User talk:S Marshall/Post-RFA archive

My first RFA

Too little, too late

But Support, if you decide to run again, primarily for your tour de force contributions to DRV. decltype (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Decltype.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, ... sort of echoing what this thread is about ... I would also support you in the future. The near-1:1 correlation you speak of in your withdrawal clearly omits me. I am a rabid and unabashed inclusionist - see my RFA or my AFD contributions (there is/was a tool which shows someones AFD contribs, but the maintainer has since left). I would love it if you became an admin with your wiki-philosophy mostly intact, but I desperately believe that you need more experience in order to be effective as an inclusionist who participates in closing AFDs. Otherwise you will end up on my plate, and I will have to pass, but others will enjoy a good feast. To help you understand this, I had 25K+ edits before approaching RFA because my intention was similar to your own - I was nominated by a deletionist! Sadly I got waylaid after my RFA.

For my support, I want to see examples of you lifting heaven and hell in order to keep an article (WP:HEY is the road to beautiful madness). As you probably know by now, !votes are cheap. They are cheap for opposers, but they are equally cheap for supporters, albeit rarer to come by. Both sides would rather argue rather than dig deep and fix the fucker; even when you shouldn't have to. I honestly applauded your stance on a number of counts, but you talk a lot about admins being just janitors, but then also about deep thought being required in order to evaluate the appropriate outcome. In reality there is a lot of shit that ends up at AFD; the rest are hard decisions, and even being a slave to consensus is hard work. And that is even before the social aspect comes into play, and if you ignore that you end up burnt out or ineffective.

If you want to come to appreciate the BLP problems, focus on these lists, and help maintained them with this tool.

Best wishes for next time; you appear to know what is required from here. I pray you have the reserves required to make it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, John, for that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey S Marshall. I'd also echo much of what was said above. While I wasn't quite sure how to go (mainly because I wasn't sure that you wanted it to be successful) - I do like your work! This show of integrity, and the fact that you have a high degree of clue when it comes to what "Admin" should be, has firmly planted a "support" in my mind should you decide to accept being pushed off the cliff again. ;). Look forward to working with you in the future, and I look forward to supporting your next RfA. Best — Ched :  ?  13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought your assessment when you withdrew was good. I was trying to throw you a bone with the question about holding off closing for 3 months ... I thought maybe some votes could be swayed if people saw you as willing to be active in other areas, and if you were willing to do that. It might be a good idea to branch out into other admin tasks; that might not sway any votes from people who self-identify as deletionists, but it it might sway people who are reading those votes. Also, as I said, I think you do a competent job at AfD, but I hope you'll work together with CSD admins to make our jobs easier. If you have time, keep up with conversations at WT:CSD, and weigh in when you have an opinion. Thanks for running the gauntlet at RFA; although it can be stressful, I hope it was invigorating, and I'd encourage you to try WP:ER in 2 months to test the waters for another run. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your RfA, this was closer than it looked and I'll support you if you run again. Please bone up on the ins and outs of consensus and WP:BLP, anything you need there will come through a bit more experience. Consensus has much sway but must somehow fall within policy (which is also born of consensus) and BLP is something else altogether, BLP always has sway over consensus and understanding this is a big slice of being an admin. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all.

While some of those "opposes" were thinly-disguised tactical voting from deletionists, and there were some "opposes" that I'd actually view as a badge of honour, others were quite valid and expressed legitimate concerns.

