Jump to content

User talk:S Marshall/Archive45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding WPBS close interpretation

In the close at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#RFC on WikiProject Banner shell redesign, you noted "The new version should remain in use but should be de-coloured for the time being, unless and until we reach consensus on fully accessible colour choices":

  1. Does this mean we should start a new RfC specifically on the colored bubbles thing?
  2. Many of whom who had extreme reservations about colored bubbles got it removed by CSS, those who didn't must be well approving or neutral on the colored bubbles. Further, its already been 55 days since the beginning of RfC, and ≈57/58 since color change. So, considering that its been there for so long, is it necessary to de-color them now and wait for approval, rather than retain and wait for rejection in a specific RfC?

Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi! It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have a new RfC. Only do that if you can't reach a talk page agreement on what to do. I don't think there's community consensus to implement the coloured bubbles, so in that respect we restore the previous status quo -- which is, no coloured bubbles -- for the time being. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the Closure

Cheers for sticking your neck out on my contentious request! I appreciate the time and effort.

You raised some excellent points which none of us in the discussion had considered. I'm not yet decided on whether it's worth trying to get consensus now in light of those policies in a new discussion, but will consider it over the next couple of days. Riposte97 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  • You're welcome!—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    I want to second this opinion, and don't want it to come off as post-closure boosterism of the outcome I supported. This was not a simple analysis, procedurally or policy-wise, and had to take into account a lot of counter-balancing project priorities and points of broad community consensus. Even if you had threaded that needle by coming down slightly on the other side of this complicated issue, I think I would still have felt the summary of the dispute itself effectively and accurately described the perspectives and the important issues. Whatever happens next, I think you were a best-case scenario for this closure. SnowRise let's rap 19:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you. I feel appreciated.  :)—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    @S Marshall, I would like to echo the remarks of the others. While I do think that substantively the discussion should have gone the other way, your analysis was fair, thorough, and transparent. It takes a brave person to insert himself into a discussion like this and you did an excellent job of considering the entire discussion rather than just bean counting the poll and even insertintg policy considerations that were not addressed. Thanks for your work :)
    -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox close

Thanks for your recent close. Since you directed part of your close to my good faith effort to find a consensus where you wrote A user has tried to extend this discussion, and I'm afraid that's not how RfCs work. Let me simply point out what WP:RFC actually says...

  • An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.
  • Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action.

It's difficult to argue that an 18-13 vote is apparent that a consensus won't be reached if there's additional comment. In fact, there were eight comments after I extended the RFC. I agree that Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, and RfCs are expensive which is why getting a consensus on this question is useful because there's been about 15 infobox RFCs over the last 14 months. Almost all of those discussions ended in consensus with wider input than just the infobox regulars.

I'm not going to challenge the close because it's close enough to be closed in either direction, but I would ask for you to remove the comment directed towards my good faith effort to find a long term consensus since it's a perfectly reasonable way to find consensus per WP:RFC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi, Nemov, and thanks for visiting my talk page. I'm sorry to tell you that it's quite apparent that consensus won't be reached. All the best—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    I am going to challenge this close. First, a vote came in on the day you closed, one vote the day prior, four votes the day before that, and one vote the day before that. So daily voting the four days prior to your close. That's not the time to close. I don't know what the basis is for your statement that this is the right time to close it, you didn't explain why you'd close an active RfC that was still getting daily votes.
    Also, you didn't weight votes, and I think some should be down weighted for lacking any policy base rationale. You don't seem to summarize or address any arguments that anyone made in the RfC.
    Also, what's the numeric count? Seems like a majority in favor?
    You just state "no consensus" and then give the onus argument -- kind of like a vote, not a summary.
    For these reasons I think you should revert the close. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Seemed a fair and good close. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    I await Levivich's close challenge with interest.  :)—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to re-open RFC Levivich (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Greetings, S Marshall. Thanks for the work you evidently put in a clearly difficult task. Infoboxes, for some still unclear reason, raise tempers quite a lot in Wikipedia. I don't know how many "wars" we had in Wikipedia thus far but the war on infoboxes has a prominent place in the list. Anyway, a question: In your closing, you did not refer at all to the numerical result (if I did not make one of my usual mistakes, the suggestions ran 19-13 in favor of an infobox.) Doesn't that constitute a fair basis for assessing consensus? Both sides offered strongly built arguments, although the discussion often derailed onto the general usefulness of infoboxes, so the quality of suggestions is there. Thanks in advance for any response. -The Gnome (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I make it 18-13 (are you counting Dronebogus twice?). Normally I would give extra weight to some arguments and less to others by relevance to our policies or guidelines, but no policy or guideline applies to infobox decisions, so this is a straight up vote. We don't exactly have guidelines for what consensus is in a straight up vote, but RFA's a straight up vote, and we say "consensus" at RfA is about 65% support.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The figure of "65%" is what I was looking for. I wonder how it came to be. Was there after an RfC of some kind, a limited discussion among administrators, or something else? I do not disagree with the figure, to be clear. (Still, 18-13 means 58% , which is rather close to the threshold.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
It was set at 65% in Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Before that, the pass threshold was 70%.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

