User talk:S Marshall/Archive38

A bowl of strawberries for you!

S Marshall, thank you for your detailed analysis of the RfC at Talk:Michael Flynn. Appreciate the big effort! starship.paint (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

further re Smith0124

That sockpuppet had also created an earlier RfC on the same page. The RfC has been closed, but the motivation and framing given in it are similarly suspect, as I documented further down on that page, following up on a suggestion by Nil Einne.

Would you deem it proper, for archival and reference purposes, to put a hatnote atop that RfC to indicate something like "This RfC was proposed by a sockpuppet who was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. Reasons to doubt the intentions of the proposer and the framing of this RfC are documented here"? Humanengr (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's not up to me, I'm afraid. SpinningSpark was the closer for that discussion and I wouldn't be able to disturb their close. Sorry.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, understood. Humanengr (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Finding aids

Thank you for closing what turned out to be a difficult and complex RfC (despite a simple yes/no question being asked). The thought you put into it is appreciated. However, I do have one niggle. I don't think it was reasonable of you, as the closer, to imply that the guideline should not be amended. The entire premise of the RfC was that the guideline should be amended and its purpose was to determine what the position of the guideline should be. I explicitly stated that in my opening remarks and I don't believe that anyone in the discussion took issue with it. I think the expectation is that the RfC will result in an explicit mention in the guideline. SpinningSpark 10:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

On reflection, you're right: I erred. Thank you. I shall amend that.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden close

Hi, S Marshall - I don't like being the one to challenge your close of the Biden article because you know how much I respect your views, and appreciate the fact that you took on such a difficult close, but there are some rather important issues that need to be addressed. I know we don't count iVotes, but it should be noted that (by my count) there were 18 yes include (w/options for alt wording), and 12 no include (w/no options for alt wording). That is a stark difference. For one thing, the opposes were based on questionable POV opinion, which includes comments like the details of a victim's sexual assault allegations were insignificant. As a female editor, I consider such a comment representative of WP's systemic bias and possibly even censorship. In fact, some of the oppose arguments raised a few brows, including "covered in the “Allegation” section; there is no need duplicate them in the lede" - the lede is a summary of what's in the body, and MOSLEAD says we include controversies - and other comments like "...no value in having this insignificant detail in the lead, especially for such a short article" when the article is 5565 words. Subtract 2 more from the 12 no include = 10 unconvincing arguments to not include; however, when you combine the yes include options, it becomes clear that consensus tells us the content should be included in the lead without the graphic detail.

The "keep" arguments included alternatives to the wording and were based primarily on our PAGs, including DUE, NOTCENSORED, NPOV, MOSLEAD. The scope of the RfC itself was ...how much detail about that allegation to give in the lead. There was no argument about its inclusion but you made the determination in your close that the allegation itself does not belong in the lead when you said I find that the status quo ante is not to include the disputed content. I don't know how you arrived at your conclusion based on the presented arguments, and I disagree with your closing statement that Predictably, there is no consensus about whether to put the graphic details front and centre. I believe your close goes beyond the scope of the RfC. The word "content" is too broad a term when the dispute was only about certain details of the content, not the sexual assault allegation itself which would be considered "the content". Your close prevents alternative wording and the controversy itself from being included in the lead which is noncompliant with our PAGs per MOSLEAD, NPOV, and NOTCENSORED. I would appreciate your input. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Atsme. I'll reflect on that before answering, if I may?—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely, I wouldn't expect anything less from you, S Marshall. Take all the time you need. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can see your point, but I'm not convinced that I was wrong; I'm dithering. I'm going to begin a close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard for some more eyes it.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - one of many reasons I've always considered you a treasure. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

18 editors supported including graphic details about the sexual assault allegation in the lead while 13 editors were opposed to details beyond saying "sexually assaulted," which equates to a percentage of 58% to 42%. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ignore my ping of a few minutes ago today - I conflated the RfCs - oops, my apologies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, S Marshall - I have the perfect excuse to drop by and say Hi, how are you? And btw, what was the final result of my query? Did consensus agree with your close as is? Sorry for the ping but this is a relatively stale discussion, and I thought you may not see it without being pinged, or am I the only one who has that problem. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Atsme. The RfC close review was archived without result; no obvious consensus there, but a simple majority to endorse. I'm great, thank you; I'm thoroughly enjoying lockdown as I'm a grumpy antisocial bugger who appreciates not being approached in the street by strangers and salesmen and is quite content to socialize online. How are you?—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I can't complain. I'm also in lockdown on the beautiful little island of Bonaire in the Caribbean Netherlands where I'm a permanent resident with a second home (and also a bit of a recluse). The population here is approx. 20,900 but I'm afraid it's going to double over the next 5 years. I've been here since February and will probably be here until Christmas. Flamingo Airport has strict restrictions to incoming flights and in most cases, flights are banned. I'm loving it!!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Greenfield DRV close

