5]).

But I've been able to edit in some of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia for three years without ever being involved in a conduct dispute, let alone a block. I believe I can truthfully say that many people disagree with me on content, but hardly any would disagree with my conduct.

4 Question from ϢereSpielChequers In March you created the article List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall, could you tell us why you did so and what you now think of that incident?
A: At the time, I was involved in this AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination). I created the article to demonstrate a point, and it was deleted almost immediately — thereby demonstrating the point I wished to make. (Reading that AfD should place the remark in context for you.)
OK that puts it into a bit of context and yes it only existed in mainspace for a couple of minutes. But almost three months later, do you still think it acceptable to make a mainspace article that any admin would delete on sight? ϢereSpielChequers 10:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I probably wouldn't do it nowadays. Still, I think taken in context, that wasn't totally unreasonable. (If it'd lasted, I'd have blanked it and tagged it with {{db-g7}}).
OK, I've now tracked down this diff and your response. Thanks for your answer. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
5. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Groomtech (talk • contribs) 10:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I believe all human beings have rights — the right to dignity, respect, and fair treatment. I expect users to be generally courteous and collegial with their behaviour. They might be forgiven the occasional lapse in the heat of debate, but discourtesy needs to be prevented before it becomes a pattern.

However, I do not believe that all human beings have a right to use Wikipedia. This is a private website, and using it is a privilege that can in some circumstances be revoked.

Additional optional question from Ron Ritzman.
6. On the subject of non admin closes at AFD, WP:DELPRO says Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. However, in this discussion you say that non admin closes are revertable by anybody, even the nominator. Why do you believe that? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I 'd like to reiterate both the answers I gave you during that discussion.

1) WP:DELPRO says "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". It does not say "only admins may reopen deletion discussions", and I think that reverting a non-admin close of an AfD is something any editor in good standing should be able to do on reasonable grounds. The policy basis for this is WP:BRD. Please note that I do not advocate an editor reverting an admin close without a DRV.

2) WP:NAC says that non-admin closures are for non-controversial decisions. The act of reverting a close shows that the decision was controversial, and it therefore automatically invalidates the NAC.

Additional optional question from S Marshall Dlohcierekim
7. Hello, S Marshall and thank you for submitting your RFA. Scenario: You're closing an AfD. It's a subject with which you're not personally familiar — say, Eskimo marriage customs — and there are a total of twelve !votes including the nominator.

Nominator states: "Article contains no references from reliable sources, delete." Four other editors agree. Another user states: "References do exist", and cites a paper source by ISBN. She goes on to say, "Deleting this material would be another instance of systemic bias against non-caucasians. Besides, the article could be sourced, it just hasn't been sourced yet." Three other editors agree (but no changes are made to the article to actually source it during the AfD). Then an admin states: "Merge to Marriage Customs — sourced or not, there's not enough content here to justify a separate article at the moment." Two other editors agree.

How would you close? Please give reasons.

A: I'd begin by assessing the strength of the arguments. The "delete" says "article contains no references" — which fails WP:BEFORE. (What it should say is "article contains no references, and I have looked for references and found none". A later editor goes on to say she has found a source, as well.) The editor who has found the source also cites it, thus destroying the entire basis of the argument for !delete, and her argument is not refuted.

The admin who states "Merge" is raising a matter that I need not consider, as closer. "Merge" is technically a "keep" outcome, and exactly which content should be merged, or how it should be done, is an editorial decision rather than an administrative one. Therefore, I would consider the "Merge" arguments on the "keep" side.

I would therefore count both the strength of the arguments and the weight of consensus as "keep", and I would give the following closing statement:

"The outcome was keep. There was no consensus whether the article should be merged, and I suggest further discussion on that subject should take place on the article's talk page."

Additional optional question from decltype
8. Possibly as a follow-up to Q3, could you comment on the closure of your recent AfD proposal?
A: I don't think that's a conflict with other editors, so I wouldn't say it's a "follow-up to Q3".

I'm a passionate believer in WP:BEFORE, and I feel that if AfD nominators complied with WP:BEFORE more thoroughly, there would be fewer AfDs and those that do exist would be less contentious. I also feel that there's a distressing tendency to use AfD as cleanup through the back door — in other words, I believe that there are editors who bring articles to AfD with the attitude that "I demand this article is deleted unless someone else does a lot of work checking the sources and cleaning it up". And I disapprove.

I therefore raised a question on the AfD talk page as to whether WP:BEFORE should be upgraded to a guideline. The consensus was that it should not, and I closed the discussion accordingly.

After I closed it, another user contacted me on my talk page and asked me to revise my closing statement, which could have been considered bite-y. I examined his request, walked away from the keyboard for five minutes to think about it, perceived that his request was reasonable, and came back and did as he asked.

It wasn't my intention to be bite-y but I do see (and saw at the time) that I erred in that case. I did fix it.

Because I'm human, I expect that I will make other errors in future as well.

Additional optional question from Stanistani based on the usual one from S Marshall
9. Please show an edit you have made to a policy or guideline. If you have made no edits to policies or guidelines, please describe an edit you would like to make. If you feel Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are already perfect, please say so. This sets up a wonderful situation where if you say there is nothing to be changed about Wikipedia's policies, people will oppose, and if you do, people will oppose. Enjoy.
A: Here: [6].
Clarification: Is this the only part of Wikipedia policy you felt needed change? --StaniStani  22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: No, there are plenty of others. Here are some examples:

1) I broadly agree with this essay and would like to see the Notability guideline amended to include more of its content.

2) As I've said before in this RFA, I feel WP:BEFORE should be upgraded to a guideline. However, I recognise that the consensus is against me on this.

3) I feel that WP:NOTAGAIN has insufficient force and is too widely ignored. In particular, I feel that where an AfD has been closed as "Keep" it is not reasonable to bring the same article back to AfD shortly thereafter.

4) I feel that WP:PRESERVE should be clarified to say that it applies only to content based on reliable sources.

5) I feel that WP:PRESERVE should be clarified to say that even though it is a policy rather than a guideline, it does not apply to negative information in a BLP.

I have many other views on policy, but hopefully these five are sufficient to answer the question.

