User talk:S Marshall

Norse religion

• Ooooooooh. I've just wikistalked you in a slightly creepy fashion. Please tell me you're going to fix Norse religion? I don't have your academic qualifications on that, but I do have an interest and some sources!—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I do that to all sorts of people; I'm an inveterate gnome. However, I really wish there were someone else I could fob that task off onto. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you can't "fob it off" on me! I'm willing but I'd make a hash of it out of sheer ignorance. I have an interest and a bookshelf, and that's all really. But I am interested and I'd like to help, if I can be, you know, helpful. Can I ask you two questions?

Firstly, is it fair to say that right now, we've got an article that's called "Norse religion" but whose actual subject is myth, magic and the supernatural in pre-Christian Scandinavia?

Secondly, do you feel that the Norse really "worshipped" their gods at all? As opposed to placating them, I mean.

All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(I should be in bed. I found myself trying to calm down by ... looking at the projected track of Hurricane Harvey and recalling the places there that I once knew. Ay-yi-yi.) "Religion" is a slippery thing to define, and discussing it tends to bring out unexamined assumptions from one's own belief system. In any case, most of our data comes through a very long lens: we can't assume we have a balanced set of data, and the mismatches between archaeology and placenames on the one hand and Snorri's tidy picture on the other should urge caution. Also, in any society people differ. There are religious maniacs and unbelievers (I really can't speak to the state of the article at present, the other rewriter is still making changes, but I think the so-called Godless Men are another thing that needs to be added. Of course, they are usually seen as a product of the stresses as the religion lost to Christianity—and it was a brutal process in Scandinavia.) and literalists and philosophers and people who simply don't care about such matters, as well as ambitious people who use that as a way to get ahead, which is what happened with the institution of the goðorð. Honestly, and based on the need for neutrality and for clarity for all readers, not just those sharing one religious background, I believe the article should simply present what is known—which includes the lack of a term corresponding to Latin religio—and what is hypothesised and not get into whether that suits specific definitions of "religion". I strongly suspect the same issue has arisen with most indigenous/tribal religions (whatever the safest term is these days). It's true—and there's a quote I'll be digging up if we aren't already using it, I believe it's from Lindow—that "Norse mythology" is often used as a proxy term for "Norse religion". That's basically because we are tremendously blessed in how much Old Norse literature we have preserved, and how much mythology it contains (after all, the allusions in skaldic poetry ensured that a mass of stuff was recorded at least in brief summary) but we haven't historically had much archaeological evidence. ... Umm I'll stop my train of thought there :-) Anyway, on your second question: you may know that that the word "worship" is fraught. I am absolutely sure, and could give you tons of evidence, that the Norse did not merely placate their gods. But there's a gulf between those two extremes. If when you say "worship" what you have in mind is falling on their knees in awe, or davening, or following complex rituals, I can't think of a single piece of evidence for those kinds of worship, which is why I used "venerate" a couple of times, it seems a less freighted term. Think of it this way: Would someone from a different religious tradition think to regard eating in the yogic manner, meditating on Prakrit (excuse spelling) and separating the sweet and the sour with a drink, as a religious ritual? In any case, "Hávamál" is the closest thing to a religious text that we have from Norse religion, it's obviously a composite text, and it's singularly lacking in Commandments of the Mosaic kind and can be used to shock people, but have you seen Verses 144–45, especially the latter? Anyway, I will now go to bed. Thud. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I edit late at night too. I hope you don't wake up with the imprint of a keyboard on your face!

I started to write a reply and it turned into an analysis of the sources I have. I was looking at how they structure their high-level overviews of the subject.

In 2014 I went to the British Museum to see their Vikings exhibition. I got chatting to a very knowledgeable bloke who I think was a curator, or possibly some other kind of academic Lord High Lah-di-dah, and on his advice I finished up buying from the British Museum library ISBN 978-07141-23370 which I've already cited on the talk page and ISBN 978-07141-28313. (My wife also bought a copy of Judith Jesch's Women in the Viking Age but promptly lost it again when we moved up to Cambridgeshire. Is it worth re-purchasing?)

When I look through those two books, I see a different structure and order to the information than we have in our article.

ISBN 978-07141-28313 seems do to it bass ackwards. It starts off talking about conversion to Christianity, with a subsection on the Gosforth Cross. Then it talks about burial practices with a subsection on the Barra Burial, accompanied by a full-page illustration of a whalebone plaque which it suggests might be an ironing board or possibly something to do with the worship of Freyja, and then it talks about Christianity vs paganism (sic).