November music

November songs
story · music

Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you read Brian's essay? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In appreciation

The Barnstar of Integrity
For your consistently calm, reasoned, and insightful takes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

December music

December songs
story · music

Another cheerful story, parts of my life, - just sad that one of the players is already dead. I remember having picked him up at the airport and entertained for the evening, - we took turns for the week. Actually he probably entertained me more than I him. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Donepezil for DLB

I hope this became clearer after the fact ? Donepezil licensing is mentioned earlier under general management, and then its off-label use (unlicensed) is listed later under each symptom. I can't think of a way to combine those into the same section, since one is general, the other by symptom. I'm sorry if you are having to learn about its use for someone you care about, and hope you found the article helpful. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi! No, it's okay -- I don't have a friend or relative with the condition. I was familiar with Dementia with Lewy Bodies from a professional standpoint (in adult social work, doing safeguarding, before I retired) and today I looked it up on Wikipedia. I typed things on the talk page before I'd finished reading the article, and I ought to know better.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    Whew :) I also chuckled at your comment about sfns, since I *hated* them for years, but after using them on this article, I was sold ... way way easier after all! I did the switch over during the FAC, and found it much easier to specify exactly where in the source the content can be found. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Another question about Rupperswil murder case

Greetings, do you have an opinion on the question I raised at Talk:Rupperswil murder case#Parole or not. Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is an expert on Swiss criminal law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on Lead sentence

@S Marshall: Hi there and merry Christmas! I'm just messaging as, quite a while ago now, you were party to the discussion about the COI editor Richard D. Gill who was reported on ANI for advocacy in trying to portray Lucy Letby as wrongfully convicted: [1]. As you absolutely correctly said at the time: Richard, the way we determine whether someone is guilty is in court. Lucy Letby is guilty of the most unimaginably horrific crimes and we know that's true because a jury has reached a verdict after an evidence-based trial. We can and should say so in Wikipedia's voice. I can see that you have doubts, but Wikipedia is not a place to contradict the verdict of the court as reported in mainstream media.

But now some editors want to replace the first line that says "British serial killer and former neonatal nurse" to "is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others". So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But surely, the place we decide where someone is guilty of a crime is in court, and having been convicted it is perfectly reasonable to describe her as a murderer in Wikivoice? I might understand it more if there were massive and consistent doubts about her conviction, but there isn't any any such wider doubts.

What I also think is quite improper is that the whole debate was started when the already blocked Richard Gill apparently appeared again(!) to evade his block and suggest the whole intro be changed to claim she is just an "alleged" killer: [2] - EXACTLY the same wording he'd suspiciously been asking for on his own Twitter account!: [3]. So basically a blocked advocacy editor has got some people persuaded that we shouldn't call her a killer. It really just smacks of pro-Letby editorialising to not allow her to be referred to as a killer, surely that is the norm on Wikipedia, to refer to serial killers like Fred West, Steve Wright, Peter Sutcliffe and John Duffy and David Mulcahy as serial killers? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Except I’m not a puppet or been intentionally canvassing at all. Need I remind you that you literally said that the mysterious ‘Flamingjune1990’ that just curiously posted Richard Gill’s exact words was perfectly allowed to edit since it was probably just a Twitter follower of Gill - a banned editor? You said that that’s fine! Yet you presumably will think it’s unacceptable for me to be here as a Twitter follower of the banned Melting District? How can you justify these double standards? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying you are a twitter follower of the sockpuppet MeltingDistrict? Is that why you posted here? (From an IP range they have used before, incidentally). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

2024



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2024!

Happy New Year!

