User talk:S Marshall/Archive28

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞

Thanks for pointing me to the essay WP:SJ. I have a question though. How can one verify (or refute) a journal's independence? (Sorry, but I have a wall of words underlying this question because academia relies so heavily on academic integrity and self-checking for bias, but some well-meaning journals don't understand the ramifications. Most of this is a real-life example of what I mean.)

Here is a major problem regarding journal independence in medicine: There are groups of surgeons & physicians from different institutions who specialize in elective procedures and establish professional societies that promote the procedures they do. (They call it educating the public, advocating for "fair" public policy, or raising awareness.) Some also publish journals that feature articles by others who usually practice these expensive elective procedures, all having the appearance of scientific rigor (though a careful, qualified scientist can usually see the flaws in their methods), but the peer review is done by others in their society, and everyone from top to bottom is making a lot of money on elective procedures. These societies sometimes publish consensus statements that their treatments should be administered to people with even the mildest symptoms or discomfort, but again the consensus is made by people who are all biased in the same direction. Yet few see the problem with this because they are the recognized experts. The members of these organizations don't even realize they're doing it.

Here's a real example from my field: I am a retired neuroscientist who specialized in neural appetite regulation and obesity. I published in obesity journals, and I attended obesity research conferences. Bariatric surgeons (who perform mostly gastric bypass procedures, MANY of them elective) published a consensus statement that anyone with a body mass index of 35 and sleep apnea (for example) qualified for gastric bypass surgery on medical grounds, so many insurance companies had to pay for the procedures. I have been to research conferences and attended the bariatric surgery sessions and met many of them, and they naturally feel what they are doing is good and helpful, but their conference presentations and journals and consensus statements are inherently biased and not independent because nearly everyone from the authors and editors to the peer reviewers is a bariatric surgeon making tons of money off of their elective and very risky services. Yet they follow all of the standard rules for biomedical journals - ethics statements, COI statements, blind reviews, no ads in the journals, probably no page charges - all that. That is not a journal with good scientific methodology though (they never hear dissenting views), and the universal bias in favor of making their expensive procedures more popular and more available means the journals are not independent enough to publish a balanced view of their field. Non-members can certainly get their papers published in their journals, but only if they are approved by the society members (bariatric surgeons) performing the peer review. If someone submitted a paper that showed data that people can be healthy at a higher weight than they normally assume, the peer reviewers wouldn't even take it seriously. (This actually happens a lot in obesity research.) Therefore, the papers in such journals are not independent of the market forces driving the editors and reviewers and the society itself. They are inherently promotional tools, yet they follow all of the standard practices for medical journals. No one will ever provide a RS that says they are not independent, even though they depend on the conclusions of the articles they publish to make their profits. Such journals are medical journals, not research journals, and in the US, physicians are NOT taught anything about research methods in medical school. (I know it's different in Germany though.) That means rigorous peer review is almost meaningless because the physicians doing the reviews don't understand what constitutes quality research and evidence evaluation either. American medical journals are very good for sharing innovative techniques, technological applications, clinical experience, and advanced education, but notoriously bad for science. (This is all based on an obesity society that formed by bariatric surgeons while I was doing research in a hospital's research labs, and our bariatric surgeons all joined. They tried to get me to participate as an obesity researcher. Oh, the society was mostly funded by a drug company that made a weight-loss pill. Over the next few years I saw a lot of bad science and promotional content dressed as science, and of course, consensus statements that were not based on evidence but subjective "clinical expertise".)

As a hypothetical counter-example, consider the Russian journal Problems of Onomastics (our current DRV). In all likelihood they are independent of that sort of bias because I don't think anyone gets paid by using an onomastics journal to attract more customers to a moneymaking enterprise. If we assume they are independent (hypothetically), how can that be verified? Independence is a sort of negative - a lack of dependence on the conclusions of the scholarly content of the journal. But how do you prove a negative?

All scientists know that we are all biased, but we do our best, and our biases tend to vary across any given field. But when a group of non-scientists with a common interest in a profitable business creates a journal, it's just like fringe groups making a journal. Ufologists will only publish papers that support the existence of alien spacecraft. But bariatric surgeons and other practitioners of elective procedures (e.g., cosmetic surgeons, hair transplant surgeons, chiropractors, etc.) are not fringe groups.