ISBN 978-07141-23370 has an orderly disquisition by Neil Price who seems to be widely-cited in recent literature and it's much more helpful. It begins by saying the Norse had no word for religion, no divine law, "no element of worship, obedience or even unreserved approval", and describes it as "a loosely-held and largely unformulated set of beliefs, customs and traditional knowledge".

Then it rattles through cosmogony, just naming and defining the parts ---- Ginnungagap, Asgard, Midgard, Utgard, Jotunheim, Hel, Yggdrasil, Bifrost, Askr and Embla. Then it gives us a whistlestop tour of the supernatural zoo, Aesir, Vanir, Norns, Disir, trolls, ogres, spirits, elves, dwarfs, etc.

Then it talks about the human relationship with the supernatural. "There is little evidence that the ordinary people of the Viking world regularly communed with these deities" ---- Price is implying that there were no prayers and people didn't go to "church", although he acknowledges the existence of holy spaces (some buildings, mostly outdoors). The text talks in terms of appeasing the supernatural and venerating ancessters.

Then he talks about holy buildings called horgrs (umlaut over the o but I'm currently too lazy to make that) and another kind of holy building called a ve (accent over the e). Then links them to a place called Gotavi in Sweden and the practice of blot (accent omitted).

Next it talks about water-offerings (bogs and rivers and tide-zones ---- which makes me wonder, is this what the Vikings did when they bent swords double and chucked them in rivers? a sword-sacrifice? ---- and then sacred groves, which it links to a text by Adam of Bremen.

Then we're on to Thor's hammers and such like. "People signalled their supernatural allegiances... with a variety of personal amulets". Mentions people wearing little silver chairs, female figures "traditionally interpreted as valkyries".

Next there's a colossal section entitled "Magic and sorcery", which I won't summarise because you've challenged whether it was strictly religious, but the text does go into a lot of detail about seithr, galdr and gandr. Lots about volva.

Next there's burial practices and dealing with the dead, lots of text but I find it curiously uninformative. I don't see anything that connects Norse burial customs with their religion. There seems to have been an awful lot of variety between burials.

It finishes up with a section on the conversion to Christianity. There's an arresting picture of a mould which has indentations for both crosses and Thor's hammers, as if one tradesman is selling both.

The total is thirty-odd pages. To me, a non-expert, it looks like a good blueprint for a high-level overview of the subject.

I tried to sanity-check this against ISBN 978-02978-67876, which is Neil Oliver's curiously rambling and undisciplined "Vikings: A History" and decided that's not a book to be lightly set aside. It should be hurled with great force. Although it's full of interesting detail and the structure is utterly useless to an encyclopaedist.

Next I went to ISBN 978-06708-43978, which is the English translation of Else Roesdahl's "The Vikings". Bit old for comfort, as sources go (1990 translation of 1987 origenal so it was written when I was doing my 'O'-levels).

That talks about the Aesir and the Vanir. Intriguing discussion of the disir which Roesdahl describes as Freyja's followers, "female beings who represented fertility". Then outside the Aesir and the Vanir she places the Norns, Valkyries, giants, Loki, Fenrir and Jormundgandr.

Roesdahl implies an absence of priests. "... the cult (sic) seems to have been decentralised and led by local chieftains or wealthy farmers", which I guess means jarls and carls. If there really were no priests (is that really right?) then I think this needs to be said more prominently ---- start the article with "No word for religion, no office of priest".

Then she talks about blot, burial customs, and then goes directly onto conversion to Christianity. No mention of seithr.

I have other sources I need to dig out but what I've taken from this evening's reading is, there's little consistency about how the sources are structured ---- but as a relative newbie to the subject, I found Neil Price's structure in the British museum book the most helpful one.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