Additional optional question from Flatscan
10. What is your interpretation of WP:Consensus and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (WP:NOTAVOTE), particularly with respect to WP:Articles for deletion and WP:Deletion review?
Starting in early/mid March (nearly 3 months ago), I noticed a number of DRV comments that caused me to question your interpretation of closing admin's discretion:
However, you have made a couple of recent edits that might indicate a change. You overwrote Essay2. You made a DRV comment that could be interpreted as advocating discarding all redundant comments, a complete reversal. Flatscan (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, those diffs (some of which aren't exactly recent) chart the development of my present understanding of consensus. I'm a bit concerned that taken out of context, they make me out to be a rampant inclusionist, which I don't think is exactly right; and in fact my !voting record shows a substantial number of "Endorse deletion" arguments at DRV. I hope that participants in this RFA will give greater weight to the things I've said more recently.

As I thought more about this, I recognised that the essay in question wasn't exactly satisfactory, and I overwrote it. A major factor in my present understanding of "Notability" was coming across Uncle G's essay, upon encountering which I blanked my own earlier thoughts on the subject, having been persuaded by Uncle G's reasoning.

Your question was, "What is your interpretation of consensus and WP:NOTAVOTE?" and I shall try to take both questions together.

1) Where there is a tension between consensus and policy, consensus can prevail. Anyone who does not understand this has failed to devote sufficient thought to WP:IAR.

2) Although consensus is capable of overruling policy, there are times when it should not. The consensus can be wrong, and I have argued that the consensus was wrong in the past.

3) Notwithstanding the above, an admin's role is to implement the consensus irrespective of whether the admin agrees with it. Adminship is fundamentally ministerial in nature, in that an admin is a clerk to the consensus, not a judge over it. I think there's a temptation for admins to allow their personal opinion to influence their assessment of the "weight of the arguments", and where I feel an admin has inadvertently succumbed to this temptation, I shall certainly continue to !vote "overturn" at DRV.

4) Where the admin does not agree with the consensus and does not wish to implement it, they should !vote and not close. In other words, if the consensus is heading the wrong way, the admin should give pointers to policy, or well-reasoned arguments, that guide the consensus in the desired direction. To simply overrule it is totally unacceptable.

5) Where the admin judges the debate is defective, perhaps by failing to give sufficient weight to a particular point, the closest they should come to overruling the debate is to "relist" it with a remark explaining why they have done so.

6) I feel the mark of a good admin is that they are capable of implementing a consensus with which they disagree.

Follow up (optional): Thank you for your extended reply. I had noticed a change (an improvement, in my opinion) in your DRV comments, but I wanted direct clarification. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10a. By "policy", do you mean policy or is it shorthand for established, documented consensus such as policy, guidelines, and essays?
10b. Excluding votes from sockpuppets, would you ever close an AfD against the numbers or other than no consensus in numerically close debates? Would you always participate instead of closing?
Additional optional question from Ron Ritzman.
11. Follow up to question 10 and oppose 6. Look at this article that was deleted last year. The subject of the the article was completely unverifiable but was not a blatant hoax so it didn't qualify for CSD G3. Assume the AFD went this way. Relisted twice with 4 WP:ILIKEIT keeps from editors who were not spas and nobody arguing "delete" except the nominator. How would you close it? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Given that article content, four "I like it" keeps and only the nominator arguing "delete", I would not close it. I would !vote "delete", giving full grounds, and then leave the matter for someone else to close.
Optional question by Nakon.
12. How has the policy WP:IAR helped and/or hurt the project. When would you find yourself invoking the policy and if so, would you do so explicitly or implicitly? Nakon 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: A formative time in my understanding of WP:IAR was my participation in the DRV for Category:Senior Wranglers which you can read here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24. That DRV is helpful to examine because it illustrates so much of what I'm trying to say, and I feel User:Stifle's closure statement was perfect. (A strong word, and I mean it. And not just because he !voted "Strong Support" a few minutes ago, either. I've long held Stifle in very high regard.)

The key features I want to draw your attention to are:

1) The closer for the XfD closed in accordance with the consensus and was not censured as a result even though his closure was overturned. Because he was doing what he was supposed to do: implement the consensus.

2) The consensus at the XfD discussion was wrong, and I explicitly argued that it was wrong.

3) The rule that was preventing the DRV from overturning was rightly ignored.

4) WP:IAR was explicitly cited. (And to answer your question, I feel that IAR should always be explicitly cited when invoked.)

5) The encyclopaedia clearly benefitted.

I hope that example adequately illustrates when, and how, I would use WP:IAR — i.e. infrequently, explicitly, on the basis of a consensus empowering me to use it, and always to the benefit of the encyclopaedia.

A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
13. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?
A: The only account name I have ever used is mine.

I do have a very small number of edits prior to registering my account, using an IP address. There is also a family member who edits from my own IP address, but she is a separate person with her own opinions. (This is User:Witt E Pseudonym.)

I'm conscious that you're !voting on me rather than her, and I can assure you categorically that she will not, in any circumstances, have access to my account or password.

Questions from Rootology
14a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?
A: See q13.
14b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?
A: There are none.
14c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?
A: Not applicable.
15. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?
A: It's a necessary defensive measure for Wikipedia as it stands. I would be generally opposed to any further strengthening of the provisions of WP:BLP, and particularly opposed to flagged revisions.
16. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
A: I am an atheist, and strongly believe in the non-existence of divinity (from which I exclude Spinoza's God as professed by Einstein). I am strongly opposed to certain extremist religious views, such as those held by Fred Phelps and his little gang. I am straight, but outspoken in my defence of equal rights for gay people. I strongly believe in evolution, and I believe that teaching creationism in schools as if it were an equal theory is morally wrong, because a teacher should not lie to a child.

However, I believe that aside from extremists such as Phelps, religious people are deserving of respect and tolerance. And I believe that articles on creationism do have a place on Wikipedia.

I am totally unwilling to recuse from using my admin tools in areas related to religion and evolution because I am capable of separating my opinions from my actions.