I shall not change my view of consensus, nor my view of the proper role of an admin. Nor shall I change my view on BLPs. If the price of that is never to be an admin, then so be it; I'm not so enamoured of the idea of adminship as to compromise on those things.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Outlooks can and do grow here ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But on consensus and the role of admins, mine were formed in 2006, and haven't changed substantially yet.  ;)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to next time. Don't let this deter you. Not everyone is successful the first time around. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly true.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey S Marshall, I'm sorry it didn't work out. After looking over the whole discussion again, I have some thoughts but mostly I will keep these to myself. I do want to say that I probably disagree with you a little bit over BLP issues, but that would not stop me from supporting/nominating you again, whenever you feel like it. I trust your fairness in doing an admin's job. Well. Keep up the great work, and I'll see you back at AfD perhaps, where we will fight eachother/inclusionists/deletionists/etc. just like in the good old days. Oh, anytime you come up with something in the field of WP:BEFORE, drop me a line--I'm interested. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating me, Drmies.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry it didn't work out. I probably should have jumped in earlier on the "nature of consensus" thing, but I didn't want to derail anything early on. I thought some of the !votes that were opposed were off base, and some were quite good. If you run again I'd be happy to nom or just support! Hobit (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be sorry, Hobit. None of my nominators were even slightly to blame, and thanks for your continued confidence.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for running S Marshall. I was rooting for you. It would certainly be nice to have some more mature adults as admins. I'm sorry I didn't do a better job as nom. I probably should have stayed out of the whole thing all together. Anyway, take care and enjoy yourself. And thanks for all your good works on here. It's nice to find intelligent, rational, and fair minded people who exercise good judgement and can engage in reasonable discussion. You are one of the best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, CoM.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your civil interaction with your opposers, including myself. If I may be so brash as to give you advice: Spend some considerable time trying to stem the tide of silly/petty/malicious vandalism and the smaller, but more harmful tide of deliberate misrepresentation of biographical material, using only the tools allowed to us at this time... then let's talk. Perhaps by then you will have changed your views about the seriousness of the BLP problem. Or perhaps you will have discovered something effective that has eluded so many of the rest of us struggling with it. But I guarantee it will be illuminating either way... Best wishes until we speak again. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I fight vandals when the whim takes me, Lar, but it isn't very often. I don't understand the vandal mentality, and I don't enjoy interacting with them, and I'd rather spend my volunteering time on something else.

What I have done is spent considerable time trying to add good-faith, encyclopaedic BLP articles that I've translated into Wikipedia, and I think it would do most of the new-pages-patrolling community an enormous amount of good to switch off Twinkle and Huggle for a few evenings and try to write a good-faith BLP of their own.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that writing articles is a great tonic, and a great way to get more insight, and agree with you that those who spend a lot of time in Winkle/Snuggle/Fiendly et al would benefit greatly from more article writing. But rote vandal reversion, while necessary, is not sufficient. The BLP problem goes significantly beyond vandalism. I again urge you to spend more time trying to address the issues with existing BLPs before you make up your mind about whether there is a problem or not, and whether our current approach works or not. I am slowly accumulating statistics that it clearly does not work. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that your RFA didn't succeed, I know what it feels like as my first one didn't make it either. I'm sure the community will have the good sense to back you in a run this Autumn. By the way, I see you are in in Herts, do you fancy joining us at Wikipedia:Meetup/London 22? ϢereSpielChequers 06:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, WSC; I'm not sure you will have felt the relief that I felt on failing.  :) Adminship is more of an ambition for some people than for others, I think.