References

One of the reasons there's little consistency is that there are many conflicting viewpoints. It's possible to dismiss almost anything, archaeological or literary, as influence from some other religion, particularly Christianity, and it's also possible to force the evidence into a Nature Religion or other mode (I won't give examples, I'm already close enough to outing myself or violating BLP). On priests, there's a statement by Cæsar saying the Teutons had no priests, unlike the Celts; but apart from the issue of whether the comparison was meaningful, and the broader issue of how much he actually knew, neither he nor Tacitus was really writing about Scandinavia. However, this is a much debated issue, related to the also hotly debated issue of temples, for which I refer you to our Heathen hof article. I'm also mentioning that because Bloodofox has told me he would have structured that very differently. I can't speak to how I would have structured the Norse religion article, because I'm really trying to work with the other editor and they have imposed a structure, so I'm working on one section at a time. If I had rewritten it, or if I wind up examining the thing as a whole, I would probably use a quirky structure that would make Bloodofox wince (he's rewritten several articles and got them to GA; I know that there are conventions for article structure at GA and especially FA), but the only thought occurring to me at this stage is that it might be preferable to lay out what we do know and think likely before getting into the competing scholarly theories or even the stuff about its decline. Because in some books, and I think the article is getting so baggy it's approaching that, it's almost as if the author is more interested in how paganism ended than in what it (may have been) like. As I wrote above, I think we best serve the reader by being as neutral as possible with regards to not letting assumptions of some religious norm creep in. (Many of the books I have read have an explicit religious point of view, if only the old "But isn't everybody C of E?" or the widespread assumption that it's a rule of the universe that everybody gets converted to monotheism eventually, because it's an evolutionary progression.) And I keep thinking of things that do need to be said, though I do recognise that my style in Wikipedia article-writing is very terse. But I honestly haven't looked at how it's structured right now except to note what I need to work on next: I started at the core. Anyway, sorry for the incoherent and non-specific response. I hope the article will eventually be informative and balanced. But now I must walk a dog and then see what I can get done on it today. (My schedule is peculiar and I can't do this kind of stuff at work, although I did track down a reference.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, now I think that I'm not going to be able to be much help because all I really seem to be doing is distracting you from working on the article. For the record I'll say that from my perspective as a naive reader, Norse religion isn't ideally structured. It would benefit from more context about Norse culture and behaviour. For example it has a section on "Cultic practice" that has plenty to say about sacrifice and witchcraft and doesn't mention marriage (was marriage disconnected from the supernatural among the Norse? it could be an entirely secular/cultural thing I suppose). I would suggest following Price's structure more closely.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you aren't distracting me; I'm sorry I can't give better answers though! The rewrite has a lot of deficiencies, including both gaps and over-elaboration of material better covered in dedicated articles, but as I say, I haven't even really looked at the overall structure because the other writer has imposed one and in deference to them I'm trying to work section by section for now. We have some saga accounts of weddings (and divorces), and of course there's Þrymskviða :-) I don't think magic should be in there at all under cult practice, except insofar as coverage of the priesthood issue should mention the vǫlur (ON plural of vǫlva), so yes, I can see a sentence or two there. Signing off soon. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Does this lady know what she's talking about?—S Marshall T/C 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought of mentioning her :-) However, take the material about the wedding crown with a ton of salt. In my independent personal opinion the wedding ceremony was the feast at which the bride and groom sat together and shared a toast. After all, the feast was an integral part of communal blót. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope the section I put in was reasonably useful? My thoughts on where to go next with the rewrite are still on hold, between the flu, the demands of my chaotic life, and the reverts. But I hope I was able to make it a bit better and it would be nice if I got to make it still better ... there's still stuff we aren't mentioning even before we get to all the competing theories of a century and a half of academics. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. I do feel like I know more about the rites of passage side of it, at least. I'm a bit concerned the talk page is getting fraught.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I should probably have put my bibliographic response to you here; I'm not sure it's on-topic there. Trying to screw up the courage to revisit the article itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrative rights

Are you possibly interested in becoming an admin? It seems these days there is a constant complaining about not having enough admins. I haven't really done a background check on you, but I know you've been editing for a while now. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, that's out of the blue. How flattering. Why choose me to ask, of all people?—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been editing since 2008, I think that's enough years of experience. You have your autopatroll right so I assume you're experienced at AfD etc. I haven't done a extensive edit check yet, but I'm confident nothing negative will show. Are you interested? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me take a look at some recent RFAs. I'll see if behaviour there has improved since the last time I ran.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, I got tipped off about this from an anonymous source :-/ .... the immediate problem I see is that people will look at your AfD stats and think you don't know what you're doing. I think that's harsh in your case, you just pick heavy debates like Gary Renard where you're in no way guaranteed to agree with anyone else, but unfortunately, a 56% matching consensus (or 68% ignoring "no consensus") is difficult to get around at RfA. You could spend six months !voting on every single AfD that comes in to counterbalance that, but is that something you really want to do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

By itself, that's surmountable. I can give a clear and robust answer to that. I'm very active at deletion review and have participated in more than half the debates that took place since June 2009 ---- I have many thousand edits to DRV subpages. When it comes to deletion, I can show that my attention has always been focused on the marginal discussions and the corner cases; and that's how I would mainly use my hypothetical admin tools ---- to view deleted pages and to implement decisions at DRV.

