Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall

S Marshall

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (32/6/4); Scheduled to end 09:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

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)

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)

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)

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)

Questions for the candidate

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 10: Dog poop girl; extended participation
• User:S Marshall/Essay2
• WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 11: Yvonne Bradley; brief discussion with Fritzpoll, referencing Essay2
• WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3: Dan Schlund; example comment

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)

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.

General comments

• Links for S Marshall: S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for S Marshall can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

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)
2. Support - per the urge to support more than once... and the above rhyme. -- Mentifisto 12:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)

   upgrade to Strong based on answers to 9 shows depth of understanding and thought. Dlohcierekim 00:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

6. Support. Good editor, experienced, stands up for himself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
8. Change to Support - has done useful work on translating from other projects. Peter Damian (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Net positive. -download ׀ sign! 17:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support clueful and modest editor, and per noms ϢereSpielChequers 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
13. Support Nothing to suggest that Marshall would abuse the tools.--Res2216firestar 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
15. Support. No reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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.Fingers^OnRoids 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 :) Ray^Talk 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
24. Support--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. Trust him. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 Nobody^{My talk} 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

    Point of fact: Contrary to A Nobody, I have never been blocked.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

    According to here, User:Alison apparently accidentally blocked you once, but immediately unblocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

    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)

    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 Nobody^{My talk} 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

28. Support Sure. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
30. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Support > per PhilKnight, pretty much. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   OK thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
4. Oppose per answer to question 7. BJ^Talk 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose based on insufficient experience (only really active for last 4 months) and answers to Q6 and Q7 (re DP).  JGHowes  ^talk 04:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
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)

Neutral

1. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   He's currently under an indef block, with unanimous (so far) endorsement. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - because you're not sure if you're ready. Metzujan (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   Shouldn't we (as in "the community") judge whether the candidate is ready or not? Regards SoWhy 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   I think the we need more self effacing admins. Dlohcierekim 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)

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!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)