• Thank you for this thought-provoking view. I'm considering what you say. In the meantime, I'll ask my old friend @Drmies: (who also contributed to WP:SJ) whether he has anything to add.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your diligent work closing various RFCs and discussions (including specifically the ones from WP:ANRFC) I hereby award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Your closes are direct and to the point and include wisdom many of us wished we had. Keep up the good work. TLSuda (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why, thank you very much TLSuda!—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well actually, thank you very much for taking care of these requests. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the closure. I agree with the barnstar above.

Your closure says "I would judge that the proposition that Porsche should point to the article on the car brand rather than the article on the company enjoys the most support." and the many arguments by those who are not familiar with (or intentionally closed their eyes to) the field in Wikipedia might have given that impression. However, in most car maker articles like Ferrari, Toyota, BMW, etc., articles on the car brand do not exist, and this RfC was not for creation of such articles/titles or change in that convention to let the 'company' articles be the representative for the brand, the vehicles and the carmaker.

The closure also says "I see that Porsche points to the article on the car brand, rather than the article on the corporation", and this confuses me a lot. If the current Porsche article is about the brand, I would include a lot of info on Porsche Salzburg (Volkswagen and Porsche dealership that has far more employees than Porsche SE and Porsche AG together does), Porsche Design Group, etc., but since it is about the company that has become two companies, Porsche SE and Porsche AG, the article does not touch upon those info. Or at least this has been my understanding. Am I mistaken? I feel I must be missing something. What gave you the impression that the article is about the brand?

Well, closed RfC is closed. I would very much appreciate responses to the above, but going forward, could you give me some guidance on "what to do when COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography"? Run another RfC without an example? Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Yiba and thanks for your enquiry. The Porsche RfC didn't really lead to a consensus, which I realise is pretty unhelpful when you've asked the community for advice.

  I've re-examined this in the light of your message and I think I've made a mistake in my close. For some reason I was under the impression at the time that Porsche was the article about the brand, but as you rightly point out, it isn't. I'm very sorry for making this mistake. Would you like me to amend the wording in my close?

  Your question about COMMONNAME is reasonable and I wish I could give you a clear and simple answer. In my experience COMMONNAME often leads to arguments. One of the biggest, longest and bitterest disputes in Wikipedia's history was about, of all things, what title to give our article on yoghurt. If you're ever bored on Wikipedia, read Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory... deary deary me. I don't think we have a consistent practice. What I think we have is a lot of small, slow-motion arguments.

  I wish this reply was more helpful than it is. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Link to discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography. Would you amend the wording in your close to fix the mistake to avoid confusion? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like you to amend the close, but not before we'd have some constructive dialogue here, if you could bear with me a bit. Let me find some time later to write what I'd like to discuss. Thanks. Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• First off, I'd like to state two things. One, I am an old guy probably in the same age bracket as the writer of the above unsigned #Verifiable independence in WP:SJ. Two, I have a tremendous respect for what you do (closing RfCs), as I wouldn't want to do it without pay. These are meant just to set the baseline of the discussion that you are talking to someone who most likely has a different set of common sense.

When I faced with the issue of how to split Porsche article, I realized "what article to give the representative 'Porsche' title after the split" could be a big problem, gave it a serious thought, and came to the conclusion that it is a COMMONNAME issue, that WP:COMMONNAME does not recognize the problem "the way English language is used" and "common sense" are different among gender, age groups, cultures, levels of education, etc.

I realized that this problem has caused a lot of flaming aguments/problems on en.wiki. (I haven't had time to go through the yogurt battle, but probably a considerable percentage of the discussion could have been spared if WP:COMMONNAME properly addessed the issue.) As the first step required in adding a section to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or somewhere else to address how to deal with the problem, I decided to field an RfC, and as it is commonly shown that average Wikipedia editors lack the basic training/experience in constructive hypothetical discussions (probably loudly insisting "we are trying to solve a problem that does not exist"), Porsche seemed to be a good example.

The discussion on the RfC took the general form me-against-everybody, but I thought at least I demonstrated 1. COMMONNAME/PRIMARYTOPIC is decided from the readers' point of view, 2. The choice on what publication to use as reliable English-language source (and the value judgement of the significance of it) depends on what demography group you belong, 3. Some groups (especially the elder) are naturally penalized in the search engine test, 4. The average or 'general' readers are in a different demographic group than the average en.wiki editors, and they likely do not share the common sense the editors hold.