Hello S Marshall: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

G5 RfC Close

Hi S Marshall. I come to ask you to reconsider some wording you used in your close of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Status_of_G5. Specifically, you seem to think the RfC is around ArbCom powers. While that was certainly discussed in the RfC, I think it misstates the policy issue at hand and does not accurately represent the consensus reached (even while your topline summary is, undoubtedly, correct). Namely WP:ARBECR is applied by both ArbCom and and the community. You do not address the community aspect at all and on the ArbCom aspect and it is not clear to me, under WP:ARBPOL and WP:CONEXEMPT that the community could have ruled ArbCom can't allow deletion under ARBECR. But it most definitely could have ruled that it did not apply to community general sanctions. So it's nice the community is OK with ArbCom exercising that power - regardless of whether it could have overruled ArbCom or not - but does nothing to clarify what happens under community authorized general sanctions which is what the RfC question focused on. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice job at the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel RfC close. I looked at it the other day and came to the same conclusion as you, but didn't want to deal with the inevitable deluge of complaints and appeals that would follow. So I applaud your willingness to wade into that! Chetsford (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Standard used in close reviews

Hi S Marshall! Re your comment here, my understanding is that the general standard used in close reviews is whether the close should be endorsed as a "reasonable summation of the discussion" or overturned as an unreasonable reading, not whether participants would have personally closed the discussion exactly as the closer did. In this case, it doesn't really matter, as the practical outcome between no consensus and a weak consensus for the status quo is basically the same. But in the future, I think it'd be good for us to get in the habit of !voting based on the "reasonable reading" standard, since a world in which everyone uses the "how I would've done it" standard is one in which AN basically becomes an opportunity for anyone who dislikes a close to ask a different parent about it, consuming a lot of editorial resources. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary

Greetings, noting that I copied an edit summary of yours that I found funny. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 12:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure of Battle of Bakhmut RfC

Hello. I really appreciate your closure at the Battle of Bakhmut RfC. I really liked your argument about future historians/interim decisions and suggestion to talk about both scopes in different articles (which do indeed kinda exist). However, I found your conclusion about the consensus on the result of the battle (which was a secondary topic/not essence of the RfC) a bit questionable. I would like to know your thoughts on some of the arguments I list below and would like to know how we should proceed then:

  1. If this battle was to be considered a "pyrrhic Russian victory" based on the total casualties and devastation, shouldn't all victories/captures of cities in the war since 2023 be considered "pyrrhic" too (the quick and swift phase of the war is long over)? Wouldn't it set a bad precedent?
  2. Isn't labeling the defender's objective as to "only attrite the attacker" too euphemistic? I believe this kind of argument always favors the defeated side. When the defender knows it won't be able to hold the city, it's too easy and convenient for it to then claim it only wanted to attrite the other. Well, in the battle, both sides managed to inflict heavy losses on the other, but Russia at least had the symbolic prize of capturing a major city (something Ukraine only attempted with Tokmak in the counteroffensive).
  3. Isn't it questionable to say that Ukraine achieved it's objective to attrite the attacker when it did not actually help them in the counteroffensive? One could argue, as the US did, that investing that much on a mostly destroyed Bakhmut was detrimental to the counteroffensive which already started with a low stock of ammunition and manpower. Considering the current state of the war (disappointing counteroffensive, decrease in foreign aid, etc), I genuinely believe that if Russia's casualties were too great, it could have afforded to, while, on the other hand, Ukraine couldn't have (like the Germans vs the Soviets in WWII). Thus, in this sense, they would have played into Russia's hands.
  4. Finally, to the best of my knowledge, it seems that a clear majority of sources admit the battle was mostly a win/victory for Russia. Although, the review of sources in the RfC wasn't really focused on determining this (if focused on determining if the battle was over and mostly used the "Russian victory" articles as examples that it was over), it did give a rough indication. So, shouldn't those randomly sampled sources be more adequate for such value judgement given they mostly fall under WP:NEWSORG?

Best regards. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Hi, Alexiscoutinho. When I read your many contributions to that RfC, I observed that you were keen to describe the battle as a Russian victory. I saw little evidence of others' thoughts about who won, and the only editor who really engaged with you on that point -- User:Mzajac -- disputed whether Russia could really be called the winner. I think that his objection is fair, so I specifically dealt with the question in my close.
    When I read the sources in that debate, I saw that Russia's objective was to take the territory. To the extent that Ukraine's objective was reported at all, it was to pin down Russian forces and inflict casualties.
    I think that there's no consensus about who won. You're welcome to try to reach a consensus about it on the talk page, and a consensus that Russia won would negate that part of my close. But I think that until that consensus is reached, it's best not to claim a Russian victory.—S Marshall T/C 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and question

Thanks for recent improvements. If you have thoughts about name and scope please could you comment at Talk:Forestry in the United Kingdom#Name and scope of the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Trump close

Hello! For clarification's sake: Is there a consensus to implement the proposed sentence, or simply a consensus to mention the Accords in some way? The question on the surface was about the sentence but I think what was truly agreed upon was to mention the Accords. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  • In my close, I wrote:

    The community's decision is to support the principle of mentioning the Abraham Accords, not to endorse the specific wording given in the RfC question. That wording can still be edited in the normal way.

