User talk:S Marshall

Please don't use templates on this page. Just write me a message.

Since this is my talk page, I archive it to suit me; this means archives may be reorganised to group material by content instead of by date.

This is S Marshall's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Thoughts on verifiability[edit]

If I still have some talkpage stalkers who're interested in policies and guidelines, then your attention is respectfully drawn to User:S Marshall/Essay where I'm working on some thoughts about how to apply (and how not to apply) WP:V.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Having been in the same foxhole as you once and the opposite side of the line on another, and very interested in policies, I'm always an interested stalker. But I have no strong opinion on your essay.North8000 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You write, But if we say what the sources say in the words the sources use, then we're not writing an encyclopaedia. We're stealing one. ... So we must say what the sources say, but we must use our own words to say it. Don't forget public domain sources, and open-source/Creative Commons materials. They're much on my mind as I help with a massive copyright investigation. The editor abused copyrighted materials; they also used sources with Creative Commons licences. It makes all the difference when I'm deciding what to do with an article. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

DS Alert[edit]

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS[edit]

Be careful of WP:ASPERSIONS and don't attack/comment on people based on their supposed nationality/race.[1] It is frankly embarrassing to see someone like you who resorts to such cheap shots even after editing for more than 15 years. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not an "attack" to point out that everyone who thinks India didnt lose the battle is Indian.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Your inability to understand this simple thing is astonishing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS or any other rule. Please do feel free to raise the matter on WP:AN/I or WP:AE, where I will be delighted to discuss this before the community, but you may not persist in making these allegations on my talk page.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021[edit]

{{uw-npa1}}...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I ask that nobody uses templated messages on my talk page, WilliamJE. It's very clear at the top. Do not edit my talk page again, ever, under any circumstances. When you take me to the drama boards, you may notify me by way of a ping.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Required notification[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

PBLOCK[edit]

I've issued a partial block preventing you from editing WilliamJE's user page and talk page. Editing of any subpage belonging to WilliamJE will be seen as disruptive editing, and a very dim view will be taken. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I had always assumed that my judgement was degrading and had no idea at least one regular at drv valued my contribution. You don't know how much that means to me. To be clear by comments are in no way aimed at you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I very much doubt it's just me.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think my participation is consistent enough to qualify as a DRV regular, but I had already thought you were one of the "good ones" when it came to deletion policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for closing the Move Review and relisting "Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia". However, the article remains at its new title ("Racism in Ethiopia") rather than its original title ("Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia"). Shouldn't the old title be restored until the conclusion of the RM? Walrasiad (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure. Let me rub my magic lamp and summon people who know more about Move Review than me for advice.—S Marshall T/C 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is usual to move a page back to the originally "current" title; however, it's not unprecedented to continue with the new title after an MRV relisting if one thinks that the outcome will not change. That's a decision to be made by the MRV closer. One result is that if the RM template were to be restored, we would have a malformed request due to the current title being a redirect. Since you didn't restore the RM template, it does not show up either on the malformed list nor on the usual RM lists, so there is no attention draw to get new input. To be honest, if it were me, I would move the page back and restore the RM template being sure to place the MRV template below the nominator's original sig so as not to cause a different kind of malformed request. Would you like me to put that all together for you? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  - Yes, please!—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    - Okay, and done. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 09:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
      - Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
        Looks correct to me, but I would likely say that as it matches my fairly strong !vote at MRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
        
        It's my pleasure! Paine

Thoughts[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible

I don't think the comments about bad faith and puffery were directed at the Article Rescue Squadron. It was more borne of frustration with the actions of one individual. Personally I've always supported their efforts. W C M_email 15:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

PS my thanks for a thoughtful close. Regards, W C M_email 15:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't want to make my close about one specific editor, but I agree that a lot of the opprobrium is directed at him personally rather than the ARS in general.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a drive-by comment from an uninvolved observer; an excellent, fair and reasoned close. It definitely makes AfD a better place. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update[edit]