I knew I was still far away from proposing to add a section to WP:AT, but I drafted User:Yiba/sandbox/When you can't balance (which was meant to be adjusted/edited depending on where in Wikipedia policies/guidelines it is sought to be added) before the closure, as the second of several steps in my contribution plan to improving Wiki policy.

Now, the way the RfC was closed ("this is really an RfC on Porsche, not on COMMONNAME", not the "no consensus" part) downplays the significance of the RfC to my plan (I'm sure it's not intended as you had no knowledge of the above) as most people who may be interested in the RfC in the future will read and expect the close to indicate how the discussion was taken by a reasonable reviewer, and thus sort of prevents me from moving forward. I would appreciate your view on the above, especially on my belief that WP:COMMONNAME can be improved significantly. Yiba (talk | contribs) 15:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Yiba and thanks for your thought-provoking message.

  I'm 43 years old, which is not young enough to know everything, but far too young to have an excuse for inattention or forgetfulness, so I feel quite bad about the Porsche mistake. I'd like to begin by explaining that.

  I've spent a lot of my volunteering time on Wikipedia at Deletion Review (about five years there so far), and the nature of Deletion Review is that you see a lot of the more unpopular discussion closes, so I've formed a view about how to go about them. I think it's really important that a discussion close reflects the community's view, not the closer's personal opinion. I think it follows that the best way to make a good close is not to form a personal opinion before reading the discussion. I try to ensure I can do this by reading the discussion first----before reading any of the pages the discussion is about----so I can reach an unbiased view of what the community is telling me. Typically, I print out the whole discussion, read it, reflect, and then I draft a close, using the preview window. Then, after drafting but before hitting "submit", as a sanity check on my close, I go and read the pages the discussion is about. I often tweak some of my wording as a result, but it's all done with the preview window open. Clearly, in this case, I've not done that last piece of reading thoroughly enough and I've misidentified Porsche as an article on the car make when it's really about everything Porsche.

  The nature of Wikipedia policy is that it's a horrible mess of confusing, contradictory wording. I think it's like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules, you can find support for almost any position. The current versions are deeply entrenched with editors who're very attached to their favourite phrasing; these editors resist change. As I'm sure you're aware, all our rules evolved from the bottom up as Wikipedians found responses to specific problems, and then wrote down the responses that seemed to work.

  I absolutely agree with you that Wikipedians struggle to approach problems at an abstract level. If you suggest something in abstract, then our good friend Chuck the Wikipedian (who's posting from his school computer in Where the Hick, Hazzard County) will say "Looks like a solution in search of a problem", which is said very often on Wikipedia, and the discussion will peter out. If you give a practical example, Chuck will propose solutions to the practical problem and disregard the abstract one. So thanks to Chuck, those who think Wikipedia needs a coherent, intelligible set of editing principles are left trying to generalise these from policies that are really ad hoc rulings, rather than proper rules.

  I feel that as a closer my role is to summarise the discussion, and unfortunately the discussion we're considering is really about Porsche and not about COMMONNAME. I don't feel there's much basis in that discussion to say anything about COMMONNAME at all.

  In response to your other remarks I would observe that Wikipedia is written by younger, secular, politically left-of-centre males, for younger, secular, politically left-of centre males. Trying to change that is a worthwhile exercise but it's also an uphill struggle. All the best—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the comment. I now understand how the wording in the close came to be in a much better light. I agree that Wiki policies are like scripture, but one thing someone has been successful is the establishment of priority order in the labyrinth. (I mean the core policies on top, then other 'policy's, guidelines, general conventions, then Project policies/guidelines and conventions, finally the subject/article conventions.) When some major Wiki problems stem from an incorrect/misleading/insufficient policy high up in this priority order, what would be the best approach to improving the policy?

