User talk:S Marshall/Archive48

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I want to say that I'm sorry for how I treated you and your grievances a couple of months ago when I botched my closure of the review of your closure on the reliability of The Telegraph. At the time, I thought you were being unreasonably bellicose and responded harshly; now that I have a couple of closures of my own under review, I better understand how stressful and even hurtful the process can be, and I regret that I wasn't more patient with you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your close. Would you agree that the proposal discussion demonstrates that there is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis, as I mentioned?

Consensus 39 in part: Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see that the proposal discussion does that, partly because it doesn't relate to "a paragraph". Instead it's talking about "a section" which would have its own subheading. More importantly, because the proposal didn't relate to discussion of Trump's mental health but to media coverage of Trump's mental health, which is a different subject. But I also don't think a close in 2021 binds the community's hands forever. RfC closes expire, eventually, as time passes and new sources appear, and it's my personal view that you could legitimately start a discussion to ask the community to reconfirm (or not) Valereee's close all those months ago.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I created the 2021 RfC, which was about the "public discussion", i.e., the media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. While I did have a specific proposed paragraph, the intention was to include something, anything, about this coverage in reliable sources. I did disagree with many of the arguments, particularly regarding the APA's Goldwater Rule, because the APA discussed media coverage of Trump's mental health in their own publication which I included as a source, so it was clear they were not violating the Goldwater Rule to do so and neither would we.

  But anyway, could we have a clarification in Consensus 39 that we are allowed to discuss the possibility of including something about the media discussion of Trump's mental health or fitness? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think consensus 39 precludes that. All consensus 39 says is that you can't have a separate paragraph about it. @Valereee:, your thoughts as closer please?—S Marshall T/C 14:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd say "Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided" would preclude bringing up for discussion the inclusion in the article of something about his mental health, as no formal diagnosis or MEDRS-level source has been provided?

  But I do agree that RfC closes expire, and this one is 3 1/2 years old. I'm not optimistic a new discussion would end any differently, but I guess I wouldn't object to someone starting one on the basis of the fact the last discussion was that long ago. Someone else could object to it as disruptive on basis of nothing having changed about the availability of the necessary sources. Valereee (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  While other articles don't necessarily set precedent, our community has perhaps for the first time agreed to include information about cognitive health speculation: Public concerns about Biden's mental acuity were amplified and widely covered by the media after a weak performance in a June 2024 presidential debate... Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Re:

Stellar work. Closure of complex discussions is one of the most difficult and time-consuming tasks at Wikipedia, and you do it extremely well. It occurs to me that explanation for non-Wikipedians could be a separate subpage and linked from a closure, similar in concept to WP:TRUMPRCB. That would save the closer a ton of time, the message would be consistent, and Wikipedians wouldn't have to wade through the explanation of what they already know. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• That's true. What I'd say is that there are four kinds of people who'll read that page:

1. Longstanding editors active in US politics. Those editors don't need to read my close at all, because they knew perfectly well how it would end all along. You, for example: when you requested closure you had exactly zero doubt what the outcome would be.
2. Longstanding editors who don't follow US politics. They can get everything they need from the big "NO" in capitals at the top of the close box.
3. Newer editors, who might benefit from a recap.
4. Non-wikipedians. If they're reading a talk page, then they have an angle.

I write for groups 3 and 4. They read but they don't reliably follow links; hardly any of them read policy.—S Marshall T/C 00:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a Request for Comment ("RfC"), which is a method we Wikipedians use to make tricky content decisions. It didn't use the {{rfc}} template, so it's wasn't an RfC by the definition everybody I know has gone by for 11 years. The difference is important because of how we handle the discussion links in our consensus list. We start a linktext with "RfC" for RfCs. I'm worried (OCD?) that someone might come along next year, see the "RfC" in your closure, and "fix" the consensus item. Just a nit, but nits are how I make my living around here. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion on WT:RFC going on right now about what an RFC is. Some editors feel it's only an RFC if it uses the RFC template. Others feel it's an RFC if it's a structured discussion that tries to attract others editors' views in order to resolve a dispute.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I participated in that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M1 Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cinder painter (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Near the end of the month, I have vacation pics to offer and the story of Werner Bardenhewer. I took the pic, and it was my DYK on his 90th birthday, in both English and German. He spent the day in Africa, and after his return said - chatting after a mass of thanks he celebrated at Mariä Heimsuchung - that we'd have to talk about these articles. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks hugely for closing this. Did you intend to put this comment at User:EMsmile rather than on her talk page? I was going to mention to her that it's not obligatory to mention the topic ban on her user page at all. It looks like she had some followup questions for you as well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, S Marshall for your due diligence. When a case goes on for weeks, gets archived, gets unarchived, gets closed, gets reopened, well we run out of editors and admins willing to read through all of the verbiage even when the outcome seems settled. I'm just hoping that this decision doesn't get challenged. AN has been full of RFC closure appeals and challenges lately. It only takes one editor to file an appeal, for good or bad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I just thought everyone would benefit from this being put out of its misery, Liz, that's all.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello S Marshall,