Dear S Marshall,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Striking !vote of blocked editor[edit]

Hi, I am curious as to why you struck the !vote of Commander Waterford here? I'm aware of the WP:SOCKSTRIKE essay but that doesn't apply here as CW wasn't socking or evading a ban at the time and was still a member of the community. I don't see how subsequently getting indeffed invalidates their vote. P-K3 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If it had contained any thought or reasoning for the closer to consider, I would not have struck it. This didn't; it was literally a per-nom from an editor who had displayed through his edits a horrible failure to understand deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 09:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: Close of WP:NPOVN#Rent control: "on consensus among economists"[edit]

Hello. I'm writing regarding your recent close that I had requested on the closure requests noticeboard. I appreciate that you took the time to write the close and that you read through the discussion in its full detail. You certainly put a lot of thought into it, and you have provided a well-written rationale for the close.

I am, however, a bit concerned regarding the use of comments added by a sockpuppet in that rationale. I agree that academic sources are, indeed, academic sources, though I'm not sure that we should be treating the edits as usable. I fully concede that the letter of the WP:EVADE policy does not speak explicitly on this. When I struck the edits, I chose not to revert them because the discussion wouldn't make sense in the absence of the text being there; the text was there more or less to provide context for the closer regarding what the non-socks were doing. In a procedural sense, it feels really weird to strike the comments of block-evading socks and to also consider the comments as having been made. I understand the desire to incorporate all the sources, though it doesn't seem to proceed from the spirit of the policy to consider these edits if they could have simply been reverted without any other reason. Ultimately, this is probably something that should be clarified in a policy or guideline somewhere, though I feel a bit uneasy about the way the edits were handled.

Additionally, regarding the factual basis, the LSE source I added seems to actually be a publication of the "Residential Landlords Association", which would probably render it WP:SPS (unless the RLA has a robust fact-checking or peer-review process) and would significantly degrade its weight. I'm wondering if you would be willing to provide a bit more in detail regarding how you weighted the sources in terms of the rent regulation article, in particualar, and if this information (or my comment above) would change your weighting.