Conventions on procedural requirement (I am not clear on this without sufficient experience, but 'consensus' seems to be at the core) aside, the bottom up "what seems to work" approach (which I understand clearly) in the attempt to improve on a 'policy' would not work because it faces Chuck who finds and sticks to contradictory 'guidelines' which came to be at least partly because of the very problem in the higher level policy (WP:TITLE in my case), or, he uses the "solution in search of problem" and simply does not participate in the discussion on the issue (but does on the problem) so that the result is "not on the policy, but on the example". The latter, in my view, happened on the RfC despite my statements in the issue section of the RfC and my pleading in the course of the discussion. So not only the average editor, but everyone who participated in the RfC was Chuck in ignoring the issue side.

I don't mind the reality of "by young males for young males" as long as it doesn't violate major Wiki policies like WP:NPOV. But in between "what Wikipedia is" and "what Wikipedia should be", there are efforts like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and the community view is to encourage them, or at least not to discourage them, I hope. Well, now I am feeling like I 'am' an idealistic and naive Chuck in facing the pragmatism. Your view? Shall we start [[Over-40 Wikipedians]]? Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My experience with trying to change a policy was in WP:Verifiability, which used to say "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I wanted to change this wording to "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it," for reasons that I've always felt were important, and eventually I succeeded. So changes to high-level policies can be achieved! However, the process took more than a year. If you're interested, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence (April–August 2011) and Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC (at which 128 editors commented) should give you an idea of the potential size and scale of the task.

I do think we should start [[Over-40 Wikipedians]] and set up our own discussion area in which we regularly meet to gripe about younger Wikipedians, criticise their fashion choices and hairstyles, and tell them to get off our lawns. All the best—S Marshall T/C 07:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I am so glad to have started this dialogue, which I was very reluctant to do. I feel I am very lucky in having bumped into you. Please make amendments to the close. I would appreciate if you could remove the expression "written as if it were about" by which my feeling was seriously hurt.

The Over-40 idea might have a potential to aid what I seek in countering Chuck who disregards, or more likely not capable of, the abstract discussions, by uniting those with the capability to support each other. I'll give it some thought including the attractive informal approach, and will go through the First Sentence and 2012 RfC. Best regards. Yiba (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Yiba again, thanks for your message.

  I certainly did not intend any hurt to your feelings, and I apologise unreservedly. I've re-worded my close now. Please could you let me know whether you're happy with this new wording? I'm very willing to discuss it further if you have any other concerns. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "proposition that Porsche should point to the article on the car brand ... enjoys the most support." was and is certainly true, and is the majority view among those who do not realize that 1. currently there is no such thing as articles on car brands (if Porsche was, it should include/elaborate info on Porsche Holding, which is a much larger entity than Porsche AG in terms of number of employees), and 2. the current article is primarily about the company. It is the majority view among those who cannot get out of the perception that "Porsche is a car, what else could it be?".

But in reality (to be pragmatic), to let the brand be the representative article is not practical and is more problematic because 1. Most car maker 'brands' have grown out of just car production (e.g. space, factory automation, car distribution/sales, financing, car racing, or fashion. Toyota is a well known housing/builder brand in Japan), 2. The brand often spans over several companies and different ownership, and 3. Each brand is so different in the way they grew out of the original activity (e.g. Ferrari originally being and currently is a racing team vs. BMW as the maker of motorcycles and Rolls Royce cars --Rolls Royce is a major jet engine brand for airliners, which BMW does not own). This is why the current convention is to let the 'company' article be the representative article for the cars, the brand, and the carmaker. The distinction is significant, but may appear subtle, and is abstract and may be difficult to conceptualize.

As the distinction among company, carmaker, collection of cars and brand is in the heart of the problem I am facing on Porsche, the statement in the closure is a big disappointment to me. (To me, the popular mispercepton is a part of the very reasons why I decided to field the RfC with its importance being second only to the policy improvement.) However, it certainly is a true statement, and depending on the definition/expectation on the role of a closer (as the extension of your description above), it may be perfectly appropriate. I consider it is within the role of a closer to point out such misperceptions (if he sees it in the discussion. For the education of Chuck or otherwise), and feel the current message encourages/endorses the misperception. I am willing to face the reality that I miserably failed to get the message across in the discussion in either case.

Again, I feel lucky in having you as the closer, and appreciate having this opportunity to present my views very much. If you need additional info in rewording, I am more than willing to help in any way. Yiba (talk | contribs) 07:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Yiba and thanks for your message.

