User talk:S Marshall/Archive37

Good to see you again!

It took this long for me to realize you came back. I wish we could get you for an admin, but it's lovely to see you helping out again. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, and, hi! :-) I'm not sure if I've returned to Wikipedia or if this is just a random break in my inactivity, but re-encountering old friends like you does make the place seem a bit less benightedly unappealing.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thought you might like to read this close

Hi S Marshall,

I know you always appreciate reading good closes based on sound evidence and policy, but here is an awesome one by administrator SilkTork that rationally considered all the arguments, weighing them appropriately against various encyclopedia inclusion policies, and the like. So, if you have time, head on over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett. Definitely one of the best closes I've read, only slightly besting administrator Jo-Jo Eumerus' no consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo-Ann Roberts (2nd nomination). As administrator Serial Number 54129 said on SilkTork's talkpage, SilkTork should get a Closer Barnstar (which we seem not to have and arguably should). I concurred with that assessment, though would also give Jo-Jo Eumerus a Closer Barnstar for her close of the aforementioned Jo-Ann Roberts discussion as well.

Gripping stuff.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 00:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi buddy, thanks for the pointers to those interesting closes. I suspect Jo-Jo Eumerus of taking the masculine pronouns. Serial Number 54129 isn't an admin. There's a simple script to tell who is and who isn't; just edit User:Dmehus/monobook.js (which is currently empty). Paste the following text: importScript('User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js'); including the final semicolon. When you've done that, the usernames and talk pages of people who're currently admins will be highlighted in blue (as long as you're using the monobook skin, that is). Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 01:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion though, Field Marshal :) ——SN54129 09:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 and S Marshall, wow, interestingly, I've mistaken you both for admins. Interestingly, I'd originally thought S Marshall was a bureaucrat (like Primefac). I guess this is a case of two editors who otherwise should be admins, but I can see why S Marshall wouldn't want to go through the ritual hazing that is RfA (or RfB in that case). Thanks, S Marshall, I will look into that script; I've mostly been trying to commit admins' usernames to memory, but that might become problematic once I've committed more than 200 names to memory.

As for Jo-Jo's pronoun, wow, I just assumed from the name "Jo-Jo," that the admin was female. I guess I read too much into usernames? I also thought Barkeep49 was female, but maybe that guess is wrong as well. In fact, I even thought you were female (thinking the S was for Sharon or Sally for some reason) before I looked at your userpage. Doug Mehus T·C 16:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Thuringwethil" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thuringwethil. Since you had some involvement with the Thuringwethil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Reza Farahmand

After 4 days listing for speedy, no admin seems to be willing to speedy delete by X2. I've removed the tag. The 2 simplest directions to go is either AfD or fixing the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

RFA?

I've found User talk:S Marshall/Post-RFA archive, so I suspect the answer is, no, but should you ever change your mind, I'd be happy to nominate you. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's kind of you. I would have very little use for the tools -- I'd never block anyone, I'd never protect an article, and it's been many years since I closed an AfD. All I'd ever really do with them is view deleted revisions and right now, kindly sysops always tempundelete stuff on request anyway. Why would I trade a week of character assassination and bullshit for that?—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  S Marshall, +1 to this. I think we generally are too liberal on the blocks; I, too, would never block one. It'd be nice to close some AfDs as "delete" where a clear consensus exists. It's too bad we didn't have an XfDCloser permission that could let editors delete pages, but supposedly there has never been consensus to unbundle admin permissions (although I think that would be useful). We could use a lot more editor-closers with expanded permissions but not necessarily all of the admin toolset. Doug Mehus T·C 19:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