16.2: A follow up to this one, now that I think more about your response. You say you are totally unwilling to recuse, but keep in mind that your affiliations and views are on the record (this wasn't mean to be a trick question, by the way). I have some strong views myself on some topics which are hardly secret, and which is why I have a standing personal policy of not using tools in any way ever there. I suppose I technically could, but anything I do there could be tainted by the perceptions of my beliefs. Some admins--who I will not name--are especially noted for their editing histories, activities, and even professional "IRL" activities, but continue to use tools in the sphere of their area. Their actions are often tagged with sometimes valid and sometimes invalid lables of bias, COI, cabalism, and who knows what else. Our only weapons as Admins are our reputations--not our tools. Are you concerned about the perception of your tools use, in these areas, and how that could color users' perceptions of you as an admin? rootology (C)(T) 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would not, of course, use admin tools in a debate, discussion or process in which I was involved. But I believe uninvolved admins have a duty to use their tools in support of the consensus.

I am not ashamed of my biases, and I wear them on my sleeve. I think everyone has biases, and the only counter to a bias is to be open about what you think and why.

I also think every admin should be capable of separating their own biases from the consensus, and should implement the consensus rather than their own bias; and they should use tools where there's a conduct dispute, but never where there's a content dispute.

Provided that's done, there's nothing to be ashamed of and no reason to recuse.

Last follow-up: I promise. You say, "and they should use tools where there's a conduct dispute, but never where there's a content dispute." Just to be clear, is your belief that an admin should only recuse from tools use in regards to a page, topic, or individual if he's in a content dispute with another individual(s), only? Or am I misreading your wording? This has been a hot-button topic on many recent and even current RFAR cases--administrative involvement and tools use. Could you clarify for all of us? rootology (C)(T) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I can think of no circumstances in which admin tools should be to resolve a content dispute.

If I were in a conduct dispute with another editor, I would only use admin tools in very extreme cases requiring immediate action. And never if the problem was their conduct towards me; but conduct towards other users could influence me to use my tools. It would need to be pretty extreme... for example, I might block an editor who was spamming other users' talk pages with an ASCII goatse, even if I were in a conduct dispute with them.

What I will not do, is recuse from using my tools in areas of religion and creationism. If an editor asked me for help in a conduct dispute on evolution, then assuming I have not edited the page or otherwise involved myself, then I would help.

17. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?
A: Not formally, because Administrative Recall is a broken process. But if successful, I shall be obedient to the consensus. In other words, if a consensus exists that I should resign, then I shall resign.
18. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?
A: Of course. Why should they not be?
19. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?
A: Cheers, I'll have a Glenlivet.
Optional question from Dank
20. How would you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VT iDirect given the current state of the arguments?
A: I wouldn't, because I've !voted in it. But if I hadn't, then the consensus is presently to delete.
Okay. You're currently arguing "Speedy close under WP:SK ground 1", and that it was improper to bring the article to AfD per WP:BEFORE. Can you talk a little bit about your reasoning? (This is not a "trap"; I'm leaning in favor of support, but I'm trying to figure out if I want to make it conditional on "no AfD closes".) - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if it was a trap.  :) I'm just answering the questions straight and giving the community the chance to decide. (I considered !voting "neutral" in my own RFA, for reasons I've explained above, but it's just a little unconventional for the RFA subject to !vote on himself...)

The "Speedy close under WP:SK ground 1" is refuted because another editor has subsequently !voted "delete", so in fact that part of my argument should be disregarded if closed now.

There are two facets to this. First, as I said above, I'm a passionate believer in WP:BEFORE. I think that in an AfD, there should be an onus on the nominator to research the sources and satisfy himself that the article could not be made encyclopaedic before bringing it to AfD. This goes back to something Uncle G often says, which is "The sole task of an encyclopaedia writer is the proper evaluation of sources". I believe that, I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I expect editors to do some serious evaluation of the sources (a) when writing the article in the first place, (b) before bringing the article to AfD, and (c) during an AfD discussion.

(A corollary of this is that in closing I'm likely to give greater weight to the views of an editor who discusses what the sources say.)

I feel that if the nominator is not prepared to research the sources, then the AfD should fail. And even more annoyingly, I sometimes see !votes that say things like "Delete unless sourced" — which I find very irritating because it implies an unwillingness to search for and evaluate sources yourself before stating an opinion.

But the other facet is that all of the above is my opinion. It's not the consensus and I'm capable of distinguishing between these two things.

At the moment the consensus allows editors to nominate articles for deletion essentially as a fishing exercise to get other people to hunt for sources.

When I'm !voting, I shall certainly continue to !vote "speedy keep" in any case where the nominator won't search for sources themself. But when I'm closing, if this RFA is successful, I shall have my admin hat on, which means I'm subordinating my own opinion to the consensus of policy-based arguments.

Thus in that particular case, I would !vote "keep", but close as "delete".

I think you'll make an excellent admin apart from XfD, and I also expect that with more XfD experience, you will see a broader picture, but I don't think you're there yet. Would you be willing to agree not to close any deletion discussions for 3 months from the date you get the mop, and spend some of that time talking with admins active in CSD about our roles and what we need? - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three months? Certainly not. Why would I accept an admin mop that doesn't let me work where I want to work for three months? I'd have to be desperate for adminship as a trophy to agree to something like that, and I'm not.

I might accept a four week delay, if there's something you feel you need to explain to me. (If I can't figure it out in four weeks, I'm probably too dumb to be an admin.)

In your own RFA, I see that you admitted openly to knowing nothing at all about XfD...

Deal. Normally, if something is bugging me at RFA, I talk about it, but AfD is just a huge can of worms that I'd rather not open, it would be a distraction. If you'll agree to wait 4 weeks and talk with CSD regulars ... not to change your own ideas, just to supplement so you understand how AfD fits with other people's jobs ... then I can support. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deal. :)
Optional questions from Robofish
A couple of further questions about your view of consensus - I would like to see you elaborate further on these points, if possible:
21. A few questions above, you say 'Although consensus is capable of overruling policy, there are times when it should not.' Could you say which times those might be? More precisely: which policies, if any, do you think are so important that no level of consensus would be sufficient for an admin to disobey them - i.e., the policy should always trump consensus?
A: I see shades of grey here. There's an "in theory" and an "in reality" answer.

In theory, all policy is established by consensus. And in theory, a sufficiently large consensus could change any policy. (Note that "policy" doesn't include matters such as office actions here.)

But in practice, there are some policies that I do not expect ever to see a sufficient consensus to override. I'm thinking here about the example of BLPs; I feel that to insert unsourced negative material into a BLP would require a consensus of such enormous magnitude that it would not, in practice, ever foreseeably arise.