Thanks for the invite, but I shall be sitting in a field in Lincolnshire dressed up as an Anglo-Saxon at that time. (Don't ask...)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fun, perhaps Wikipedia:Meetup/London 23? - its usually the second Sunday. ϢereSpielChequers 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing SCA or similar? ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the SCA; I'm a dark ages re-enactor.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fun, are you allowed to take a camera? we have articles like Anglo-Saxon women that could do with images. ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I might already have a picture that would suit that article on my hard drive. I'll take a look.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was away when it started, & didn't realize you were up for RfA immediately after I returned, or perhaps I could have helped you add nuances to some of your responses. I am quite surprised how it went. Basically, you ran into a group of POV-pushers, and your answers gave them an opportunity. Next time, perhaps you should be ready to explain them more exactly yourself at the question, not wait until your answers are challenged. Check how I did this at my [Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG own] BLPs have no simple solution & work on them will help see that here are typically no short answers here. (My own view has shifted to accept flagged revisions as less harmful than some of the alternatives. Otherwise I agree with your view that expansion is unwarranted. It is not a minority view, whatever some may say. There is no short answer to consensus vs. discretion also, & I agree with much of what you said there, but it could be explained more conventionally. As for DRV, your position is consensus and those who think otherwise were trying to use the RfA to pretend otherwise. This is not all that uncommon at RfAs. DGG (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. I too am amazed and saddened at the Article Extermination Squadron's block-downvoting; but there were valid points made at that RFA as well.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I regret that my first question was a factor in a few of the opposes but at least it wasn't anybody's sole reason for an oppose. It wasn't a deal breaker for me as I voted "support" but I did feel that your view on non-admin closures needed to be put out for consideration. On my second question, your answer was clever and based on common sense and it's probably what I would have done in that case but it wasn't really the answer I was looking for. Most AFDs have editors wikilawyering over interpretations of guidelines and the quality of sources but something that blatantly fails WP:V IMHO has no place on WP regardless of how many people !vote "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron. Your question was not a real factor in any of the opposes, I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Condolences

Hi S Marshall, after reading your clueful explanation to Flyer22 in the above thread, and from my experience seeing your level-headedness elsewhere, I was surprised to see you weren't an admin yet. So you can imagine my even greater surprise when I discovered that you had just withdrawn your nomination for RFA! I'm disappointed I didn't see that in time, so I could have supported you there. Next time you feel ready to undergo the process, please let me know so that I can write a nomination or co-nomination for you, or at least !vote in support. You've been a good contributor so far, and I think you'd use the tools well. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Aervanath. Your good opinion means a lot to me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My second RFA

Withdraw.

That's really quite silly. Better to take the RFA page off your watchlist and don't even try to defend yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do you mean it was silly of me to withdraw? I think it would have been sillier to continue.—S Marshall T/C 04:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you should not withdraw. You should not do anything. There is no need to continue anything in an active sense. I'm still getting over being flummoxed by Stifle's nomination to be concerned by peanuts. I had no idea there was so much mutual respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A potential admin with your qualities is needed too greatly for the community to accept your withdrawl. Im reverting it! re-revert if your not up for a little drama on this. We will respectively have a word with Keepscapes and Pedro. FeydHuxtable (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you both for your kind words.

I've always liked Stifle, he's one of my favourite editors. It's true that we disagree on some matters of editorial judgment, but that doesn't present any problem on the personal level for either of us.

Withdrawing is absolutely right; I've discovered that there are some things I'm not prepared to put up with, and those things aren't avoidable if you're an admin. But thanks for the support.—S Marshall T/C 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand your decision. It is your RFA and you should do what you want with it. It just proves you aren't a badge-seeker.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I came to the page to pose a question, but I guess I was too late even for that. As much as I think the withdrawal was premature it's your decision to make, and it think it shows real integrity. Hope you will run again at some later date. FeydHuxtable: You seem to have made what was hopefully nothing but a simple typo in your spelling of "Pedro" above. You may want to correct that. Regards, decltype (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that compliment, but I've just spent about three hours of prime sleep time awake, trying not to get cross, and failing. Do I seem calm? I'm bloody furious. Not at all a good sign in an adminship candidate, and right now I think I'm not the right person to have access to the block button.—S Marshall T/C 05:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, if that's you being furious, it's better than a lot of people (including some admins, I'd say) being calm. That said, it's your decision to make. It's Wikipedia's loss if you do not become an admin, not yours. Tim Song (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the withdraw, but I hate seeing bullies win. That said, if this is upsetting you that much, I think you're right to withdraw. No reason to like wikidrama impact your real life in such a negative way. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