SNG/GNG RfC

Hi, I noticed you posted on Sandstein's talk page and I'd be in favour of a SNG/GNG RfC, but the Walkiewycz case is an exceptionally unusual one, so I think the wording of any RfC should reflect this. I'm wondering what wording you would consider proposing for an RfC? Also pinging @Nfitz:, who also participated on Sandstein's talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've created a place for bikeshedding about the RfC at User:S Marshall/RfC design. Although it's in my userspace, the intention is that you and Nfitz and anyone else who's even remotely interested should feel free to dive in and improve it. I'm going to go ahead and ping BOZ who I think might be interested in notability as it applies to popular culture (fiction, books and games).—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• It's worth looking closely at the previous RFC at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 135#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive which somehow concluded that "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline", despite both being given equal weight at WP:N, and opened the door to deleting articles for at least recent players where there's a lack of GNG, but didn't really address historical players and players in cultures with little accessible information well. And really muddied the waters. We need a clear black line. With Christmas approaching, I'm going to all but vanish pretty soon ... I'd personally suggest dropping this after New Years (as a non-Christian, I celebrate the holiday by travelling to visit family). Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's not just sport, though - consider a Polish politician stub from the 1950s who is only sourced to English-language directories and is nominated for deletion at AfD. The article fails WP:GNG on its face (the two sources aren't significant coverage, say) but the politician passes WP:V and WP:NPOL. WP:BEFORE searches (on the internet) bring up little because of the timeline. Do you vote to keep or delete that article? SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Without sources, I'd always go "merge" or "delete".—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sure, without sources. But if the person really exists, and it's a borderline case where these debates start, there must be sources. The debate invariably comes, are they sources with significant coverage, with some invariably describing 3 paragraphs about the subject as "not significant", and others claiming that newspapers articles are not secondary sources. If there are really zero sources, then we don't tend to end up in these schisms. Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• In those circumstances I always look for reliable sources for minimum biographical details -- date of birth, place of birth, nationality. If there aren't sources for those then I feel we shouldn't have a biography. I wouldn't object to using a local newspaper article for those facts.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Generally I agree - though you'd be surprised at how non-existent birth date information, let alone place of birth, is for some clearly notable people. It's normally known for athletes because of various reporting requirements for official organizations. Less so for politicians and entertainers, and not even necessarily tracked in some cultures. There's no good reference for Mariah Carey's birthdate for example. So that's not a good mandatory requirement. But yes, there has to be some reliable source of the person's existence. But even then, there's little for Tank Man other than photos. Any official record of their actual existence appears to have been flushed down the sewer along with thousands of ground up bodies, after the Tiananmen Square Massacre. And while these famous examples are obvious ... it makes hand-and-fast "rules" difficult. Nfitz (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mariah Carey's birthdate is 27 March 1970: reliable source. Tank Man really ought to be called Tank Man incident because that's what the sources are about: it's not a biography.—S Marshall T/C 14:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Sweet Brown Snail by Jason Rhoades and Paul McCarthy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. Wishing you a happy holiday! ThatMontrealIP (talk) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NSPORTS

I read you comments on NSPORTS with interest. I wonder, though, whether a disagreement with NSPORTS is not better lodged at NSPORTS - rather than to ignore its application. Further, in the discussion at hand, the application of GNG is at issue as well. Isn't that your real problem? Because GNG means a person who hits a ball or hits another person or who acts in a movie .. and gets GNG coverage .. meets GNG. While a professor who has not met those or other standards does not get an article. --2604:2000:E010:1100:EDF0:C247:AB22:C089 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well, the basic problem with WT:NSPORTS is that it's watched and edited by people who're interested in sport. This is why our SNGS ("specific notability guidelines") are so variable in how inclusionist they are -- they're debated and established by editors interested in the topic, rather than by the community as a whole. I'd much prefer to discuss my objections to NSPORTS in a community RfC, and you can see some movement towards drafting one a little higher up this talk page. All the best—S Marshall T/C 19:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I get that.

And I wonder whether within NSPORTS if there are not some especially bad examples of a few editors interested in one sport imposing standards out of whack with even the general NSPORTS standards. Such as WP:NGAELIC.

But I wonder if your problem isn't really with GNG and its application to people whose accomplishments you think are not worthy of being viewed as accomplishments. In which case GNG or an RFC on it would make sense. Anyway, I also wonder whether if you don't like the policy, it is the best approach to vote against its application in a deletion review (where I think voting should be consistent with policy) - but rather to comment at the deletion review (rather than vote) that whether or not GNG would lead to considering the person notable, you do not think the policy is a good one. My thoughts. 2604:2000:E010:1100:EDF0:C247:AB22:C089 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree with the GNG but disagree that most sports biographies comply with it. The sports sources are basically about the person's sports scores -- not about the person. The sources contain very little biographical information. What we ought to do is maintain league tables and redirect each individual sportsperson's name to the league table that covers them.—S Marshall T/C 20:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I find that most bios -- other than day of birth/death, parents, siblings, born in _, lived in _, schools, majors, jobs - have very little personal information about the person. Same for professors. So I don't see that as a distinguishing factor. I think what gets you is you don't think what an athlete does is an "accomplishment." Probably the same with actors? But, the most searched wikipedia articles are about movies and the like .. so I'm not sure what we do about that. 2604:2000:E010:1100:EDF0:C247:AB22:C089 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• BTW - I'm looking at the deletion review comment instructions. They say "Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process ... and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." I wonder whether that doesn't seem to suggest that your (understandable) view on what policy with regard to athletes should be is not reason to vote to endorse in that case. 2604:2000:E010:1100:EDF0:C247:AB22:C089 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I certainly do think there are notable and accomplished athletes. Many of them. I don't feel that this particular young person should qualify as notable, because when I compare him against other people who're similarly successful in other fields of endeavour, I note that they don't have articles. This is why I agree with Spartaz' close.