22. You've been clear that you think admins should close AFDs in line with the consensus, not their own opinions, and that you would endorse an admin's closure at DRV if it was in line with consensus. However, you've also said in this DRV, linked above, that DRV should serve as 'AFD round two' - the closure should be endorsed or overturned based on the merits of the article, not based on the consensus in the original AFD. How do you justify holding these two, apparently contradictory, views of DRV? Is DRV for correcting incorrect decisions made by the commenters at AFD, or correcting incorrect closures by admins?
A: That's a false dichotomy. What DRV is for is making Wikipedia better. Any action it takes that improves Wikipedia is absolutely justified.

At the moment, it's a common meme at DRV that "DRV is not AFD round 2". Which is an extremely unhelpful thing to say to a DRV nominator, since quite often, they're new users bewildered by Wikipedia's byzantine and labyrinthine web of seemingly-contradictory policies and procedures. Such a new user will often take "DRV is not AFD round 2" to mean: "Your article has been deleted, this is not the right place to appeal the decision, and I'm not going to tell you where the right place is." It's kafka-esque.

But equally, "DRV is not AFD round 2" is a necessary meme. It brings closure to what could otherwise be an infinitely long circle of appeals against deletion.

My position is that DRV does and should have the power to re-hash an XfD debate, but does and should only use that where there's a real consensus that the debate was defective in some way.

Optional questions from Rosiestep
23a. To get a better idea of your content creation skills, and as follow-up to your 2e Answer, what are the four articles you created?
A: A near-full list of my content creations (not counting redirects) is as follows:
List

Articles I've written: Chartered surveyors in the United Kingdom | HIP 56948 | Level bomber (rescued from deletion) | Youth Inclusion Support Panel

Lists I've written: List of African dinosaurs | List of Asian dinosaurs | List of European dinosaurs | List of North American dinosaurs | List of South American dinosaurs | List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs

Articles I've translated from the French wikipedia: Catherine Bréchignac | Cécile Duflot | Chram | Christelle Daunay | Cyprienne Dubernet | Danielle Casanova | Delphine Batho | Dominique Papety | François Angelier | Frédérique Jossinet | Gras | Julie Ferrier | Monique Adolphe | Mariloup Wolfe | Najat Vallaud-Belkacem | Nicole Berger | Pascale Arbillot | Pierre Arpaillange | St. George's Church, Sélestat | Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat

Articles I've translated from the German wikipedia: Alice Salomon | Ana Drev | Ann-Kathrin Kramer | Charlotte von Hagn | Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt | Christine Teusch | Doris Gercke | Elisabet Boehm | Elisabeth Schwarzhaupt | Emma Ihrer | Esther von Kirchbach | Evelyn Haas | Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff | Günter Mittag | Hedwig Dransfeld | Heinrich Fink | Jennipher Antoni | Leopoldine Konstantin | Maria Probst | Prince Ferfried of Hohenzollern | The Dog of Montarges

23b. Have any of the articles that you created gone through an audit (for example, AfD, DYK, FAC, GAN, etc.)?
A: No. I tried to submit one of the dinosaur lists, but was advised that it would fail the Featured List criteria as a "fork" of the FL list of dinosaurs. I thought that was dumb, and decided not to bother jumping through all the Featured/Good hoops unless someone had collaborated with me on the material, which has not yet happened on anything I've written or translated; but then, I haven't asked.

And nobody's tried to delete anything I've written (exception: a new pages patroller once tagged something for speedy deletion while I was in mid-translation, after which I persuaded a friendly template-writer to produce {{beingtranslated}} for me; that's stopped the new pages patrol people from interfering with my work til I've finished).

I don't fully understand the relevance of the question, and would be obliged if you would explain whether you view adminship as an award for prolific content creators.

PS: I suspect I'm now going down in Wikipedia history as the first candidate to get 23 beat-the-nom opposers.  :)
I do not view adminship as an award for prolific content creators, rather, I view adminship as WP:NOBIGDEAL. The relevance of the two questions points to wikipedia being an encyclopedia full of created, audited content, so some RfA reviewers look for article creation skills and audited article experience as part of the RfA assessment. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd question whether DYK is "audited content". I don't think it is.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/S Marshall before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support[edit]
  1. He's been excellent since I've seen him around-active in policy discussion, XfD, definite support from me (but unintentional rhyme). ceranthor 11:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - per the urge to support more than once... and the above rhyme. -- Mentifisto 12:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Although he doesn't say he is ready, he is obviously happy-ish to be nominated, having refused in the past, & to me seems like he would be a reliable, trustworthy & dependable admin. Good luck Marshall. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support meets my standards. AFD experience and knowledge looks good. This and the "flea in the ear remark" tell me you are too tetchy. However, that perception is balanced with this. (There are other examples.) This I like in particular. This is unduly harsh. Nuanced thought. So on balance, knowledgeable and experienced but a tad snappish. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    upgrade to Strong based on answers to 9 shows depth of understanding and thought. Dlohcierekim 00:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good editor, experienced, stands up for himself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Oh my God (no pun intended), a user who manages to self-identify as an atheist without throwing in userboxes that ridicule others' beliefs. Keepscases (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Change to Support - has done useful work on translating from other projects. Peter Damian (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Net positive. -download ׀ sign! 17:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support clueful and modest editor, and per noms ϢereSpielChequers 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. A familiar name that I don't recall having seen anything negative from. His answer to Q6 suggests that he values the opinions of others and is willing to take criticism of his actions to heart, which is always a plus for an admin to have. I've looked over Dlohcierkim's links and the one he refers to as "unduly harsh" ultimately didn't strike me as particularly uncivil, though the candidate may feel somewhat offended if S Marshall had misperceived the situation. I'm unfamiliar with the whole misconceptions thing, and I can't view what it was he made, perhaps it was mild WP:POINT? Well, at least it wasn't significantly disruptive or anything (as far as I know). Overall, I see nothing worth opposing over - S Marshall a good editor who is familiar with policy and he will make good use of the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Weak Support I see you have a good following and some very good supporters but I get the feeling that some of your answers are somewhat generic. I see nothing though that says you would be a bad sysop (you admit you are human which you need to rmemember if you are to be a good sysop) and the fact that you are invovled with AfD means you can probably deal with the "hot" moments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Nothing to suggest that Marshall would abuse the tools.--Res2216firestar 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with appreciation for the common sense and civilty with which he contributes to the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. No reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - The WP:POINT violation is a little concerning, but judging your other edits, it seems to be an isolated incident, and still trustworthy enough to get the tools.FingersOnRoids 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No indication S Marshall would abuse the tools. He seems to know his stuff well enough too. Timmeh!(review me) 20:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I'm surprised you aren't one already. One remark regarding opposes - I don't like the idea of requiring audited contributions for admins, and rigid enforcement of WP:POINT has a censorious effect. If I could support again just to counteract the opposes, I would :) RayTalk 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have seen him at AfD and I am confident he will be a fine admin. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as I see nothing which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak Support. I don't necessarily agree that the burden of proof is only on the keep !votes within an AfD but that the deletes also have some work to do in order to prove something is not notable, etc. It seems to come down to an argument between deletionism and inclusionism. That being said, you do good work around here and the net seems to be positive so therefore I support you. Valley2city‽ 22:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support We'll both have to agree to disagree on the NAC issue but otherwise he'll make a decent admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I see nothing wrong with your answers, and seem like you would do a lot of good with new tools. --Abce2|AccessDenied 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Trust him. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support As far as I remember, I have never said this on a RfA so far: Always thought they were an admin already. — Aitias // discussion 23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support actually per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that I for some reason thought this editor was an administrator already (yes, seriously) and per reasonable comments in AfDs, and no, we have not always agreed (on several occasions when I said to keep, the candidate said to merge or redirect, but these are reasonable compromise and alternatives and I can respect that and besides I am following suggestions at User:A Nobody/RfA to recognize reasonable differences of opinions). Candidate is an article creator and translator whose lone block was rapidly undone. I have confidence in this candidate, additionally because candidate is co-nominated by someone I recognize on my userpage at User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages (Childofmidnight!). Best wishes! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of fact: Contrary to A Nobody, I have never been blocked.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to here, User:Alison apparently accidentally blocked you once, but immediately unblocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord. I wasn't even aware of that.