  I've got a number of things to say about the role of the closer and will compose a few paragraphs about it shortly. All the best—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• (later) Yiba, I'm going to give you a long answer. I'm afraid I haven't had time to come up with a short one.

  The role of the discussion closer on Wikipedia is to determine what the consensus is. This would be simple and transparent if there was a clear definition of "consensus" but in a number of ways, and for a number of reasons, the term is ill-defined. Traditionally users who ask about this are pointed at the vague words in WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, but I think I can be clearer.

  Some of Wikipedia's processes are clearly democratic. The most obvious examples are elections to positions of power or authority, such as WP:RFA where a decision to promote always arises from "more than 80% of eligible accounts voting in favour" and a decision not to promote always arises from "fewer than 70% of eligible accounts voting in favour". Account eligibility is determined by longevity and activity. There's obviously a discretionary zone between 70% and 80%; by convention, most users who fall into this zone are promoted. So that gives us a baseline for what a "consensus" is in more democratic areas.

  Others of Wikipedia's processes are clearly undemocratic. The most obvious example is WP:AFD. RFA is normally of interest only to committed Wikipedians, but AFD has historically attracted a lot of interest from users with a conflict of interest. This happens because having a Wikipedia article for your corporation or product is a marketing advantage. Therefore in these areas the first task of the closer is to try to detect bad faith, COI and single-purpose accounts. Where such contributions are detected, the closer is supposed to disregard them and consider only the contributions of established Wikipedians.

  The closer also needs to take account of previous consensuses, particularly if the discussion seems to be coming to a conclusion that's unusual for Wikipedia. For example, there's a very old and strong consensus that if someone makes a controversial contribution to Wikipedia, then it must be supported by a reliable source. (This consensus is enshrined in WP:V.) If a local discussion is coming to a contrary conclusion then the closer is supposed to inspect it very closely.

  (I'll use a hypothetical example; let's say that someone writes a biography of John Smith and claims that Mr Smith has cured cancer by means of a homeopathic remedy. This extraordinary claim would certainly need sourcing. If Mr Smith's article ended up at AfD because the only remarkable thing about him is an unsourced claim, but a large number of contributors said "Keep", then our hypothetical discussion closer would still need to come to a "delete" conclusion. The old and strong consensus at WP:V would need to outweigh the small local consensus at the AfD.)

  There was a principle called "consensus can change" (WP:CCC). This is true but it was more relevant historically than it is now. Today, Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are very entrenched, and it takes extraordinary measures to change them. (If an edit to a policy is seen as a clarification rather than a change, then it is still possible.) Therefore nowadays, WP:CCC is mostly applied to smaller, more local decisions, so an article that was previously deleted at AfD might be kept on the basis of new evidence or some other factor that wasn't previously considered, and likewise an article that was previously kept at AfD might be deleted this time around.

  So now I come to RfCs, which are different again because of the expanded range of outcomes. RFA is binary: the only decisions available to the closer are "promote" and "not promote". AfD allows a menu ("keep", "delete", "redirect", "merge", "userfy" and "transwiki"). RfC closes are free text. As I'm sure you can see, this means the outcome you get from a RfC always depends on who closes it. Another closer might use similar text, particularly if the outcome is obvious, but it wouldn't be identical. The close is supposed to be a summary of the consensus.

  At one extreme closing a RfC can sometimes be like RFA, where you're essentially just checking to see if any of the contributors are disqualified and then counting up the !votes that are left, and it can sometimes be like AfD, where you're carefully weighing contributions against previous consensuses and looking out for bad behaviour. With the RfC that we're discussing here, I think all the contributions were in good faith and in accordance with our normal rules. I obviously have latitude to correct my own mistakes of fact; I've tried to do so and will be happy to amend the wording further in response to any other specific concerns. But I don't feel it's within my discretion to change the outcome to point the article at the Porsche corporation.

  However, if you think I'm wrong about this, then I won't take any offence. It's possible to ask independent editors to review my RfC close and either confirm it or overturn it, and I'll be very happy to begin this process.

  All the best—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the addition to the close statement. I am more than satisfied and truly feel I am lucky in having you as the closer. The whole process, especially the discussion with you, has been very educational to me. I might come back to you on making parts of the discussion into info/guidance pages (and/or Over-40). Has there been talks or efforts on clarifying and assembling info on Wikipedia procedures, like renewing Wikipedia:Wikiprocess for reducing misguided efforts/complaints/disputes?