declytype, thanks very much for advising about my typo. @S Marshal, its a myth that admins have to suffer flak like that every day. Unless you make lots of controversal decisions or get involved in many heated discussions which you probably wouldnt. Youd have been a brilliant admin. Hopefully it will be 3rd time lucky some time in the future. Its insane that trying to protect someone from being ganged up on has cost you your RFA, especially as this is a project that depends on alturism. Started my day off nicely this has! FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a myth indeed. It rarely happens to me. When somebody does charge me with some remarkably heinous offense, I tend to ignore it for a while, go back to it, chuckle at it, and stick it at the top of my user page. Time permitting, I intend to augment this with extracts from the voluminous commentary from a certain retired academic on my stupidity, ignorance, and canine ancestry. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you made the classic msitkae of defending a keep argument :-) @S Marshall, pls see Pedro's talk. He says he is very sorry about how things played out. Looks like this wasnt a case of strong opposition to you as an admin, just the sort of drama that the RFA board seems to bring out even from the best of editors. And not something you have to deal with often once youre promoted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That on Pedro's talk page has nothing to do with "sorry". It's a classic non-apology apology that's mostly self-justification, with a sprinkle of snide and a dash of smug. After all, he's not one of the editors who would face sanctions for incivility; that's reserved for certain prolific audited content creators. The insiders who don't annoy people by writing articles can say what they like with impunity. WP:NPA is only enforceable against unpopular people, and Pedro's about to prove that by getting clean away with it.

There's more to say but I'm still too cross, I should stop posting for the moemnt.—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, I think the problem here is that you're not familiar with how RFA works, S Marshall ... and consensus at RFA is that we don't care if people don't know how RFA works, so no harm done. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, people would be jumping all over Pedro, but it just doesn't work to do that at RFA. Personally, I'd like to see your RFA continue ... you can do that ... and either way, whether you succeed or not (people might have a bad reaction to this incident), we can get real-time "closure" on this incident so that it's less likely to be a problem in a future RFA. If you really don't feel like it, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dan, but I don't wish to participate at areas of the project where that behaviour is acceptable, so the question of a future RFA doesn't arise.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm available to chat if it will help. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A kindly offer.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What a shame this is. Pedro's strong oppose for a single minor action he disagreed with was completely inappropriate, and it's unfortunate this has caused you to withdraw. Honestly though, I doubt being an admin will be much better than now. After all you've managed for four years without being one. In all, sad but not the end of the world. Aiken ♫ 12:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mind being opposed. It's the language of the oppose I found objectionable.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say I'm sorry this happened. I think you should have just stuck with it, become a sysop (which I really think is not a big deal) and go about your wikilife as a sysop. There is always one person that seems to ruin it for us-- not belittling Pedro, just saying, in general-- but it's best to let it take its course and not "over-do" or "over-think" the situation. I don't really believe you were trying to ignore or downplay the oppose by collapsing the box, I think it was just.. um.. impulsive, maybe you were just excited. What I'm trying to say is, don't let others' misconceptions get to you-- trust yourself. If you see yourself as a sysop and know you can make Wikipedia better- fight for what you believe! (within reason that is;) —Tommy2010 13:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It was neither impulsive nor excited. Keepscases has been doing that for years--in fact, he supported my first RFA because at that time on my userpage, I labelled myself as an atheist without any imagery that he saw as derogatory towards Christians. Basically, Keepscases is a spa with an agenda about what's appropriate on a prospective admin's userpage. It's been discussed to death, on many successive RFAs and on WT:RFA, and I believe once at a RFC/U. There's a consensus that he can !vote as he wishes, and I've got a tenner that says the bureaucrats ignore everything he posts. But certainly his mind's not for changing, and certainly there's no sense badgering him. My use of a collapse box was well-thought-out and appropriate.

Pedro was at liberty to disagree with me about that, and to oppose me because of his disagreement. It's only his choice of words that's a problem.