As the original AfD was completed before the person became the won the nominee election and the GNG-passing coverage (as with the first DRV), this topic will most certainly be revisited. Could this simply be re-listed? Oakshade (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm afraid not.—S Marshall T/C 19:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, another DRV will come after the slew of much more GNG-passing coverage that is certainly forthcoming. This all shouldn't have happened and in the end it will have lead to a lot of preventable busy work. Oakshade (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK. I really do recommend not starting another DRV until you can show coverage that properly passes the GNG, as the community's patience with this is nearly exhausted.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• It was shown and two of the voters agreed. It's just that the GNG coverage was ignored by the other two due to this DRV being "too soon" since the last one although the GNG-passing coverage came after both the AfD and DRV. Having just had a DRV is not a valid reason to ignore GNG coverage. This was just a circumstance of the timing of the AfD occurring just before this person become notable to WP standards. When there is a major Senatorial candidate who passes GNG not having an article simply due to some editors losing "paitence," we have a serious problem. Oakshade (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Closure of higher ed RfC ignored WP:RS and misinterprets WP:NPOV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's shocking that your recent closure of the RfC about the lede of colleges and universities completely ignored the core policy of WP:RS by disallowing editors from including information from even the highest quality reliable sources. It's also a misapplication and misunderstanding of WP:NPOV as that policy requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and an RfC cannot overturn a core policy. I'm afraid that your close, while well-intentioned, is contrary to our core policies and therefore makes this issue even more confusing and contentious. ElKevbo (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

An RFC closure will take into the account the arguments made. So perhaps you should have raised the RS issue during the RFC - but RS is about article content being sourced, not what information goes in the lead, thats a style issue, so WP:RS is irrelevant in that discussion anyway. Any closer who starts taking into account arguments not actually made however will be accused of supervoting. But to point out here - that RFC, regardless of closure outcome, has very little validity. Firstly its location: wikiprojects are self-governing in that they can set their own goals, targets and articles within their remit. But they cant dictate article content. Take a look at WP:Med if you want to see what happens when a wikiproject over-reaches. If an editor decides that the reputational standing of a higher education deserves to be in the lead, they can find reliable sources to cover it AND its included in the body of an article so fulfilling the MOS requirement lead is a summary of the body, well they can just do it, as site-wide policy & guideline trump a low-attended RFC on a wikiproject. S Marshall's closure reflects the discussion had, but the discussion itself has no lasting influence except possibly deterring some of that particular wikiproject from engaging in institutional puffery (if they decide to pay attention). Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd respond to the various points you raise as follows:-

1) There's no breach of WP:RS. WP:RS does not say that information from the highest quality reliable sources may be included.

2) There's no breach of WP:NPOV. NPOV does not say that we must include value judgments such as "prestigious" in articles, even where sources use that word. Wikipedians are often called on to write NPOV articles based on POV sources, and that requires some editorial judgment and deleting some adjectives.

3) I regret that you found my close confusing, and would be happy to clarify it further if you have other concerns.

All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you saw fit to bring additional information into the RfC from core policies but neglected to bring in other information from core policies. If you had something to add to the discussion, you should have participated in it; it's highly inappropriate to selectively raise your own points in the closure of a discussion.

I also agree with Sdkb that your conclusion was correct; to me, this RfC was clearly trending to "no consensus." ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think you mean that my conclusion was incorrect, and if so, I'll say to you the same thing I said to Skdb: you're welcome to open a RfC close review on the administrator's noticeboard where independent editors will either overturn me, in which case the discussion will be re-closed by someone else, or else endorse and attempt to explain the decision to you.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

My concerns with the close are different from those raised by ElKevbo above, although I arrive at a similar conclusion. To copy them from the discussion page:

First, thank you for putting in the work to close this discussion. It is, as with all your closes, clearly thoroughly considered. However, I have to disagree with your closing rationale, which I'll address in two regards.

First, you write that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.

Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• On WP:SUBJECTIVE, its scope is described as referring to (1) "musicians, actors, books etc"; (2) "aesthetic opinions"; (3) "creative works"; and (4) "works of art". While I admire the ingenious arguments and skilful phrasing you employ to suggest that universities belong among these things, I don't think that's what the policy intends.