'Wikiprocess', in my mind, might even deserve to be a separate namespace along with 'Wikirules' as an organized collection and discussion space for policies/guidelines, given the growth of the community (Wikipedia:Wikirules proposal was into a different direction, with exactly the same intentions).

I feel it is a pity to leave a lot of info on this page difficult to be found. Best regards. Yiba (talk | contribs) 00:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the post at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Is the RfC close effective? related to your close at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Unreferenced lists and porn stars RFC and am posting here to let you know in case you have any advice to give there. Thank you for your excellent work at WP:ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for a second opinion on this at WP:MCQ#File:Lisa Head.jpg. January (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

When do you plan to post that WP:RFC on WP:NFCC that you mentioned? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Err, not immediately cos life's a little hectic for me at the moment. All the best—S Marshall T/C 06:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I just now noticed your of your closure a month ago of the RfC at MOS Linking. Thanks for both the merciful closure, and the the thoughtful summary. A lot of these discussions remind me of fuel oil fires on board a ship — it's not enough to merely suffocate the fire with foam, you have to keep it suffocated long enough to cool down and avoid re-ignition. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• What is EEML? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:EEML.—S Marshall T/C 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your closure, it looked to me like the majority figured the content was fine, so long as certain claims were attributed to the IDF. Which is what I will do. But thanks for taking the time to post a decent summation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, even if you hadn't agreed with me largely, I would still thank you for giving a detailed and mostly on point justification. I was wondering how anyone closing this RfC would deal with the multiple issues raised, but you managed. The only point which you didn't address was that 2 out of the 3 claims were already present in the article. But still, excellent work overall. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you over this. I understand how annoying of a close that was. Your close doesn't actually say that there is a consensus that the template was a BLP violation. It says there is a rough consensus not to keep. However this dispute dates back to March. There was an RFC Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism/Archive_1#RFC:_Does_the_use_of_the_Islamophobia_template_in_this_article_violate_wikipedias_policy_on_NPOV.3F. Based n NPOV the result was to keep. A BLP violation would obviously override this prior consensus. However I'm not sure that a consensus not to keep can. Again, I understand how annoying the close was and absolutely apologize. Is there a consensus that there is a BLP violation with the template? Is there anyway that this new consensus over rides the prior consensus?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Serialjoepsycho, and thanks for your message. The rough consensus I saw in that discussion was to remove the template. I feel that there were two reasons editors thought this way: firstly, they were responding to the RfC question (which means that yes, BLP policy is part of the reason for the decision), and secondly, that they felt it was good editorial judgment to remove it. Somewhat disappointingly, our policy on WP:EDITORIALJUDGMENT has not been written yet, but I do tend to respect it even though it's a redlink.  :-)

  Would you like for an independent editor to review my close and check that it was correct? I'm not infallible; I've made hundreds of mistakes on Wikipedia and will doubtless make hundreds more in future, so you won't offend me by asking for a close review. All the best—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No need for an independent editor review. Your close did not mention BLP. A prior closer actually mentioned there was no BLP issue. If your close rationale is simply that there is rough consensus that it should be removed then there's the need to find out if this new consensus does anything to override the prior. If your close rationale is that there is a consensus that this is a BLP issue then it does override the prior consensus. I was just asking for clarification so that your close was clear. Thanks for the close.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• In the normal course of things, the six-month-old consensus would be superseded by the fresh one per WP:CCC. All the best—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not the normal course of things. Both I and another editor were involved with the original consensus and this BLPN. There has been a continuous dispute over this since the prior consensus. But then as you have said, Yes there is a consensus that this template causes a BLP violation when posted in that article.Thanks alot for your time here and certainly all the bestSerialjoepsycho (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall. Thank you for your detailed close of Wikipedia talk:Notability#Renaming Notability. After your close, you removed the RfC from Template:Centralized discussion. Discussions removed from Template:Centralized discussion are archived at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive, which I have done so. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, thank you Cunard. You're very patient with sweeping up after me! All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll sweep after anyone who closes discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure as well as you do. :) Cunard (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