Thank you for you recent efforts in closing EMsmile’s ANI case. While the efforts are really appreciated, I noticed that there’s said to be an agreement among editors that “the topic ban proposal be closed by an admin”. Would you please consider reopening it? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Do you think an admin would close it differently?—S Marshall T/C 08:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t know. We’ll see. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that was the only close possible.

There's a basic unfairness here, in that you tried to NAC it and got overturned for not being an admin, and now I've NAC'd it and my close will stand. That's frankly terrible. It suggests that some people can NAC and others can't, and I don't like it at all.

But the greater harm would be for me to self-revert and drag EMsmile and Clayoquot and everyone else through all that crap again. That's even worse.

So with apologies for the deep unfairness of this, I'm going to decline. You're welcome to begin a close review on AN, and I won't blame you if you do.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Not every discussion has to be closed. If it’s not closed, it should be archived.

FYI, I reopened the discussion not because “it got overturned for not being an admin” (and my closure *did not* involve imposing any bans or blocks and not being an admin shouldn’t be a problem), but because I believe the community thinks it warrants further discussion.

I do agree there’s much unfairness, but not in the way that you described.

For example, the argument to discontinue the voluntary restrictions discussion and pursue a non-voluntary full tban instead is that EMsmile has agreed with the later, which is not true. I believe what she said was misunderstood. What she agreed is not to add the names of certain people and the affiliated organisations to certain articles for a certain period of time, and that’s completely different from a full tban that you now imposed, which is much broader and restrictive, essentially banning *all* mentions of her previous employers and affiliated organisations at *all* venues including all article talk pages, user talk pages and even user space indefinitely.

“You said you agreed and so we now impose that on you” does not convince me, not to mention that the person *doesn’t* really agree. Any “consensus” based on that cannot count. That said, there are many other aspects of unfairness on top of that. Closing a discussion in an unfair way while it’s known to be unfair, just to avoid “dragging people through all that crab again” shouldn’t be what our community wants or supports. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Topic bans don't need the target's consent. They aren't negotiations between the target and the community. That's not how this works.

The voluntary restrictions discussion failed because the community wasn't willing to accept voluntary restrictions.—S Marshall T/C 23:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I *never* said topic bans need the target's consent. Just that there shouldn’t be the illusion/assumption that such consent exists and use it as a reason/excuse to discontinue the voluntary restrictions discussion that’s gaining/gained consensus. It is unfair. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. I can only close the discussion that happened. I can't close the discussion that should have happened.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Re fairness and your closure, I will post more thoughts later, but briefly: it’s unfair for EMsmile. Well ... I’m having a hard time keeping up with things happening both on and off wiki. Again, more thoughts later. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I consider S Marshall's expertise on closes to be well above the average admin. And there is a question of whether or not a close at ANI is simply like a RFC close (assessing the posts) vs. overall discretion (which would be considered to be a supervote at an RFC). If one assumes the former (= local mob rule), I think that S Marshall closed it correctly, and thank them for tackling that mess. I think that the overall process badly malfunctioned and that your (Dustfreeworld's) original close was better in the big picture. But I don't think that reopening on the basis of asking for an admin close would accomplish that. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Dustfreeworld's original close would have been better in principle. We as a community need to get a grip on our approach to editors with an angle. We say "COI", as if these editors owed us some kind of duty of care---which they manifestly do not. We demand that they disclose any bias and then we punish them harshly for any such disclosure. This is not a good thing at all.

But the consensus is the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

S Marshall Happy Nowruz!