On whether there's interchangeability between P2 and P3, I took into account what the users actually said. So in your contribution to the debate, you clearly articulated that you preferred P3 and had P2 as a second choice. However, I see for example Dhtwiki's position as supporting P3 and specifically opposing P2, and for example Shadowsettle's position as accepting P2 (as second alternative) but opposing P3.

If you remain unhappy with my close in the light of this reply, please consider opening a close review on WP:AN. I used to offer to do this myself, but there appears to be a consensus that I shouldn't do so.—S Marshall T/C 19:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, I would like to see a close review; I'd have no problem with you or anyone else making the request, so long as it links to the concerns expressed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bureaucratic though this may seem, the consensus seems to be that I need to ask you to open it.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I am not a snake, there are quite a few "s"s in my username, one more than you put in, and it's very important. I am going to assume the worst, and say this was clearly a slight, one to which you couldn't possibly respond, and want justice. I hope this taught you a lesson! Sorry, you've been getting a lot of contentious to somewhat irate responses, and thought you might want some WP:FUN you could ignore or delete. I guess I've had one too many discussions with User:EEng and now this is what I am Shadowssettle_(talk) 21:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're planning to reduce your EEng exposure, remember to taper down slowly to avoid cravings. EEng 23:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• {{Burma-shave}}—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, but I plan on seeking a review of your close at AN in the coming days unless you reconsider it (or someone else beats me to it). Also, you have to realize how ludicrous it sounds when you suggest that we can discuss prestige in the body of an article but NPOV prevents us from doing so in the lead. Calidum 04:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I know I'm involved in the RfC, so am not a neutral party, however, I just wanted to clarify a few things. Bias is clearly not just what sources are covered, it's what precedence they are given. Arguing that it's "ludicrous" to say NPOV prevents from over-focusing on promotional aspects is not particularly constructive, just as arguing whether NPOV means we can't spend the entire article on prestige isn't either. Promotional wording in the intro is, and always will be questionable; should we describe Coca-Cola as better than Pepsi? No we should say "with consumers drinking more than 1.8 billion company beverage servings each day". As there isn't the space or time to give due context or explanations, as there would be in the text of the article, it is easy to WP:CHERRYPICK, and thus not give a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV policy clearly states only that subjective opinions are only clearly appropriate_{(note word order)} for creative topics, so any further explanation for other topics should probably be treated cautiously, given appropriate weight (appropriate being clearly up for disagreement), and come with suitable context.

Whether or not the conclusion as such was right or representative I am not here to argue over: I'm sure there will be many arguments over the next while in other places. Instead I am pointing out the conclusion is based on fair reasoning, just as counterarguments in favour of any of other positions can be well reasoned. That is not to say you shouldn't disagree or take action over it, just that we can all be respectful and reasonable.

All I'm saying is some of the irate, adversarial and more tenuous comments here are not constructive, and so will do nothing to help consensus. Sorry that I'm replying to your comments in particular, I mean no insult. There is a difference in seeking counterarbitration and describing others and their reasoning as "shocking" and "ludicrous". It is not exactly WP:NICE when editors should "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment". Also note I am not User:S Marshall, just a concerned editor who's getting slightly annoyed by some of the consistent incivility before and during the RfC, and that that incivility seems to have continued. Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I obviously cannot speak for you, and as this is not only your talk page, but your defence. Obviously feel free to get rid of all of this, just trying to help. Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read the RfC and the linked discussions; no one is arguing that editors should be allowed to cherrypick low quality sources. Deliberately misrepresenting the viewpoints of other editors in that way is what gives rise to incivility. ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you've misread the above as an attempt to categorise others' views, rather than a reminder that two reasonable people can come to different conclusions through reasoned points. The above repeatedly makes it clear that it is not claiming the opposing viewpoints are silly or wrong, or trying to mischaracterise them in anyway, instead that they are also reasonable. The WP:CHERRYPICKing reference above was not targeted at any other opinion, instead showing a line of argument, not counterargument. It characterises some (out of many) places of disagreement, and the cherrypicking is not one of them. More importantly, I don't particularly think anything S Marshall has done invited any incivility, and if you have points against me you wish to discuss, or behaviour I have exhibited which you feel is counterproductive, feel free to bring them up on my or your (with a ping) talk page, I don't think S Marshall needs to hear it, or should have his talk page disrupted as such. I didn't respond to this on a different page yet, as I don't wish to cause offence by cluttering your page, or forcing you to come to mine Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 17:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your contributions here, which are welcome. I am not offended or hurt by editors' choice of words here. I can feel the outrage and fury from editors who were expecting a "no consensus" outcome.