...in reviewing the IPT BLPN. I realize it was not an easy determination. With bonnet in hand, I also want to apologize for leaving you with the impression that my summary of the arguments implied that you or any other closer "was too stupid or too inattentive to read them for himself." That was never my intention. Admittedly, there was a degree of consternation after the first reviewer closed the discussion before a full 2 days had passed, stating the following: *The discussion had devolved into a rehashing of the merge and delete discussions. The thread was not addressing any BLP concerns, as the placement of the Islamophobia tag is more of a content dispute than a BLP concern, given that the IPT isn't a living person. [1] He was kind enough to reopen it upon request. Admittedly, it left me with the impression that WP:BLPGROUPS may be a frequently overlooked element of BLP, and the catalyst for my explanatory overindulgence. I hope you will accept my apology, and dismiss any thoughts that I was being condescending toward you. I wish you only the best. Atsme☯^Consult 03:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for closing Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? However, you state in your summary "all I can do is recommend a return to the 2014-08-07 revision". But no edits were made on 2014-08-07. Do you mean the version that existed immediately before this version? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this version is described as the "version as of 7 August 2014" in the RfC question.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I expressed my surprise at your no-consensus close with four opposes and only the proposer supporting at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Move_into_IPCC_tag Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will watch that discussion with interest, and if there's a consensus that I was in error, I'll overturn myself.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This DRV is confusing it appears there are multiple reliable sources provided in Tokyogirl's revision yet it appears that some editors are suggesting it is not reliable. Is this WP:IDONTLIKEIT or am I missing something? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I blame the Dunning-Kruger effect. Wikipedia's rife with it but particularly in discussion areas such as AfD, DRV and RFA. People who completely lack editorial judgment don't know that they lack it.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This must be overturned, there is not a more well cited academic article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Given your recent activity on the talk page of Verifiable, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that I was a participant in the discussion and not a disputant, so please rewrite the closing remark without using the polarizing term "disputants". Snowman (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Polarizing term duly elided.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't mind the term disputants here (after all, Snowmanradio and I were in a dispute, and a WP:RfC is a WP:Dispute resolution process). Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been made abundantly clear that no non-administrator should be closing that discussion. Please keep in mind your position. RGloucester — ☎ 17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's a new one on me: to have my close reverted by a debate participant. I shall observe the outcome with interest.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no usual objection to non-administrator closures. However, given that the question of non-administrator closure was explicitly raised as one of the reasons why Mr Wales reopened the discussion, I do not think we should be leaving ourselves open to scrutiny in such a way. Let a water-tight closure by an administrator settle this matter for good. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no reason why you have to be an admin to close that debate, and I think you should ask yourself whether it was really appropriate for an involved person to revert a close. I would suggest that you've been unwise.—S Marshall T/C 17:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because Mr Wales explicitly reopened the discussion because he objected to my non-administrator closure of an earlier discussion. Therefore, no "non-administrators" should be closing a discussion that was explicitly reopened because of a non-administrator closure. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I rather think his principal objection was to your closure of the discussion that you had participated in.—S Marshall T/C 18:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the Merger proposal that was archived without consensus? Also, how any editor could read through the discussions, and the sources, and not come away knowing for sure that "Cultural Marxism" doesn't exist, is beyond any reason. Most of the SPA and anon IP 'Keep' votes were citing policies that state we should delete or redirect. It's just astounding that any editor could not get that. Dave Dial (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr Dial, do not argue with him. It isn't his fault. He does not have the appropriate rank to close this discussion, nor do I or you. We simply cannot understand the myriad currents moving through the discussion, given our status. We must await those with proper heads, who will presumably make a proper determination on the basis of those things we cannot understand. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your continued excellent work at WP:ANRFC, S Marshall. RGloucester's revert of your careful, detailed close is against policy and practice. I have taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Restoring reverted close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, my "revert" followed the precedent of our leader Mr Wales. Never-mind the procedural issues involved in the fact that the whole discussion was not evaluated, only one section of it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the job you did closing the Mist, Aerosol, and Vapor RFC. I personally think its clear as can be what was found. But, one editor on Electronic cigarette has found a little wiggle room in your closing of question A. Would you help the article once again by posting on this topic in this section that is discussing edits based on the RFC? AlbinoFerret 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sure.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AlbinoFerret 10:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)