    A Nobody is entirely correct. I was blocked once, but never notified. Apologies.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, accidental blocks occur frequently enough. Most of my blocks were undone as well, with one even being an accidental User:Grawp block of all things! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Sure. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support  User seems to have a thick enough skin for the job, a clue to policy, and experience with content. --StaniStani  04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support > per PhilKnight, pretty much. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
  33. Support The creation of List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall had WP:POINT written all over it, but I'll overlook it as you've done some mind-numbingly good work at WP:AFD. Besides, you appear to be pretty good in other areas too, so a net positive. Cheers. I'mperator 13:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Always need editors who are willing to wade into the AfD/DRV world and actually evaluate the merits of the individual cases. Would have been strong support but for the point issues. No concerns that the tools would be misused. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support, one of the outstanding editors here. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Would have nominated him but I lacked the time to research his contributions thoroughly. Now that I had the time to do so, I think this is a fine candidate with no major flaws that would indicate him being a bad admin. The POINT violation evidenced in Q4 is unfortunate but I trust the candidate when they say they will not act like this again. Other than that, the candidate shows a good clue of deletion and related policies and displays patience when dealing in these areas. Regards SoWhy 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support but not without reservations. I'm a little concerned by the creation of List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall and the way the user closed this discussion but I have generally been impressed by the user whenever I have come across them and particularly like their answer to question 11 above. I can't imagine there are many users who would come through RfA completely unscathed and on balance I think making S Marshall an admin would be positive for the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I've never encountered S Marshall but find the answers above and diffs to be worth paying attention to for their simplicity and knowledge of policy. On the matter of the supposedly pointy list creation, I'll say this: it's arguably inappropriate, but on the other hand, we routinely give run-of-the-mill vandals plenty more chances to do their thing when they have no intention of ever improving the encyclopedia. I can look the other way on the list pretty easily given the total picture.  Frank  |  talk  21:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 00:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Per honest answers above, especially those showing ability to admit mistakes. And with a big +1 Insightful for "hell no, I want to work, not have a trophy."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the Wikistalk tool shows that we come down on the opposite sides of issues at least half the time, but I think that if we all agreed, we'd be doing something badly wrong. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note on WP:POINT opposes -- oh, come on, that was funny, and given the opening, I probably would have jumped through it too. It's not like he moved Barack Obama to HAGGER??????.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per Q20. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, good user. Opposes are a little conerning but not overly so. Wizardman 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support There is nothing to show he will make a bad admin, i actually think he could be a good asset. I was hoping for somthing besides the common generic answers, but there is nothing bad about that. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I've seen him around and find him to be an excellent editor. After reviewing his RfA answers, I found them to be very knowledgeable and I can tell that he knows a lot of the policies, guidelines, etc. I know he will be a great admin and I am happy to support. Good luck! Tavix |  Talk  05:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I see no fatal flaws in S Marshall, and while the List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall page was to make a point, I don't find it overly disruptive.--kelapstick (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Net positive. Not perfect but no sound reason to mistrust the candidate. I disagree with his BLP stance. Many do but many also support his position. That's ok and the debate about the project's handling of BLPs won't be affected by SMarshall's sysoping. Oh and about that "list of misconceptions" thing: come on... It was completely harmless and created in good spirit. (see the diff in Q4) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Why not? Renaissancee (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I see no compelling reason to deny S Marshall the tools, and I find his reluctance to accept them to be reassuring against abuse.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support An excellent editor with a sound understanding of policy and generally good judgement. True, he sometimes agrees with me, but I'd support just as much even if he rarely did, based on the quality of the work. The "pointy" list was in the manner of an argument, not a genuine attempt at POINT. DGG (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I was pondering this one a while, but after going through all S Marshall's recent contributions to AFD and DRV, I am inclined to support. What was putting me off was his views about consensus - I tend to hold a different view, that admins should have more freedom to WP:BEBOLD and close discussions contrary to consensus where they think it appropriate. But I don't think S Marshall's approach is wrong - I could rarely, if ever, fault an admin for following consensus rather than ignoring it. Moreover, it makes it easy to trust him as an admin, as we can reliably predict how he'll close AFDs - we don't have to worry about him making wild WP:IAR closes. Finally, I appreciate his generally sensible, well-reasoned arguments and ability to keep cool in discussions, which give me confidence that he'll do a good job as an admin. Robofish (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I trust this user and hope that he'll not create articles about himself any more. :-) Pmlinediter  Talk 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Answer to question 6 shows the user apparently doesn't mind violating WP:POINT. Lack of audited content contributions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify the issue with question #6? I read the question and answer and it seems well thought out and reasonable. --B (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose - I looked at the article contributions and many are not bad but there seems to be a frenetic rush of Wiki activity starting March 2009 and not a great deal before, suggesting some kind of connection or correlation with this RfA? Perhaps I am wrong, could the candidate comment on this please (my oppose is of the weakest possible). Peter Damian (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had resolved not to reply to any of the opposers or neutrals at all, only the questions. I'd planned just to take my lumps instead; but since you specifically invite me to reply:

    No, there was no grand plan to become an admin on Wikipedia. I've had my account for a long time. In March 2009, I went through a job change that gave me a great deal more free time, and at the same time I finished a personal project. I found myself with more hours to spare, and I began to spend more of them on Wikipedia.

    I'm not necessarily here with the goal of becoming an admin, either. I've said openly that I'm not sure I should be. I'm here purely because several other editors asked me to stand on the same day — in other words, I'm here in obedience to consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. I really did not like your violation of WP:POINT. As an administrator you will represent all of Wikipedia and it is important to be mature and calm at all times. On the other hand, there are no other problems making this only a weak oppose. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He made a deliberate red link. I made a silly redirect in it as a joke, which amused him and offended none. He turned into a somewhat useful (if unfocused) personal essay. What part of that is the "disrupting" in "disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Letting myself reply because I'm answering AMIB, not answering an oppose.)

    Fraid that's the wrong way round, AMIB. He's not opposing because I made a red link and you filled it. He's opposing because Gavin Collins made a red link and I filled it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Oppose on limited content experience. I seldom do so; in your case it's not about active time on Wikipedia, but about weak, sketchy, at times incorrect actual content of your articles. No one is perfect, but I won't delegate judgement on deleting content based on dino list alone. NVO (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per answer to question 7. BJTalk 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose based on insufficient experience (only really active for last 4 months) and answers to Q6 and Q7 (re DP). His List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall was a clear-cut violation of WP:POINT. JGHowes  talk 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (later addition, striking "Strong"): On the plus side, the candidate is to be commended for maintaining his unflappable demeanor and sense of humor throughout this RfA – an admirable quality for any admin. I could probably support with another 3 months or so of experience, as you appear to be a fast learner.  JGHowes  talk 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - indicates in the answer to Q10 that he would close AfDs according to consensus rather than policy, and thus that consensus can overrule policy, the only stated reason being WP:IAR. This is clearly counter-logical - policies are only policies because they have broad community-wide consensus; they clearly cannot be overruled by a small local majority on an AfD. That way lies anarchy. WP:CONSENSUS states this clearly - "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." Meanwhile, in his answer to question 7, this editor has then contradicted himself by saying that he would close an AfD as "Keep" when the consensus, such as it was, was clearly "no consensus" - he can only have arrived at that conclusion by discounting some of the votes!. This is somewhat concerning given that the user has indicated a desire to close AfDs and I think they may be a bit too close to this subject to look at the subject impartially. This is a shame as I don't see any other problems with this editor. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally find that policy and guidelines have gray areas. For example, something near-and-dear to my heart is NOT#PLOT. If 10 editors argue that a plot summary can be improved and 1 says "it is only plot, delete" I personally think that those that believe it can be improved should be given a shot (which is what NOT#PLOT sorta says now actually). Part of what is broken about XfD is that admins close with their interpretation of policy rather than how the discussion interpreted it. We need to remember that policy and guidelines don't always have clear application to a given case and that the closer shouldn't replace the consensus of the discussion with their own reading of those guidelines and policies unless it is clear people are trying to game the system. Finally, IAR is occasionally used in AfD/DrV to argue for the "right" outcome that improves the encyclopedia. I'm involved in a DrV where someone invoked IAR from the other side (to endorse a redirect I disagree with) and I think his view and arguments have significant merit. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose: I share concerns over the presented interpretation of WP:CON in relation to AfD closures (small local consensus overriding community-wide consensus/policy), and over the sporadic long-term vs. active short-term contribution issue. If you've more time available since March why not spend that over the next few months demonstrating admin qualities. ColdmachineTalk 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose doesn't demonstrate an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - This editor wants the admin tools for AfD, but in those discussions he recently violated WP:POINT and gives local consensus preference over larger consensus reflected by policy. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose per the WP:POINT-violating creation of the List of misconceptions about himself, and his attitude about it now. But shows promise. I also strongly disagree that WP:PRESERVE should apply only to sourced content except in the case of BLPs: that's why we have {{fact}}. Mangojuicetalk 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose problematic in regards to respecting community consensus and guidelines so cannot be trusted with administrative tools. Drawn Some (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose per WP:POINT that page wasn't necessary and was a blatant violation. Also dismissing concerns as "those were a while ago" when they were under three months ago seems to be pretty dismissive of legitimate concerns. I am also concerned with this user's views regarding application of WP:CONSENSUS. I feel pretty bad about this as I largely agree (not completely) with this user's positions. LOTS of positives. I can certainly see myself supporting in 3 months if the aforementioned behavior does not recur and the user gets a better understanding of policies. S. Marshall is welcome to respond below if he has any requests for clarification and/or believes there is something in mitigation of what I've stated above as we should encourage discussion, not discourage it. — BQZip01 — talk 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you specifically invite a reply: please be specific about where, in your opinion, I demonstrate or imply a failure to understand a policy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right here is fine. I don't want your response to be construed as "badgering". — BQZip01 — talk 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which policy, specifically, do you feel I have misunderstood, and why do you feel so?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, the ones I mentioned (and yes, I misspoke. One of them is a guideline, not a policy): WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. You aren't the first to get caught in the WP:POINT trap, but, like I said above, I think in 3 months you can prove this was a simple lapse and I'd be happy to reconsider supporting you then. — BQZip01 — talk 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note, I don't think it's right to oppose someone because they don't support your beliefs or if they don't support a change you personally want. BLPs are one of those thorny issues. While I personally don't think it is necessary, it seems that its implementation is inevitable. Once policy is changed and associated guidelines make clear what users/admins are supposed to do, I have no problem with supporting the policy. I also won't stand in its way when it comes to implementation. I believe S. Marshall's views fall in line with that philosophy. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the WP:POINT thing: Pfff. It was a mistake. It was not a major mistake, and neither was it a recent one. I'm frankly amazed by the weight it's been given in this discussion, to be honest. And I'm not going to eat a lot of humble pie over it, because I quite genuinely view it as extremely trivial. I've admitted (and been much more apologetic about) considerably more serious mistakes in this RFA.