As you can see from elsewhere on this talk page, I have a history of reconsidering my closes and changing my mind where I feel I've made a mistake. In this case I've reflected on the matter and I do feel that I've weighed the votes in the light of policy correctly.

I'm not infallible, and I've been overturned before. There are three clear grounds on which I could be overturned here.

1) I think that WP:SUBJECTIVE applies to creative works and it is overreaching to apply it to universities. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

2) I think that it's a discussion closer's role to apply policies, including policies that none of the debate participants brought up. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

3) I think that WP:NOT, which wasn't brought up by anyone in the debate, favours P1. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

Until very recently, when my discussion closes were disputed, it was my practice to open a close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard at once. I have been told, at this discussion, that I may not do that any more. I'm afraid that one of the editors who disagrees with me will need to do it.

I no longer think it's helpful to discuss this close on my talk page. You should seek review from uninvolved editors.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that that person had any standing to tell you to not do it anymore. I do have sympathy with the view that a formal review should be triggered by the complainant, but it should be easy, technically easy, low barrier, for them to do that. WP:AN, being Wikipedia’s main banning board, is a scary place. See my post at WT:RfC where I discuss forums for reviews of RfC closes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made a formal request at WP:AN to review this closure. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Er... happy Thursday?

Coffee is for closers.¹ Brownies are for closers who act with grace under pressure, as you have been doing. -- BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

¹Glengarry Glen Ross, David Mamet

(Perhaps you'd prefer a nice cuppa and some biscuits instead? But then I couldn't have used the Mamet line. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC))

Re Your closing of West Bank village articles

Thought I would mention that when you said: "I have never edited an article in this topic area, but on two occasions five or six years ago, I did close RfCs relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict: here and here. I am confident that I am sufficiently neutral and uninvolved to be able to assess the consensus here objectively." you appear to have overlooked your 2019 close here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ah yes, so I did.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

good job

Really good job closing a difficult and complex RfC. —valereee (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about closing