  An important factor in my view there is that neither NSPORTS nor the GNG are "policy". They're guidelines and they literally say at the top of the page that they're best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. There's room for editorial judgment in their application, and I'm using that room here.—S Marshall T/C 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Interesting. Thanks. If we compare him to other people who are similarly successful in his field of endeavor, even in his own organization, we find there are half a dozen athletes who are clearly less successful (he is the highest rated minor leaguer in his organization) who have articles. Multiply that by 30 - as there are 30 teams. If our test were to compare him to those in his field of endeavor, I wonder if that would not suggest perhaps that he is clearly notable, as most of the editors voted, and that the closer should therefore have given respect to the consensus of those voting (plus - we are not voting here, but considering whether the closer respected that consensus). 2604:2000:E010:1100:51D:7469:3E01:5C76 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion closers need to respect several consensuses. There's the local consensus at the AfD, and the much larger consensuses about notability. And even stronger than those, are the actual policies — most relevantly in this case, reliability of sourcing and biographies of living people. The process of closing a discussion involves weighing those things against one another, and it also involves some editorial judgment, which is why discussions can't be closed by bots.

Spartaz' use of editorial judgment was justified here because sports fans have collectively decided on their own notability criteria that are very far outside Wikipedian norms. The problem is particularly egregious when it comes to team sports. This is why Category:English physicists contains 280 people while Category:English footballers contains 21,588 people. Category:English businesspeople contains 1,360 people while Category:English cricketers contains 12,572 people. Category:English painters contains 67 people while Category:English rugby union players contains 1,837 people. In reality, my homeland is far more important for its science, its art and its business than its sporting performance! But you wouldn't know that from looking at Wikipedia because our coverage is so ridiculously skewed in favour of sports.

This is why I don't feel that Spartaz' close was wrong, although I do think his rather passive-aggressive response to the DRV nomination was unfortunate.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating stats. Thanks. But what do we do if (just saying) readers and newspapers are more interested in English footballers than English physicists? See, for example, this list of the most searched wikipedia articles of last year .. https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wiki-most-popular-articles-of-2019-15b9257a0009 184.153.21.19 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

When I checked that list, I didn't seem to see any articles about athletes or sportspeople, or indeed sports of any kind. Am I missing something?—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, but it is analogous -- it is heavily movies (and subjects related to movies). Pop culture, same as sports. Not physicists and business people and dry but important subjects like that. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there's a lot of interest in articles about movies and actors, but I'm afraid I don't see how that means we need to have lower notability standards for sportspeople?—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I was simply making the point that reader interest (as well as newspaper interest, which GNG focuses on) may lean more towards pop culture entertainment non-serious subjects than to serious real-world subjects (physicists and businessmen). 184.153.21.19 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

E-cigarettes, 2020!

Wow. You HAVE been at this for quite a while. kudos. I know your position on the current readability RfC, and I fear that my edits of the lead are causing you angst (I really don't want to) but what I don't know and would love to, is how you feel about those edits I've made? I've just done a few and will settle back a bit until I hear your opinion, if I may. Thanks, it does appear that you are busy here. Jd4x4 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, buddy. My best advice at the moment is to give it a bit of time before editing that article again. The article is subject to discretionary sanctions and there's a lot of community scrutiny. A big risk is appearing to be overly focused on a small number of articles. Don't allow that to be said about you. Make a few edits at a time, then do something else; there are six million articles, and you could do something to improve almost all of of them.—S Marshall T/C 21:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. Thank You. I see that many of the topic-specific articles that this one links to are less than stellar as well. Don't know if I should dare to work on them for the same reason you mentioned or not, lol. Sad thing is that I've tried for years not to edit this and only decided to give it a try before I totally gave up on Wikipedia as a result of a debate on of all places, YouTube where I was admonishing a Wikipedia-basher about fixing problems rather than "bitching" about them. He said that I was delusional and that there were "gatekeepers" for certain articles, so I looked and saw the insane amount of edits by QuackGuru and DocJames. After lamenting that there really was no place on the web that could be trusted, I decided to "go down fighting", lol. Thanks again, and take care (and/or the quinine tablets, lol). Jd4x4 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone?