Arbabi second (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Today, happy day: 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! - We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Two RD stories to say bye to March - what do you think we'll learn from the Erik Satie RfC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I think we've learned that the community is happy for Erik Satie to have an infobox.  :) I think the community's inconsistent about infoboxes and what decision we make depends on who shows up to comment!—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Well, my observation is different. I see the same oppose each time, and different people support (an estimated 3/4 for Satie were not even on my watchlist, but all of the opposes but the very last). I had tried to not participate, but then we had a (first) close that didn't show any consideration of arguments, just counting. - What, do you think, would make people see that there's no danger in a little box, and discussion be about what to put in, instead of yes or no - see W. B. Yeats. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that infoboxes are a useful tool that create an awful lot of strife. There are two problems with them:

1. That the templates have a lot of parameters and editors want to populate each one; and
2. That they demand simple, one- or two-word entries that sometimes oversimplify complex matters.

I close RFCs a lot, and I've noticed that about half the RFCs on the project are about infoboxes. Of those, the most challenging tend to be about people's political positions (is %politician "far right" or "alt right" or "populist"?), or about battles (did %country really win?)

We have editors who believe that whoever controls the disputed territory at the end of the battle is the winner, regardless of casualties or the military objectives of each side. One hopes that those editors never command troops.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think that infobox decisions would be a lot less fraught if we had infoboxes with far fewer parameters, and if we become more willing to accept one or two sentences rather than one or two words.

We're meant to be supplying articles, not data.

Also, some people definitely should not have an infobox. Consider Hereward the Wake, whose infobox gives firstly, his name (which means "Army Guard the Watchful" and is certainly a cognomen rather than a name); secondly, a picture (which is wildly inaccurate, containing as it does depictions of equipment anachronistic for the period); thirdly, a birth date, which is highly speculative; fourthly, a death date, which is also speculative; fifthly, other names, which are also cognomens; and sixthly, a "movement", which is an ahistorical label.

In that entire infobox, not a single parameter is verifiably accurate.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

April now

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for your thoughts. - Tout est lumière, listen perhaps ;) - I came to bring just that (my little birthday gift for Ravel), but don't want to ignore your detailed response. I was the one who - in WP:ARBINFOBOX of all places - created a basic infobox for Beethoven which was installed as the community consensus two years later (by one of the arbs who had written the case). I thought then (2015) that we could end the so-called infobox wars. And why not, I still don't know. We just had Erik Satie closed, we discuss parameters instead of yes or no, which I believe is a great step forward, for W. B. Yeats, and then comes Adolphe Adam ... - Better listen to the music again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There are some problems with the way you closed that discussion

• As you pointed, you are an involved editor. Given the controversial way it took place, it would be better for it to be closed by some uninvolved editor. Just because you can close it does not mean you should, the exception is clearly there for SNOW closes.
• Second, a change this big (banning a whole type of content) should require a supermajority, not just a majority. The usual reaction is, unless there is such majority, to leave things the way they are.
• You said "There is also well-articulated concern about the use of AI that's been trained on copyrighted content, which sits poorly with Wikipedia's strict attitude to fair use.", but AI images are not fair use, they are public domain, and the standing policy is Commons:AI-generated media. Not to mention that, out there in the real world, the current legal status is that AI images are considered free, at least in the US. It is true that there are challenges in court, but it is also true that they haven't got anywhere yet to be in a point where such policy is expected to be changed anytime soon.

Cambalachero (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Firstly, you contend that I'm not the right person to close this. It's not a difficult or controversial close, and it's well within my experience; but as you say, and as I say in the first sentence of my close, I'm involved. The exception allowing for involved closes isn't just for SNOW closes (if it was, WP:RFC would say so), it's also for obvious ones. I still think this is obvious.

Your options are: You can revert me. I won't stop you, because I'm involved. But you shouldn't, because (1) reverting me would definitely only lead to someone else reclosing this with a similar or harsher anti-AI imagery wording, and (2) because of the level of community interest in this, there's a real risk that someone other than me will haul you to the drama boards for doing it.

Or, much less dramatically, you can open a close review on WP:AN.

Secondly, you say that banning AI needs a supermajority. Well, the close wasn't to ban AI-generated images. It was to say that the community feels that with various exceptions, most AI-generated images shouldn't be used in articles, and to ask an interested group of editors to develop wording for a guideline for the community to review. This is definitely the least anti-AI outcome that it's possible to extract from that discussion.

And, that was easily the supermajority that you mention. Easily. Don't just count the "support" and "oppose" !votes, but read the text. The supporters admit the need for limited exemptions to a ban, and many of the opposers are opposing because they want limited exemptions to a ban. It's not just snowing. That's a blizzard.