Hi -- thanks for closing the manual of style RfC about "is" vs. "was". I see you close a lot of RfCs, and would like to understand the close better -- or perhaps understand how you (or anyone) goes about a close in a situation like this. I'm the one who started the RfC, but I don't have a lot of experience in closing them. I understand that they're not votes, but I was a bit surprised that in the absence of a policy, a clear majority of opinions in one direction does not make a difference. It seems to me about two-thirds of those commenting expressed a preference for "was" (for printed matter) but that there was no majority in favour of "was" or "is" for TV shows. Without a policy to refer to, how do you decide when an RfC's majority actually counts towards the decision? Was it just that two-thirds is not enough, or is there some principle here that I'm not aware of? And I'm not complaining about your close -- I appreciate the work you put in on closing RfCs, and I'm fine with not getting the outcome I was hoping for. I just would like to get some insight into the process. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Mike Christie, and thanks for posting on my talk page! Normally I try to evaluate the various contributions to an RfC, giving them more or less weight depending on the sources they cite, the policies and guidelines that apply in that topic area, and whether they make new arguments or merely repeat the ones that already exist. I also follow the debate in sequence, to see if there's been one highly persuasive argument that changes the course of the debate. In that particular case I was unable to identify any policies or guidelines that would give extra weight to one side or the other, and I couldn't see a "killer argument" that disproportionately persuaded other editors after the fact, so I was mostly reduced to just counting the numbers. I agree that it was roughly two thirds in favour of the past tense. I see that as meaning a lot of good faith editors were unpersuaded.
  Thanks to RFA, Wikipedia has well-established rules about how an unweightable RfC works. The custom and practice is that more than 75% almost always passes, less than 65% almost always fails, and between the two is the "discretionary zone".
  The Manual of Style is a guideline, and edits to policies and guidelines have a relatively high threshold of consensus because they affect so many articles. I take the view that with an unweightable RfC the threshold of consensus would be between 70% and 75%.
  Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• By my count, there were 27 editors who supported using "was" for periodicals and newspapers compared to 9 who supported "is" and 3 who I labeled as others (one said it needs to be decided case-by-case, another said not to use to-be verbs at all, and the third did not address periodicals). So, even if we accept your threshold, it was clearly met. I will concede that there was likely no consensus for changing the guidance for TV shows, but there was a clear one for changing it for periodicals and newspapers. Calidum 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I saw a lot more nuance and "others" in that debate than you did, then. I understood the contributions of IJBall, EEng, Wugapodes and buidhe to mean "let's not have a simple one-size-fits-all rule". How are you counting Fowler&fowler, North8000, pburka, Reidgreg and Coolcaesar?—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think you characterize my opinion correctly, but come to a conclusion contrary to the intent. I express that I believe that certain classes of articles are exceptions, and that in general there may be other exceptions depending on the article. The MOS being a guideline, it has occasional exceptions, and so this view is in line with changing the guidance, but in a particular way. While my main concern was consistency, I don't believe that contradicts updating guidance. I understood it as recommending any change include the point that, regardless of which tense an article ends up using, it should be consistent throughout the article. For the reasons others have given, I think the close should be revised. While you're correct that there isn't consensus for a blanket rule, pretty much no one suggested we not have a guideline so it's hard to see how there's no consensus to change the MOS. There is substantial discussion on what the community believes the appropriate use cases and we can summarize those and add them to the MOS. That's the point of a guideline, after all. Given the margin I think there's consensus to recommend "was" in most (but not all) situations. As closer, it's important to figure out what those situations are and in what circumstances the community believes "is" ought to be used (if any), but I don't agree that there's no consensus for a change to the MOS. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I don't believe the RFA thresholds represent community agreement on what constitutes consensus and no consensus. Those guidelines were developed for a very specific use case and in a situation where we essentially have an up-or-down vote. In closing a discussion, what's most important is to summarize what was said and the major points of agreement and disagreement. Think of it like being in charge of refactoring a meatball:ThreadMode page to a meatball:DocumentMode page (because technically it is). This summary naturally articulates the rough consensus of the group and is more useful in the long run than which side had more "votes". — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• There's a bunch of long-unclosed deletion reviews to refactor, if you've a mind to show me how it's done? :)—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think part of the problem is that there were two separate topics discussed in the RFC, periodicals and television shows, but you are conflating the two. Like I said, there was probably no consensus for changing the guidance for television shows, but there was consensus for making the change for periodicals. To answer your question, I counted IJBall, North and Reidgrag, as all supporting using "was" for periodicals but not for other topics. Eeng, whose comment I missed on first glance, supports was for both. Wugapodes I counted as supporting "was" for periodicals while somewhat neutral on TV shows. Fowler, for purposes of my rough count, I counted as supporting "was." Coolceaser supports "was" for defunct periodicals and TV shows (the rest of his comment could be disregarded because it relates to items not under discussion in the RFC). Pburka I counted as "was" as well. Calidum 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree on the fact there is no consensus for one-size-fits-all rule for everything, and I'm involved, but I do think there was clear consensus to use "was" for periodicals that was supported by the users you mentioned as arguing for a no-one-size-fits-all. I think the line If you believe some types of periodical should use "was" and the others should use "is", please make that clear in your response. makes clear that the RfC wasn't trying to gain consensus on the exact guideline that was proposed, but rather gauging consensus on the guideline generally while making clear some topics could be exceptions. I hope you will review your close in light of this, and implement a guideline for the topics where you found a consensus, or make clear that you didn't find a consensus for specific guidelines. I believe the two major ways this broke were printed periodicals and television. It's a difficult close, but taking it as a one-size-fits-all isn't making anyone happy. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I also am concerned by the close and the interpretation of my vote. There are exceptions to just about every "rule" on Wikipedia, that does not mean we should not have any rules. The discussion had a clear consensus to use "was" for former periodicals which I completely endorse. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all. With apologies for getting it wrong there, I've amended my close. I'll now make a preliminary edit to the guideline.—S Marshall T/C 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for taking the time to respond to us and for revising your initial close. Happy editing! Calidum 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Some comments: the original no consensus based on the RFC as it actually occurred was obviously correct, and retroactively whittling away parts to arrive at the consensus-for-periodicals declaration is a mistake. The appeals above are arguably an abuse of process. The RFC was messy because those in favor of "was" allowed/encouraged it into that state, to their benefit.

Feedback above notwithstanding, the relevant policy is and always has been Wikipedia's policy on consensus, as I pointed out in the discussion. Throughout the discussion, the "was" camp sought to frame it instead to be decided as if by popular referendum—but it is explicitly not that. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. (From WP:CONSENSUS.) Much of the participation by those who showed up falls in the latter category, offering very little besides their drive-by "votes".