    On WP:CONSENSUS, I wonder if you're absolutely positive it's me who fails to understand it?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  14. Oppose - Like others have said in both this and the support section, there are a number of positives and you should be commended for taking the leap and requesting adminship. That said, I do not think you are experienced enough yet (only a few months of strong contributions in a limited area), and answers to questions such as 7 leave me with less than a satisfactory feeling. Also, the WP:POINT issues pointed out by others forces me to question other things, and the creation of Wikipedia:SMARSHALLISRIGHT on top of that makes me worried. Lastly, like Nakon (talk · contribs) stated below, if you are not sure you are ready for adminship it would not be appropriate to give it to you. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see harm in Wikipedia:SMARSHALLISRIGHT, it was, as he wrote, humorous in nature and would have been perfectly acceptable as an user essay. The fact that he created it in the wrong namespace does not make the content inappropriate imho. Regards SoWhy 06:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify a possible ambiguity, nearly three months ago the candidate greatly expanded but did not create Wikipedia:SMARSHALLISRIGHT. The page was created by another editor as a redirect to the redlink WP:AMIBISRIGHT. The page discussed in Question four concerned me enough to grill the candidate, and the discussion in Q4 reassured me greatly, but left me with the view that a couple of months ago the candidate was not quite ready for adminship. However the candidate edited but did not create Wikipedia:SMARSHALLISRIGHT; and I have no qualms in supporting a candidate who can respond with humour to being made fun of. PS As non admins can't view Wikipedia:SMARSHALLISRIGHT I would suggest that the candidate request it be restored and moved to their user space. ϢereSpielChequers 07:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, WereSpielChequers. Let the record show that I did not have sex with that woman create that page.  :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored per request above and moved to User:S Marshall/SMARSHALLISRIGHT (also request to delete it undone so it stays up for at least this RFA). ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind the date, if reading that, please, people. It's historic and does not necessarily represent my current thoughts.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Concerned about some of the answers to questions, especially 4, 6, 10, 15 and 17. These answers lead me to believe that it may not be a good thing for the project to have S Marshall as an admin at this time... ++Lar: t/c 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Do not trust this user to evaluate consensus accurately. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. I really like what I am seeing here, but the content contributions is way too low for my liking, and the level of zeal is a bit too high. Great ideas, but the rough edges need to be knocked off the old fashion way: experience. Better that happens before adminship if the candidate is planning on making heavy use of the buttons, which is the impression I get. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak oppose - I generally like the candidate's contributions and the like but find the quality of the answers to the questions lacking and leading me to believe the candidate is not prepared for adminship. Shereth 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Negatives are definitely starting to outweigh the positives. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Pretty much due to his answer to my question #15. I'm sorry, I feel that broad strengthening of BLP and Flagged Revisions (which consensus already supports, and is coming) are essential and at this time I cannot support candidates who do not support them. Recent evidence why here. rootology/equality 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I don't understand (same goes for Lar above and Z-man below) is how rejecting sysops who aren't overly concerned with BLPs will make a difference to the BLP issue. Save for a few bad apples, admins who are lax with BLPs simply don't work in that area. They're not actively unprotecting BLPs, they're just doing other stuff (and it's not like there's a shortage of admin tasks). I don't see the benefit of throwing out a decent candidate because he has loose views on the BLP question. Currently, S Marshall cannot protect or unprotect BLPs. As a sysop he would have the ability to do both but most certainly would only do the former. As I'm sure you're aware, wheel-warring on BLP protection is possibly the fastest route to ArbCom. This would be like rejecting a candidate who says he absolutely refuses to touch speedy-deletion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP is important. Someone who says they prefer not to work on BLP... ok, not enthused about them, but no worries, we're all volunteers here, they don't have to if they don't want to. Someone why says it's not important, who apparently doesn't get why it is important, and who doesn't want the policy strengthened further? We have enough of those already and we don't need any more. We need thought leadership from the admin cadre. Not people who don't think BLP victims need better protection. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Breaking my resolution not to reply to opposers here, and I plead extreme provocation.

    I do work on BLP and have worked on lots of them. Most of what I've translated has been biographies, and I'm interested in them.

    And I've been very clear throughout that thought leadership is what I would provide (and have provided as an ordinary editor) through edits to policies.

    Your objection is not that I would fail to provide leadership, but that I would provide leadership with which you, personally, disagree.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct. My objection is to your stance in this matter. BLPs are important enough, and they have festered long enough, that I don't think we need any more more admins that think that we already do enough, or do too much, to address the severe problems they cause to innocent victims. I applaud your candor and honesty but I cannot in good conscience support you unless I believe you have come to your senses about this. I opposed ArbCom candidates over this matter last year. It is not without considerable regret that I take this stance, but I do. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Wikipedia's current processes and policies have made it a runaway success, and you tweak them at your peril. What needs to change is not the policies or technical restrictions on BLPs, but the attitude to them. There should be a BLPfD (Biographies of Living Persons for Discussion) board which would in structure resemble AfD, that addresses BLPs specifically in a Wikipedian, consensus-based way.

    But wrong though you are, you have every right to oppose me over this.  :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the good natured replies on the oppose, sir. Lar pretty much touched on all my points already. As for your BLPfD idea, I like it, but I bet someone is reading this and groaning that I'm about to launch another proposal. ;) An easy fix on that--all BLPs, reverse the AFD nature, to default to delete rather than keep. The attitude thing... some men, you just can't reach. rootology (C)(T) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rootology, the problem with BLP AFDs defaulting to "delete" is that it solves the wrong problem. The problem isn't that these articles exist, it's unsourced or non-NPOV content. And the answer to that is to empower the ordinary Wikipedian editor to address content issues.