Again, thank you for the time to make the close. It was a bit of a nasty discussion to wade through and I appreciate your assistance.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Mikehawk10, and welcome to my talk page! I understand your reasoning, above, and I think what you say is very arguable. Nevertheless, after reflecting on your points, I still feel that the close was the least bad of the options available to a closer.
In our consensus-based model for decision-making, sockpuppetry is toxic. I take a strong stance against it. But it is not possible to completely subtract the sockpuppetry from the discussion that we're talking about, because if we remove the sockpuppetry, then the discussion never started. The obvious practical effect of that is to decide not to edit the disputed articles. Such an outcome also wipes away the excellent reasoning and sources introduced by a number of editors, including yourself. I feel that the community's thoughts and sources, there, are a great deal too valuable to discard in this way. So from the outset, I'm left with a sock-tainted discussion where the closer's role is to minimize the impact of the sockpuppetry while still giving weight to the analysis to which the socking gave rise. I decided that the best way to do that was to give the sock's !vote and opinions zero weight. But the community is right to be dissatisfied with the non-academic sources previously used to support the disputed statement, and right to prefer the superior sources that you and others brought to the debate, so it is necessary to allow the sources supplied in the debate, even when they originated from socking. In addition, I feel (as a point of principle) that better sources are always allowable.
However, all the above is nothing more than S Marshall's view, and if it's wrong, then my whole close is unsafe. As far as I can see, our guidance for closers neither supports nor opposes what I say in the preceding paragraph: it's purely a matter of judgment on which reasonable people might differ. I'm sometimes wrong. If, after reading what I say and reflecting on it, you remain unsatisfied, then please feel free to open a close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard, or if you prefer, speak up here on my talk page and I will be delighted to open the review myself. Such a review would be a welcome learning experience for me.
The LSE source specifically says on page 2: The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Residential Landlords Association, and the authors are (or were) full professors at two of the most respected universities in the UK. It was written "at the request of" the Residential Landlords Association (RLA), and the RLA retain the copyright, but it is branded with the LSE logo. I am unable to agree with you that it's self-published, but you might make a very credible case that it is WP:SPONSORED. But consider---I feel that if it were a biased source in favour of the RLA, then surely it would say that rent controls are an unambiguously bad idea---wouldn't it? The fact that it doesn't say this is intriguing, and in my view, enhances its credibility.
This source is key, because it is clearly the best source for the non-US perspective on rent controls which was available to me from the discussion, and strongly informed my close of that part of the discussion that wasn't particular to the USA. I really don't think I've misinterpreted that source or given it the wrong amount of weight, but if I have, then my close should be reverted.
Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- What you're saying makes sense, and at the end of the day this isn't really an area I edit in all that often so I'm unsure that this will have a wide-ranging effect (and editors could always call an RfC if there's a specific content dispute). And your analysis of the bias in line with the RLA seems to be fine, so I don't have much of a substantive ground to stand on except a conditionally different weighting of evidence that would place the textbooks at a higher weight and the individual studies at a lower weight than appear weight than appear to have been given. But, that isn't my call to make here; I was active in the discussion so I:
Regarding the sock stuff, it's mostly that the whole discussion feels tainted by the sockpuppetry, and I don't envy the position of making that close. The methodology of counting the links contributed by socks (and discounting their analysis) seems to still be prone to some sort of abuse in the scope of block evasion. Particularly, if you're a POV-pushing editor who has an academic background and access to sources, you might be able to easily encounter a biased set and paste them in the group, and then your sources would still "count". Good-faith editors without similar backgrounds would probably not be able to counter that sort of disruption (owing either to lack of access to sources or lack of knowing where to look). But, this isn't addressed by any policy directly, so I don't really think there's any reason that your close was wrong. It's also not something that's specific to socks; non-sock editors could do this in violation of a topic ban, for instance, and it would have a similar effect on the discussion. I just feel like this is something that an essay could be written about in order to think through this sort of situation more. It certainly feels weird to include the sources, but also strange to exclude them for the reasons that you put forward. I'm not really sure what a close review would do here; the letter of the policies and guidelines doesn't speak to this case, so it doesn't seem like that mechanism would be a good use of anybody's time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello S Marshall! Thank you for being an independent editor and spending the time to read through that long discussion and summarize it, and deal with it as best as you could, I appreciate it!!

I agree that it is hard to decide what to do with sock puppetry since it is problematic, yet our overall goal is an improvement of the encyclopedia, so I think the way you BOTH handled it is the best compromise, and I agree with leaving the comments there with strikethrough, otherwise the discussion would make no sense.

The problem that caused this was that the IP wasn't recognized/classified as a sockpuppet until AFTER this discussion was started and underway; they started editing as an IP, then got blocked for lots of edit-warring on the RC articles while this discussion was ongoing, then created two new accounts to continue to edit while blocked.

Thank you both for your time and thoughfulness!!---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Nijat Rahimov (actor)[edit]

Hello, I appealed to the administrator who deleted the page, but he objected to the restoration of the article. Can you add it here.

Trend.az says that the person is from the TOP-10 comedians of Azerbaijan. es-wiki, de-wiki, az-wiki, film-1, film-2, film-3, film-4, film-5, The Azerbaijani actor received the main role of a crime comedy.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. All the best—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

- Thanks Mr. S Marshall, please add this template {{tempundelete}} to the article Nijat Rahimov (actor). --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

- - At the DRV page, I've requested a temporary undeletion. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Slovio[edit]

Hi. You recreated a page that had been deleted as non-notable, and I'm renominating it for deletion.

The generic template:

Nomination of Slovio for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slovio 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/Slovio (3rd nomination) 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.

— kwami (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

anhducwiki7

Wednesday, July 7, 2021