I'm sorry. Are we editing the same wiki? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Haha, so true!—S Marshall T/C 01:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Peppermint RFC close

Hi, I think you need to amend at least two statements which may lead you to tweaking others: “we have good sources for the name” is simply wrong. We have six poor sources: 3 where the publishers have refactored her birth name out; 2 which also include “Agnes”, a fictional name promoted mainly by Wikipedia making this sourced questionable at best; and one primary SPS listing only her name with no other confirmation. The other problem may have been missed but you thank the ip’s, the main one was just blocked for sockpuppetry, and may have a COI on the RFC itself. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for visiting my talk page. The reason why I said "we have good sources for the name" is because of this edit. Do you see how that connects to the birth name being correct? I couldn't use that as a source in the mainspace, of course, because it's a private email and there's an inferential element, but I can certainly use it in an RfC close. I said that the IPs' contributions to the debate were thoughtful and responsible, and I'm content that they were. I did not examine their behaviour outside the RfC.—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Moratorium on renaming discussions at 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic

I really cannot understand your closure rationale on that.

You state that there is a clear consensus, but there are many !votes that say nothing but "me too". Not one of the comments supporting the moratorium makes any attempt to claim that the current title is correct, they are uniquely concerned with ease of life on the talk page rather than the impression and information given to the reader of Wikipedia as a project that seeks to be accurate.

In the two discussions that immediately follow that moratorium discussion I invited people to state why they think the current title is justified, and there was no meaningful take up of that challenge, while several people who have not been part of the moratorium discussion have used the section Pandemics are named for the disease, not the virus to support a move (and therefore to not approve of a prohibition on moves): Gtoffoletto, ViperSnake151, Magna19, TedEdwards. So that would make a !vote of 14 to 11.

So what do you consider to be the balance of weight of the arguments put forward in this discussion according to which you have declared a resolution? Kevin McE (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Kevin McE, and thanks for visiting my talk page.

  I absolutely did not decide that the current title is right. This decision is important, and we should, in due course, reach the correct conclusion to it. However, the consensus is that the sheer number of page move requests that have been put forward about this matter is not sustainable. The problem is that some editors are so passionate about it that they are exhausting the community's capacity to respond. The decision should be made on the strength of the arguments, not by overwhelming editors with the sheer number of posts. In other words, I have not made any kind of decision about the article title. I have merely documented a consensus that the discussions about the article title should stop for the time being.

  I understand the frustration you feel when an editor makes a point that you assess as wrong, and you reply with a courteous and well-thought-out refutation. I am afraid that if they don't respond, then I am required give their view full weight as they originally wrote it. The alternative -- i.e., if editors' views were given less weight when they didn't respond -- would be an encyclopaedia where the last person to reply wins. We couldn't possibly make meaningful decisions in that environment.

  If you feel that my assessment of the consensus there is wrong, please do let me know and I will open a close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for replying.

I did not ask anyone in the moratorium decision to defend their position: I am simply asking the person who closes the discussion to explain the grounds for that decision, based on the strength of the arguments, not the simple number of votes. 14:11 is not a clear consensus, and so I can only assume that you believe that there is something that you consider to be clearly more in keeping with the purpose and policies of Wikipedia displayed in the arguments supporting the moratorium than opposing it. I am rather disturbed that you offer the possibility of extending the moratorium, but not of appealing for it to be shortened or set aside. Before I take the step of asking you to present it for review (thank you for the offer), I would like to invite you again to describe what you consider to have been the relative strengths and weaknesses of the reasons put forward on both sides of the argument, and why you think that consensus was thus reached. Kevin McE (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I gave the pro-moratorium editors a moderate amount of additional weight from our usual custom and practice when faced with discussion fatigue, and after applying that I still found that there was tension between perfectly tenable views. In these cases I refer to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, which reads: The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus... the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. The predominant number were pro-moratorium. I recognize that you think I was mistaken, and I will be very happy to begin a close review if you indicate that you would like one.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

