This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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? Ϣere SpielChequers 06:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(I stopped the discussion and archived it after this.)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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? Ϣere SpielChequers 06:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(I stopped the discussion and archived it after this.)