As for "fighting for what you believe", I think I'd prefer to spend my volunteering time in lower-drama areas.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't reviewed your RfA so I don't know if I would have supported or opposed... but I did want to let you know that not all admins face ridicule on a daily basis. I've had some, but most of my wikistress has stemmed from normal everyday editing wherein some POV pusher doesn't like the fact that I won't accept their POV. In other words, my advice, is realize this isn't real life and don't worry about people whom you find to be rude/obnoxious. They ain't worth it. (This is not to disparage Pedro.) But don't sweat it and don't think that abuse is a daily part of being an admin---that is a myth. The admins who put up with the most crap are the ones who are the most active with the buttons---and often the ones who are the most controversial to begin with. You can chose the level of involvement you want.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Have to say I've found the same - it's been nearly a year since I passed RfA and the only nasty things said about me have been easily-dismissed crudeness from blocked vandals. A statement like Pedro's really could be considered a personal attack and would have caused real consternation anywhere other than RfA - which is of course one of the major problems with RfA's atmosphere. That kind of thing is certainly not par for the course as an admin and I do hope you reconsider in the future - you would be a valuable addition. All the best anyway ~ mazca ^talk 14:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words. If things are as you say, then I think it's very hard to understand why the only time it's okay to throw personal abuse at a user is when they're volunteering to do more work. I think a non-Wikipedian would find that insane.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(reply) Still I think you most likely would make a fine admin. It's good that some people make open mistakes- you only learn better. —Tommy2010 15:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're upset; that's understandable. If you'd like to get some distance from this and come back to it later, that works for me. But if you want to talk about it now, that's fine too. Why are you implying that no one was responding appropriately? My response to Keeps and Hobit's response to Pedro seem in line with expectations at RFA, and adequate to get the two jobs done that need doing in that situation ... giving the "combatants" time to cool down and figure out if they're over-reacting and modify their comments if so, and prompting the opposition to give more information ... and if the opposition can be prompted to say more, that makes it easier for everyone to figure out how to weigh what they're saying. You don't get people to say more by beating them up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think I said that no one was responding appropriately. From my point of view, one user dropped in a remark that I'm not paid enough to put up with. Other users showed up to defend me, and I tried to be accepting and calm down. After several hours of not succeeding, I gave up and killed my own RFA. It was too stressful to continue with. And that was the right call, because since doing that I've received a great deal of support from my friends on my talk page, and it's support that I needed. It's helped me to feel defended and welcome here again, and I'm recovering my equilibrium. If it weren't for you lot, I believe I'd have quit the project for good.

I know I've said "thank you" a lot during this discussion, but I'll say it again: I can't emphasize enough how grateful I am for the support.—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Like every long-time Wikipedian with half a brain, I'm aware that many processes don't work as well as they should, and that's sad, really it is. I'm sorry you're feeling burned. Sometimes a strong response means a person is in the process of re-evaluating something, so your call to pull the plug is probably a good one ... back away, take some time, try to figure out what the universe is telling you. I think you can proudly display a link to your aborted RFA, almost everyone will take the things that were said as strong community support. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've refrained from commenting here before as what happened irritated me as well and I didn't want to say anything I regretted. Anyway I still think you'd make a good admin but understand your reasons for withdrawing. In my opinion there's something very broken with the system when you doing something like you did has effectively stopped you getting the bit but something similar being done by an established admin would barely be taken notice off. I think we need some way of the community holding existing admins to account but we don't seem to be able to get consensus on that. (As an aside I believe that's because with the size of the community nowdays it seems virtually impossible to get consensus on anything where more than a few editors contribute. Of course all the important discussions attract many editors so all too often we end up with the status quo even if a majority of editors feel something needs doing). Dpmuk (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• S Marshall, please – it's not true that "admins encounter that kind of abuse on a daily basis". They don't. The wording of that oppose was outlandish, and it's not "everyday" stuff that admins deal with, unless you are heavily involved in disputes. You have so much to offer as an admin; I really wish I could have been able to support before you withdrew. I hope you would please reconsider, but it's probably too late. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 17:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you all again. Your words mean a lot to me.—S Marshall T/C 18:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(I stopped the discussion and archived it after this.)