With no disrespect intended (I admire that you felt brave enough to try to make a call) I cannot accept that a decision that commits Wikipedia to carrying such a fundamental flaw of logic and language as to name a pandemic for a loose type of virus rather than a particular disease on an article of almost unprecedented current interest for another 30 days can "compl[y] with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." Where there is no clear consensus, I believe that the least restrictive course of action is more suitable, and an extraordinary change of regulation should require a much clearer consensus that is present here. I cannot accept that a !vote, and a decision, to prohibit so much as the discussion of a suggestion of a name change is anything other than a statement that the current name should endure, and yet there was no positive argument for the correctness of the current name put forward. So yes, I would like the decision to be put forward for review. Kevin McE (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have begun the review here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• That close review was processed pretty fast! Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318#Close review please. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• 30 days? 30 days starting, and ending, when? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• An incisive question, and a good point well put. If it had been an RfC, then to close it before the 30 days' duration would have been undesirable. Timrollpickering, who knows what he's doing, listed it for closure outside the RfC section, under "other requests". I considered this before closing, and I thought about whether it was strictly an RfC at all. I decided that a renaming moratorium has more in common with a deletion review than a RfC, and the high visibility of the matter necessitated prompt intervention, so taking everything together I decided it would be appropriate to close it.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, that wasn't the question. Your close, 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC): " I therefore find that there should be a 30 day moratorium on move proposals". For the page 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. When does that 30 day moratorium on move proposals finish? From the date of your close? 14:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ah! Yes, I intended for the moratorium to end 720 hours after the close timestamp.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC close at Julian Assange

Hi S Marshall, in your close of the RfC about the German appeal for Julian Assange, you wrote that there is no consensus. Option 1 was to include two sentences about the appeal, Option 2 was to not mention the appeal at all, while Option 3 was to include a briefer mention of the appeal. In other words, Options 1 and 3 were for inclusion in some form, Option 2 was to completely leave out the material.

Looking through the comments, I count 12 votes for Option 1, 12 votes for Option 2 and 7 votes for Option 3 (I counted votes like "3 or 2" to be 0.5 for each). That means there were 19 votes for inclusion in some form, 12 against inclusion in any form. You didn't write any evaluation of the strength of the different arguments, but from a numerical point of view, there's a clear vote for inclusion of at least one sentence about the appeal. I obviously think that the arguments given for inclusion are strong (as I said in my comment, virtually every major German-language news outlet covered the appeal, some with multiple articles), and that some of the arguments against were incredibly flippant and dismissive (because they feel that what Germans have to say about the subject of Assange is irrelevant, or out of animosity towards the person of Assange). But that aside, the numbers were clearly in favor of inclusion of at least one sentence.

Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I sympathize. One of the problems with Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures is that they have a baked-in "first mover advantage", where once the status quo is established, it requires a positive consensus to dislodge it. I have looked at my closing statement again, and yes, you're right to say that I failed to show my working. I'm sorry for this. I usually do better. Let me rectify that here and now.

  I should begin by saying that I'm a fluent German speaker, a frequent visitor to Germany, and a lover of currywurst. I'm very familiar with the sources. I agree that there's nothing marginal about them: on the contrary, they are highly reliable. I view the German-language press in general as superior to the English-language press in accuracy and veracity.

  The principal argument for inclusion is that, on Wikipedia, there's a basic presumption to include information that's verifiable and reliably-sourced, and this information meets that presumption. This is an excellent argument that's squarely grounded in policy at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia. It receives additional, implied support from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for adding citations, which allows editors to remove unsourced information, but contains no provision for removing information that's directly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source.

  The principal argument for exclusion, on the other hand, is the concern that to include either of those paragraphs as written would be contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. This is also an excellent argument that's squarely grounded in policy, and so I was unable to give greater weight to one argument than another.

  I hope this is a satisfactory explanation but I do accept that it may not be. If you are still unsatisfied after reading it, then please say so and I will be delighted to begin an RfC close review in which independent, experienced editors will decide whether I was right.