The soundness of the no consensus decision can further be seen in the evidence that most of those "voting" for "was" and who do offer an argument don't even agree amongst themselves—there is no care care for "the quality of the argument", they've a priori arrived at the desired "was", and have backfilled a justification for it—even where it contradicts the justification that others supporting "was" have selected, or their very own responses within the same discussion.

I called many, many times throughout both attempts at this discussion for establishing a rubric, precisely to prevent what's going on here now. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Thavet Atlas

Hello S Marshall. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Thavet Atlas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Passes CSD A7: indicates that their works were nominated for or received awards, which could indicate importance or significance. Although A7 is not about notability, see also WP:ANYBIO #1, WP:NPOET #4. Thank you. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll AfD it though.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, just thought it wasn't so clearly unimportant that A7 applied. :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying

Hey SM, thanks for all your good work. Hoping I can ask a quick favor: when you move articles to the draft namespace because they are not quite "ready for prime time", please, please comment out the categories that those articles are in as well, since drafts should not be in mainspace categories. There is a draftifying script you can use that does that automatically, or you can comment them out in a subsequent edit; ping me back if you need help with either approach. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

fyi, User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, if you use it, will automatically suppress the redirects created by moving an article to draft now that you have pagemover. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, S Marshall. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Cabayi (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Draftifications

Hi. You've recently performed quite a few draftifications with the edit summary, "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017", but that page doesn't provide any explanation about the task, nor is there an approachable summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT. Could you provide a brief explanation in the edit summary? Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Errr.... sort of? The circumstances that led to these draftifications are complex and unusual, and I feel that AN/CXT has a lot of nuances that don't lend themselves to a pithy nutshell. What I can do is link to the consensus to mass-draftify, though.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came across one of these moves in a WikiProject request to improve a particular article. I was confused by the edit summary in the move since it linked to the massive list, but the article moved was not present. It looked to be the case for several of these, then I realized that you were deleting items from the list as you moved them. Because this isn't immediately apparent, may I suggest striking through the pages moved as opposed to outright deletion? It might make things clearer to people investigating why a page was draftified. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• You're right, 2pou: I've fixed that by restoring the original list and giving myself a userspace copy to work off.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted sources

Hi, I would like to ask for an opinion on the article: Arab Christians. A user continues to delete sources without having obtained consensus to do so. I don't want an edit war. What do you advise me to do? Syphax98 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The question is whether those sources are reliable, and I think the place to resolve it is probably WP:RSN. I suggest not reverting again before you go there. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This remark is intended to be polite advice, and feel free to remove it after you read it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is inappropriate to refer to a woman as "this lady" as you did when AfD-ing the bio of Margarita Brender Rubira. Similarly, referring to a man as "this gentleman" implies (to a native speaker of American English) irony, condescension, and even contempt. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How fortunate that we're not required to limit ourselves to a single variety of English here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the hills are alive with glad cries of people who delight in giving offense, and far be it from me to add to their joy by "taking offense" at their frolics. But my suggestion was based on the hope that S Marshall did not wish to give offense. HouseOfChange (talk)

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm afraid that I don't speak a word of American English. I've even got a userbox about it. I speak English English, in which tongue "lady" is a polite, respectful and totally non-sarcastic way to speak about a woman, and I shall therefore continue to use that word wherever it pleases me.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, and I guess in your ENGVAR when I said "polite advice" about the expression "this lady," you and BlackcurrantTea interpreted that as "officious attempt to demand that you speak American English and stop using the word 'lady'"? I am happy to learn new ENGVAR when I can. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

S, as an American, please let me assure you that this is not any kind of AmEng thing. This is just one person's opinion. We say "this lady" and "this gentlemen" all the time, and it's not condescending or anything other than polite. (E.g., "please show this gentleman to his table".) Same exact meaning on both sides of the pond. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cautious

Was the upper part of this diff intentional? (Meant for somewhere else?) --Izno (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. I don't know how that happened. I'm on my phone and can't fix it. :/—S Marshall T/C 01:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait, yes I can: nobody replied so I could just self-revert. :)—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Bit too strong?

I've always be wary of the many relative newcomers whose focus is ostensibly on talk pages where they make sweeping statements and on noticeboards where they throw their weight around rather than contribute to building the corpus. I'm glad I'm out of this circus that I was stupidly passionate about for 14 years, but whatever... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Emmanuel Eni

How can I get a backup of the last version of this article before deletion in my user page? -PeterBraun74 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• In about seven days, the deletion review will decide whether to restore it to your userspace, to draft space, or to the mainspace. I don't think it's likely to stay deleted.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! -PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)