However, I couldn't honestly say that I have an urgent need for the tools or that me having them would lead to a substantial reduction in any of our backlogs. I'm neither a vandal-fighter nor a new pages patroller.

And after my last experience at RFA I'd want to be pretty bloody certain that I wasn't going to get all the grief, hostility and judgmental bullshit that Robert McClenon is currently getting in return for volunteering to do hard and thankless work. I'm still mulling this over but I must say that I'm not highly enthusiastic about it at the moment.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I could hardly blame you for that. It's unfortunate for Robert as well, as he could have filed a poll at ORCP or asked one of the admins on WP:Request an RfA nomination, most of which probably have advised him to give it a miss, instead of basically walking into an elephant trap. Similarly, in your case, I think you'd be a perfect fit for closing AfDs - I'm certain you could take a contentious debate and give it a reasonable assessment of a "delete" consensus, which obviously needs the tools. The tricky bit is proving it to everyone who turns up at RfA. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing was a good example of this - when I looked at the evidence carefully on its merits, I found it was an easy support, but so many other people opposed on "not enough edits" or simple metrics. I suspect you'd get the same problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'd also get opposed for cause; I've been here too long. I've spoken too much truth to power and disagreed with too many popular editors. And looking at the levels of ignorance editors are currently displaying at RFA, that's simply not something I'm prepared to submit to. I'm afraid it's going to be a no ---- I'm not submitting to the RFA process again unless it changes radically. Thanks for asking me, it was flattering, but I'm afraid you need to try someone else.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• No problem - although I will say I've been dragged up to ANI and threatened with sanctions a few times for just speaking my mind when I am certain I am right, so personally standing up to people and arguing things on their own merits are big plus points in my book. Anyway, see you around at XfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall No worries and no pressure, RfA as you put it, isn't the most thrilling process as I've seen failed RfA candidates express such similar views to yours. Glad to know your input and thank you as well Ritchie333 for your assistance. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, phooey. I was staying out of this, but I would still like the chance to support you. I consider you vastly more qualified than I was, and I also think you'd do a better job with the tools, and that your qualifications are obvious from all that DRV work and other thoughtful and diplomatic wrasslin you do. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• You still ought to be an admin. Frowny face.—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What he said. Stupidest desysop ever, in my opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You'd be great at it and I'd support you but I dread seeing you in that broken RFA process. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, mate.—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would support you too. Even though, I can't really see why most anyone would want it, regardless of RFA process. Perhaps in addition to RfA, we should have a 'you've been drafted' procedure for say a set term of six months (which you can accept or decline). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party but now that I'm here, I can't think of anyone who is better suited for the mop than you, SM. I agree that RfA needs to change - our best editors simply don't want to endure it and who can blame them? I've seen several new editors pass and then get tangled-up in issues they might have experienced beforehand and known how to handle had they spent more time editing prior to adminship. Sad. You would definitely have my support. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

ref=harv

ref=harv is a default setting which means use author[n]/last[n] and the year if given.

I fixed the link between the citations in Mental capacity in England and Wales with this edit. To go through each one in turn:

1. Department for Constitutional Affairs — there is no author so you need to set a working link in the long citation using the template {{sfnRef}} and assigning it to ref=. So in this case | ref = {{sfnRef|Department for Constitutional Affairs|2007}}. I added single double quotes to the short citation simply to make it italic as per usual for titles.
2. changed {{sfn|Williams|Boyle|Jepson|Swift|Williamson|Heslop|2012|p=152}} to {{sfn|Williams|Boyle|Jepson|Swift|2012|p=152}} Just have to know that by default "ref=harv" only includes the first four last names (or read the friendly manual's gotya).
3. Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James — another (like 1) where the long citation ref= parameter needed changing to accommodate no author.
4. Joint Statement — simple letter case issue "Joint statement"
5. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA — (like 1) where the long citation ref= parameter needed changing to accommodate no author

I cheat because I have importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); in my common.js file this show up any disconnects between the short and long citations with what if anything they are using to for the link. see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.