  All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. My response is on two levels:

1. Those who argued that there was a problem of undue weight did not adequately ground their concerns (which I'd rather characterize as "assertions"). The extent of coverage of the appeal throughout German-language media and the high visibility of the people involved (such as Sigmar Gabriel and Günther Wallraff) are strong prima facie evidence that this content deserves some weight - at least a sentence somewhere in the article. Many of the concerns about weight were truly bizarre and highly personalized, suggesting that the people who signed the appeal, or the journalists who covered it, or some other unspecified group pushing the appeal were composed of "Assange cultists" and "useful idiots." Other arguments about weight compared the signers of the appeal to Eddie the Eagle, derided the petition as "German-centric fanboy stuff," or incorrectly stated that the sources did not call the signers "prominent." The quality of these arguments was extremely low. I was actually quite shocked to see long-time editors commenting in this way.
2. The numerical balance of votes was strongly in favor of inclusion. There were 19 votes for inclusion, versus 12 votes against inclusion. Votes don't count for everything, but they do count for something.

Given both the clear difference in the quality of the arguments made for and against inclusion, and the clear numerical result in favor of inclusion, I think there is a clear consensus for inclusion. The consensus probably leans towards a concise description of the appeal, shorter than that offered in Option 1. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have begun a close review here.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Moved to Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Further discussion

Closing of RfC

I have no idea what this close means Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Article_readability

As I have no idea what version 1 and version 2 are.

This dif for version#1 shows the fixing of a reference[1]

Yes I am good with fixing that reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• The diff shows the fixing of a ref, but what it also shows (and what everyone else in the RfC was talking about) was a proposed wholesale revision to the article's lead. The close means that the community has decided that the proposed revision is an improvement and should be implemented.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Well we can try another RfC if you want... But lets try to format it better. I do not see the RfC as being strong enough to lock in either one of the "versions" as both were poor.
  • Can you please explain why this text is present twice verbatim in the Use section "The prevalence of vaping among adolescents is increasing worldwide.[52] There is substantial variability in vaping in youth worldwide across countries.[53]" "Vaping seems to be a gateway to using traditional cigarettes in adolescents.[57] Youth who use e-cigarettes are more likely to go on to use traditional cigarettes.[58][59] The evidence suggests that young people who vape are also at greater risk for subsequent long-term tobacco use.[60] E-cigarettes are expanding the nicotine market by attracting low-risk youth who would be unlikely to initiate nicotine use with traditional cigarettes.[61] "?
  • Do you want it their twice? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not; their duplication is an error. Those are poorly-written sentences, and they should be simplified. I particularly dislike the use of the word "youth" as a collective noun for young people.

  I am not delighted to learn that you want another RfC on this text, but considering we're in a global medical emergency I can understand that you were distracted. Please restore the consensus lead before you draft the RfC, and please allow it to remain undisturbed for the duration of the RfC. It's OK for you to remove the duplicated text in the Use section.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not want another RfC. That you drafted a RfC to supposedly chose between two entire versions of the article is simple not how one drafts a RfC (I supported neither version). This part of the close is indeed correct "editors believe there are still more improvements that should be made to the lead and article". So that RfC does not lock the article in place at least. And I do not plan to restore the article to either version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

... but you just suggested another RfC. I'm just... bewildered.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We need to figure out what we disagree on before we can even formulate a RfC. I have posted a question about the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, there ... you might not have noticed, but on the Workshop page, you have entered some of your comments in the "Comments by parties" section instead of the "Comments by others" section. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oh God. I'm having such enormous difficulty with the fact that we aren't supposed to reply to each other like normal Wikipedians.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's like social distancing, but on wiki. I see from your user page that you live in Cambridgeshire. I think we both know the local police can get a little zealous about enforcing the lockdown. Let's hope they didn't spot you crossing over the line before you had a chance to move back! -- Colin°^Talk 09:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

RfCs about the oldest people

Greetings S. Marshall! Thank you very much for your closing statement at Talk:List of the oldest living people#RfC: List world's oldest 50 people or 100? Perhaps counter-intuitively, there is little chance that the current virus pandemic would accelerate the deaths of our very oldest brethren: people who have lived past 110 years must have some of the strongest immune systems of all humanity!

While you're looking at the topic area, could you possibly assess consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing, which has been open for two months? — JFG ^talk 14:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

PediaPress new AfD

Hi, I see that you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PediaPress. This is to advise you that the article is up for AfD once again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure at Talk:National Endowment for Democracy

You stated:

On the basis of this discussion, I find that the only close available to me is no consensus. A "no consensus" outcome on Wikipedia always means that the status quo ante continues to apply: in other words, the proposed edits should not be made.