Finally, you point out a legality. Well, a closer's job is to summarise the discussion, not to evaluate that discussion against US law (about which I know very little and care less than I know). Wikipedia policy and guidelines often ban things that US law permits. We have ethics and principles about copyright that enjoy very strong community support, so I don't see that objection as likely to fly at community review.—S Marshall T/C 04:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You may not remember, but I was somewhat dickish to you over the Telegraph/Trans closure. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry. Differences of opinion don't have to be communicated in the way that I did. I've seen some of your work since and can appreciate that the community's high opinion of you is justified. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• A gracious apology, which of course I wholeheartedly accept. The whole thing is duly forgotten.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

reasons to look at Bach (and listen): it's a recent GA (not by me), he assumed the position of Thomaskantor OTD in 1723, he's up for PR, and several of his cantatas for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am contacting you because you initiated the deletion of the article I wrote "Museum of Organic Culture". I would like to restore it. There are enough authoritative sources for this (). Unfortunately, I did not have time to restore the article from the draft - there were many obstacles to this. I think that Russian culture died in this century, but in the past it existed. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't object to you re-creating this article. I speedily draftified it because of concerns about the content translation tool that you used to create it, which was (a) giving poor quality output and (b) failing to give correct credit from a copyright point of view to the people who originally wrote the content in foreign languages. You're welcome to create it afresh. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You recently closed a RfC on the Reform UK talk page. In your closing statement, you brought up two arguments, one by the yes side (there is sourcing), and one by the no side: "Those advocating a "no" argue that where Reform UK are described as "far right" in a book source, the context is usually immigration." Since you came to the conclusion that there's no consensus, I assume you weighted these arguments equally.

However, I can't find anyone in the discussion actually making the no side argument. "Immigration" or "migration" was only used a single time the whole discussion when not citing a headline/article title, and that was by a scope_creed, a user advocating inclusion. How did you come to the conclusion that this was the core argument of the no side? Cortador (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Scope Creep, in fact, is his handle. The phrase you mention is my (likely very imperfect) attempt to summarise and encapsulate the arguments made by users such as Kowal2701 and Bondegezou in the context of the sources they cited. I felt that your exchange with Kowal2701, in particular, was the clearest articulation of the central issue of the debate.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah it was more a lack of scholarly sources, but the close was good imo Kowal2701 (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Bondegezou only made a single comment during the discussion that doesn't mention immigration. Kowal2701 made many comments, but I can't find any that actually mention immigration either. On what did you base your comment that Reform is only referred to as a far-right party in the context of immigration, and why did you come to the conclusion that this is a strong enough argument to no use this descriptor for the party? Cortador (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not conclude that this is a strong enough argument to not use this descriptor for the party. If I had reached that conclusion, I would have closed as "Consensus against."

Instead my close was "No consensus". Neither side made their case sufficiently to decide the issue.

Also, although decisions are made on the strength of the arguments, it's the community that decides, not the closer. The prescribed closing method is set out at WP:NHC: I'm required to evaluate which view has "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians" on its side. I'm specifically instructed not to evaluate the arguments for myself.

I couldn't have closed that any other way. It's a slam dunk no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You're supposed to close a RfC after "discarding irrelevant arguments". You cannot do that without evaluating arguments. If you cannot show where in the discussion the argument you mentioned in your close was made, it is an irrelevant argument. Cortador (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Cortador, it’s not a good look supporting an RfC which others alleged was gaming and then badgering the closer about what was an obvious close. It was a total mess (I’m partly to blame) so I don’t blame S Marshall for not extracting all the substance from it Kowal2701 (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• What's your intent here, Cortador? Are you hoping that I'll change my close to "consensus to include", or that I'll vacate my close and someone else will reclose it in the way you wish?—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Can you please answer my question? If you can't demonstrate that the argument you based your closing decision on was actually made by anyone during the decision, this wasn't a close, it was a supervote. Cortador (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Right, so you're hoping for a full vacate and reclose. No. I'm open to rewording a disputed sentence but that is and forever will be a no consensus RFC.

If you'd like, you're welcome to proceed to a close review on the administrator's noticeboard, where you will find that a "no consensus" outcome is akin to Gibraltar.—S Marshall T/C 08:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a review request for your recent closure of the Reform UK RfC here. Cortador (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Outcome, for record purposes.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Can I nominate you for the admin elections? I think that this has far less of the issues that RFA has. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• No, thank you, North8000, although I wish you well with your own application.—S Marshall T/C 06:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Stuart,

Just butting in to add my voice that you should become an administrator in the future. I really appreciate your dedication to the project. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I find I'm able to do everything I want to do without access to any sysop tools.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)