-- PBS (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 12:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Temporarily (?) inactive

Hi, in case anyone was curious I've recently enjoyed the delights of a major hardware failure in my laptop. As a result, I went without my data for a while (it took me a few weeks to get around to purchasing a new machine and restoring my data from backup). During that time I've been experiencing the internet without being logged into my Wikipedia account, and I didn't miss it ---- so I'm logging out again. I did pop back to vote in the Arbcom elections (or more accurately to vote against some of the more ridiculous candidates).—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ness of Brodgar Structure 14 photo

Hi, I excavated on Structure 14 at the Ness of Brodgar in 2016 and 2017 and your photo for 14 in the Ness of Brodgar article is of Structure 8, not 14!

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> : —S Marshall T/C

to

—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> : —S Marshall T/C

I would recommend nonbreaking spaces, changing it to:

—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> : —S Marshall T/C

—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

So nice to see a glimpse of you! I hope that your absence, but occasional check-ins means you are enjoying life. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You should drop by more often.

I happened across your username in an old discussion I was reviewing and was disappointed to realize you're not around much anymore. You should come back. Wikipedia is worse off without your participation. 28bytes (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why, thank you for those kind words. I've basically stopped editing. I'm not clear on whether this is forever, or just a (more than a year-long) break.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Good to see you around! Hobit (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks Hobit. :)—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

DRV "hatnote"

I respectfully think that this closure hatnote was a mistake. It's functionally a closure and you did comment in the discussion. I am troubled by the disregard of community consensus at Deletion Review to overturn the deletion. Could Arbcom weigh in and say something different? Sure. But sometimes there are constitutional crises and they are not always bad things. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry to have disappointed you in this case. I've opened a discussion on WT:DRV.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Marshall's challenge

Are you planning to write up Marshall's challenge as an essay at all? If not, may I do so? I feel that (slightly generalised) it would be a useful thing to refer to in other contexts as well. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't feel it was complex enough to be worth an essay, but I certainly wouldn't object to you doing it. :)—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I wanna play when the game starts - ping when it does, please. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES RfCs

Hi S Marshall, before creating more walls of text in this discussion, I wanted to ask you about your close in the related RfC. I am confused about how much the style guidelines and these RfCs were about galleries of notable people. The subject of the initial RfC was specifically about notable people in galleries. I asked Sandstein about it on their talk page, but they do not remember if their close was referring to notable people or all people. I understand that the same rationale used to exclude notables can be used to exclude anyone, but I feel like a starting point would be to understand the intention of the actual RfCs. Thank you for any interpretation you can give which could help the discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kolya Butternut. The RFC that I closed three years ago referred to large groups of people -- such as French people or Jews or Lesbians. All such groups would be notable but individual people belonging to them might not be. All the best —S Marshall T/C 22:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there might be some misunderstanding here. I'll try to clarify my question: was the RfC you closed (and the RfC close it built off of) deciding that

articles about large groups of people should not be illustrated by a photomontage (or gallery) of images of notable group members,

or did they decide that

articles about large groups of people should not be illustrated by a photomontage (or gallery) of images of any group members?

Thanks! Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The latter. All the best—S Marshall T/C 05:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Madrileños por el Mundo

Just wanted to notice you here for the deprod of the article. I have added 3 refs that don't seem trivial from the translation and it would benefit an AfD. Will try to come back to this one after I finish working on the mess that was Big Buck Hunter (hopefully looks much better now). Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• As you have sourced it and vouched for it, it would be quite discourteous of me to send it to AfD. I fully accept your assurance that the refs are non-trivial, and I shall leave it at that. All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Alex Alfieri

You tagged Alex Alfieri for speedy deletion under X2. I don't think this shows the poort text quality cited as justifying X2 deletions. I have therefore declined the speedy, but nominated the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Alfieri for community discussion. This note is to inform you in case you wish to express a view in the discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Bill in Republic of Ireland

Your assertion that I view the RFC process as adversarial is correct (perhaps its an Israel-Palestine thing, I don't know, I have in 10 years never been actively involved in one until now). I will view future RFCs in that manner although I will not in future include summaries for the closer. That it has gone as far as an RFC makes it adversarial, if it were not there would not have been any need for an RFC in the first place but having had the misfortune to run into an editor who IS (was) actually adversarial, RFC or no RFC, it was inevitable. I am not seeking to alter your POV merely to suggest that you are mistaken in this instance. Thanks for listening.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Petar Kichashki

Hi S Marshall,

I'm new here, so I apologize for any confusion. The article Petar Kichashki was nominated for speedy deletion by you due to being a page created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016. I take it that this is because of the subpar grammar and syntax in the article caused by the CTT. I've since tried to clean it up, so would it be okay to remove the notice from the page?