That is the end of my formal close. However, I'm conscious that without more, it would be an extremely unhelpful close. Editors have gone to RfC because they can't agree, and "no consensus" does nothing to resolve the underlying disagreement. Therefore, in an attempt to move forwards, I would like to add some suggestions about the kinds of changes that I think might be able to gain consensus here at a future RfC.

Edits 1 and 4: Maybe these could be combined. Try something like: The Chinese state-owned CGTN's position is that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments. The New York Times' position is that evidence for this is lacking; the CGTN disagrees.

Edit 2: I don't understand the objection to Most NGOs sanctioned by China do not have offices on the mainland. I also don't see why it needs clarification.

Edit 3: I don't see why it's needful to use in-text attribution to the New York Times when it's cited as a reference at the end of the sentence.

Edits 5 and 6: Maybe we could discuss adding these as footnotes, rather than in the body text. See WP:REFNEST for how this might look.

I do hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several issues with your close:

(1,4) You have not addressed the WP:SYN issues at edit 1, which has not been convincingly argued against. In fact, your NEW suggestion introduced a bit of WP:OR (the NYT never made a statement about "no evidence" in reference the National Endowment for Democracy; it is about the HK protest), which is very unfortunate as the references (and quotation) was presented in the RFC.

(2) The article is specifically about the National Endowment for Democracy, but the reference does not make any statement about the National Endowment for Democracy specifically (but about most NGOs in general). If you do not grasp this objection, then you should have consulted the reference for it (as was presented in the RFC) or not have closed it.

In fact, your rejection of everything outright (like the opposing votes), without going to every point individually (which most opposing votes ignored; it was only responded to by one), is indication of not much finesse. Because most of the opposing votes rest solely on the UNDUE premise, but it does not even apply to most of the edits. I wish you to re-analyse your closure (especially the two points above, that beyond UNDUE), or a closure review could be taken. --Cold Season (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, I think the close is fine and would urge you not to permit a re-litigation of this matter. Cold Season, the points you raise were basically addressed during the (lengthy, weeks-long) discussion, and were effectively rebutted by other editors, including Snooganssnoogans and myself. Neutrality^talk 04:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• RfC closes are reviewable by the community and I don't feel it's appropriate for me to decline. I have begun a close review here.—S Marshall T/C 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No consensus result

Thank you for reviewing the RfC on Religion in Albania. Your closure says that " there is no actual consensus in favour of either position. Therefore the status quo ante continues to apply, and the outcome of this RfC". The dispute started after an editor removed the census pic from the lede [2], so the status quo ante can not be the version without the census pic in the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that I read the closure more carefully, you wrote that "There is substantial and well-argued support for the view that the 2011 census' conclusions are insufficiently reliable to be used on Wikipedia". I do not understand that. I do not see anyone there saying that the census results should not be present on Wiki; the all dispute was over the lede. Can you point out to those editors who argued that the census results should not be used on Wiki, together with the specific diffs where they did so? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Ktrimi991. While I was reading that debate, I could see that you were very passionate about the result, so I was half-expecting your visit to my talk page after I closed it. Although it's true that the RFC began shortly after the image was removed from the lead, I feel that the dispute began in early 2019 with this edit when SPA Dschaur introduced the graph into the article. You're right to point out that I wrote "on Wikipedia" when I should have written "in the lead", and thanks for that: I'll correct the error with my next edit.—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the modification to "in the lead". Nobody expected the dispute to become so long, and I had the impression that nobody would read all of it and make a closure. So thanks again for your work on the review process. After the pic was added to the lede, several months passed and, if I am not mistaken, some 30 edits were made on the article with nobody challenging that edit. Is not that counted as "silent consensus"? After "silent consensus", is not a new consensus needed to make a change? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit I was referring to in my previous post is [3]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Would you like me to begin a RfC close review?—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, it would be nice to have even more opinions on the issue. I think that it should be noted in the close review request that what I put into question is not your conclusion that the RfC discussion ended with no consensus. Although the "support" side had more !votes, none of the two sides managed to reach consensus. More opinion is preferable on the interpretation of what version constitutes the status quo ante. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have begun the review here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)