    Flagged revisions, defaulting to delete, all these bright ideas are designed to disempower WP:BRD and talk-page discussion — to drive a superhighway through the winding paths and lanes of collegial discussion between ordinary Wikipedians who're examining what the sources say. And in the process, they're designing out the need for careful, detailed, local consideration of the content of individual articles. And they're centralising power away from the individual editor and the local consensus.

    In other words, they're designing out the best asset that Wikipedia has.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Except ... it just isn't working. I can point to BLP after BLP that suffers chronic issues, and the Wikipedia model... isn't working. They're not getting fixed fast enough (or, in many cases, at all). This isn't the place to debate this in depth though, and I think we've stated the respective positions well enough for this venue. Good luck with your candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second the thank you. Should you pass, you should do well at conflict resolution. As to your ideas.... Another new discussion area? There's the BLP noticeboard, and we have a plethora of discussion areas already, but maybe. Root already knows I think default to delete is the correct way to go on BLPs. But I think you're wrong about the seriousness of the BLP problem and the ways to address it, and I have 250,000 reasons why... That's a lot of lives to be messed up if we don't do the right thing. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose (Q. 10) While I agree that an admin is technically a button-pusher, the view expressed in the response to q. 10 is too extreme. It is important, IMO, to see that any consensus on wikipedia is usually made by a tiny handful of editors over a very short period of time, and that that consensus may not be backed up adequately by the literature in the area. In my opinion, an admin should almost always not implement a consensus that is not supported by reliable citations from the literature (or equivalent) of the subject matter. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - per Lar, particularly the answer to question 15. If you don't support strengthening BLP, do you think its perfect as is? Should it be weakened? As for flagged revs, there's dozens of possible ways to configure it technically, and even more ways to use it socially. Flaggedrevs has more applications than BLPs. Opposing specific implementations is fine, but opposing it in general shows some closed-mindedness that I don't believe is a good trait for an admin. Mr.Z-man 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, concerns about WP:POINT, application of WP:CON, and temperament, as raised above. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone has raised issue with S Marshall's temperament, even in the List of misconceptions thing. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:POINT issues are a reflection on temperament and maturity and poor judgment. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per breaking the resolution to not reply without a direct inivitation to do so`. And no, I'm not kidding (self-control, word-is-bond, etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Too complacent about current BLP policy, too pointy about less weighty issues. William Avery (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. PirateSmackKArrrr! 12:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pirate, could you elaborate for the edification of the candidate and a truly thorough discussion of their qualifications? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's currently under an indef block, with unanimous (so far) endorsement. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - because you're not sure if you're ready. Metzujan (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't we (as in "the community") judge whether the candidate is ready or not? Regards SoWhy 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but if the candidate indicates that he doesn't feel ready, we as a "community" should respect that and give him the time he needs. I have nothing against this candidate, hence my neutral vote. Metzujan (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the we need more self effacing admins. Dlohcierekim 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - My instinct at first was to support this candidate without reservation; however, a deeper study of the user's experience (including the distribution of contributions) gives me a teeny bit of concern. The candidate's edits in the Article and Wikipedia namespaces are excellent, but there is an apparent lack of user-to-user interaction - far less than you would expect from a typical candidate. Administrators typically have a lot of user-to-user discussions, both as mediators and moderators. S Marshall's "unreadiness" concern is somewhat backed up by what I perceive to be a lack of "battle readiness". I can find no reason to actually object to this RfA (apart from what I personally view as flawed character judgment), and I can always find a reason to support a fellow Briton. I am particularly amused that this candidate is exactly one week older than me, which fits in with my personal feeling that all admins should be older than me to deserve my respect </sarcasm>. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I like your answers to the questions and I truly can't agree with any of the 3 oppose votes so far. But, in response to one of them, you wrote I'm not necessarily here with the goal of becoming an admin, either. I've said openly that I'm not sure I should be. I'm here purely because several other editors asked me to stand on the same day — in other words, I'm here in obedience to consensus.. I think that it's important for admins to feel comfortable in their position and also enjoy their work. --- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: RfA candidates get beat up either way...
    Candidate: I want to be an admin.
    Community: Oppose: candidate is too needy of the tools
    Candidate:I don't want to be an admin, but will because people seem to want me there.
    Community: Oppose: candidate doesn't want the tools.
    I have recently stopped !voting in RfAs because the community condemns RfA candidates for wanting or not wanting the tools (among other trivial-read petty-things for not !supporting). We need to take our schizophrenia meds. It's still no big deal. Is the candidate knowledgeable of WP policies yes or no? Will the candidate abide by those policies yes or no? Does the candidate have a good temperament yes or no? If yes allow him to volunteer his free time to the project. We need to keep our focus on the good of the project and suspense with the red tape bureacracy. Just a thought, that's all. BTW, if I were voting, s/he'd have my support. --It's me...Sallicio! 17:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Different editors have different, sometimes contradictory opinions. It's unrealistic to expect "the community" to have one set of norms for which kinds of editors they want as administrators, and even if that were possible, I daresay it would not be desirable. Diversity encourages debate, hivemind stifles it. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  17:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quickie reply: My point, is to stay focused on the mission. We should stay in the middle of the bell-shaped curve; don't take everyone at face-value and don't discard everyone carte blanche. 'A'ole pilikia! --It's me...Sallicio! 19:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to belabor the point made by skomorokh above (all right, I am belaboring!), but if the community really operated the way you describe, there would be no new admins - which is clearly not the case! (Also, re your second point, if everyone stayed in the middle of the bell curve, there would be no bell curve. By definition, you're going to have !votes rationales at the 1sigma, 2 sigma, and 3sigma levels. Such is the nature of the human beast!)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, if you're not ready for the tools, I'm not ready to support you having them. Nakon 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral: while I disagree with the stance on Q#15, I do trust this user to go out and take care of things. I was the one who kinda got the ball rolling on the dinosaur lists with an AfD I put forward on an early incarnation of List of African dinosaurs. S Marshall put up a good reason for keeping, did a lot of work to make it presentable, and then went further and created similar lists for the other continents. J. Spencer (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S_Marshall&oldid=1150991304"