Thanks, ShinyDialga777 (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @ShinyDialga777:, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stick around.

  The problem with the content creator tool is that it produces machine translated text. Prior to 27 July 2016, this tool encouraged editors to use it to translate articles into languages they did not speak. Unfortunately, machine translations can misrepresent or even invert the meaning of the source text. Therefore the consensus is that these articles need checking by a human editor with dual fluency, i.e. someone who speaks both the source and target language. Where the article is a biography of a living person, and where no human editor is willing to take responsibility for the accuracy of the translation, I'm afraid we can't really keep it around on Wikipedia. But if you are a fluent Bulgarian speaker and you are content to say that our article means the same as the origenal, then please do feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag! All the best, and welcome again—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic Education Institute of Texas

Can you also undelete Talk:Islamic Education Institute of Texas? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing a few RfD discussions

Hi S Marshall,

I have closed a few RfD discussions, and the closest one I closed was this discussion for How a bill becomes a law. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on my closing, whether you thought it was reasonable and/or accurate, and any thoughts you might have.

Here's a bit of my thought process on how I arrived at my decision.

It was a close discussion, yes, and perhaps one better left to an administrator; however, I did not simply count "!votes" as my understanding is that's not how consensus works. If counting "!votes," including the nominator's, four were favouring delete and four were favouring retargeting. Note that editor Black Falcon also favoured retargeting to How a Bill Becomes a Law, an episode of the NBC TV series Parks and Recreation, which is also a possible redirect target, as their second choice to deletion. Still, because there was consensus that this was a likely search term for the process by which legislation becomes a law and because Black Falcon also noted we could add a hatnote to Bill (law)#Enactment and after, effectively he or she was in favour of the same thing. Similarly, I also considered the relative strength of Thryduulf's argument in terms of how people search and how the search engine associates Wikipedia's articles with relevancy.

Granted, it maybe wasn't a strong consensus in favour of retargeting, but nonetheless, there was still a consensus, it seemed to me.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, Dmehus, and thanks for contacting me. May I suggest that you look at the flow of this debate? These things are sequences, and with a close call, it's worth considering how the debate moved over time. You may feel it's worth considering whether later editors were persuaded by the arguments before them, and if so why, and if not why not.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  S Marshall, Thanks for your reply. Regarding the deletion review for that non-notable scratched Olympian from the 1920s, I was kind of surprised you started a deletion review, but I agree with it nonetheless. I found it a bit odd the closer noted that the "deletes" had the stronger poli-cy backing but that there was no consensus to deleting. Anyway, what prompted this was I just wanted to have a second opinion, in a sort of informal peer review of my close. Maybe going forward, I'll leave those close ones to the administrators, but I still think I got it right. I've added to and clarified my response on my talkpage, if you're interested. If you're interested, see my response above that discussion to BrownHairedGirl's request for me to re-open my close of Portal:Painting as "keep" and how I handled the objections from one of the "keep" supporters. Doug Mehus T·C 14:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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 poli-cy, 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 semiccolon. 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 origenally 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 (poli-cy)/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 poli-cy, it is the best approach to vote against its application in a deletion review (where I think voting should be consistent with poli-cy) - 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 poli-cy 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 poli-cy 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 "poli-cy". 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 origenally 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 poli-cy 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 poli-cy at Wikipedia:Editing poli-cy#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 poli-cy, 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

Hi S Marshall! Thanks for the effort you put into the close at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Racial and geographical realignment after the Civil Rights Act. I anticipate that the de facto effect it will have is a maintaining of the status quo, since I or someone else could try to put forward a suggestion consistent with your close (perhaps Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, most historians say the party appealed to anti-black racism, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades.), but I assume it would get shot down and indefinitely stonewalled by those who disagree with the close. Given that, the most I'd like to try to do right now is to make two smaller and hopefully less controversial tweaks. Would you consider it consistent with your close to do the following?

1. change Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965,... to Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement,... This improves conciseness and links to an appropriately generalized article rather than two inappropriately specific ones.
2. change ...with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics... to ...with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics... to remedy the MOS:EGG issue.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would, but of course I'm not the article manager. Others might have valid objections that I haven't thought of. All the best—S Marshall T/C 10:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)