    Hope this clarifies!—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    Just checking. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Copying over from the discussion that was opened at the article talk page - How do you justify that most people did not support the proposed wording in the RFC? Especially considering:
  1. The RFC question literally asked "Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below?" - this is the explicit proposal which started garnering Supports
  2. No alternative wording was sufficiently discussed in the course of the discussion; in the absence of such an alternative, why would we not use the wording originally proposed?
It seems wrong to me to try and read into the Support votes and deduce for ourselves that they didn't all support the wording as proposed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Well, first, I can't just allow myself to get dragged onto Talk:Donald Trump to discuss a close, because I'm one of not-very-many RfC closers who have both (1) the stomach to deal with American politics and (2) no involvement with that page. Every edit I make to that page limits my ability to close RfCs there later. So I won't willingly post there at all and when I'm forced to post, I have to be extremely terse and clear, and focused only on the close, so that I can still make those closes in future without anyone being able to claim that I've violated our principle of involvement.
Second, on the substantive point you raise, I disagree. It certainly is the closer's job to read the !votes and come to understand what the contributor was saying. We ask people to say more than just "Support" or "Oppose", because we want to read their thoughts and reasons as well as their opinions. When I was reading those thoughts and reasons, as well as the words in bold, I understood that editors were supporting the principle of mentioning those accords. They weren't supporting the specific words.
If this doesn't satisfy you then you're welcome to bring my close to the community for review. The correct place to do that is the administrator's noticeboard.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
So, do you think any other wording would be equally as valid as the one proposed in the RFC? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's for the editors active on that talk page to decide what wording to use.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
So, the lengthy discussion on that one specific wording bears no weight in discussions moving forward? The wording proposed in the RFC may be discarded by whichever editors continue to bother to show up? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The point is that the arguments drifted away from 'let's include this specific wording' to 'let's include a mention of the Accords'. IMO you're missing the broader reality of the RfC; the fact that the RfC question was never formally changed to reflect the change in topic doesn't mean that we should blindly go along with the original topic.
AN is an option if you truly believe that the close is faulty. Otherwise there's no real point in discussing this. It's relatively clear to me that Marshall isn't going to amend the close. Cessaune [talk] 22:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
arguments drifted away from 'let's include this specific wording' to 'let's include a mention of the Accords' - sure, the discussion meandered, as discussions tend to do. Though I don't yet know why we would use some hypothetical alternate wording, with no preference given to the wording that just got consensus. I'm not asking them to amend the close. I'm asking them to clarify their reasoning for (apparently) discounting the wording of the RFC as-proposed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I've finished explaining now.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I salute your closing of the RfC about the Abraham Accords in Trump's biography. I only just found out about it because I did not have, until today, the heart to look back at it. Not only did it restore a modicum, if not a significant amount, of sanity in Wikipedian affairs but, on a personal note, prevented me from temporarily turning my back to the project. (I know of a few fellow editors who find this volte face of mine a tragedy but it's alright. ) The previous closing was atrocious, in terms of employing policy, consideration of suggestions, or common sense. And that's entirely irrespective about how I feel about the man Trump himself. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss your close at Talk:Race and intelligence

I appreciate you taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Removal of Quillette quote, but would you agree that your rationale –– i.e. about who is "right" rather than what the consensus is –– looks a bit like a supervote? As Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome reminds us: Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. (My emphasis added of course.)

I can imagine de-weighting arguments for exclude on the basis that, as you state, Talk pages are unindexed and don't draw attention to sites mentioned on them if that were in fact something that exclude voters had argued. But I do not see any such arguments. Instead it seems that you are introducing a novel rationale for inclusion there, which balances out the reasons for exclusion which you acknowledge. If you'd like me to clarify my own argument, or unpack what I think others are arguing, I'd be happy to do so.

You also state Quillette's article is relevant and slightly amusing, and there should be a pointer to it from this talk page, which seems to me like another argument based on your own view rather than an assessment of the consensus of others.

As a final note, I will say that I don't quite understand the advice you give about including the Quillette article in its own separate header. It seems to me that with the contention this conversation has created, any closing instructions which are not 100% clear just invite Round 2 of an endless squabble. I would certainly expect to be reverted if I tried to carry this out myself.

Please understand that I very much welcome your collaboration in this discussion. And I'm only posting here to invite a conversation with you –– possibly some reflection on the wording of your close and the instructions that are tied to it –– rather than directly requesting you to revert. But if you'd prefer to simply revert and leave this close to someone else, I would understand that too.

Thanks again for giving this your attention. Generalrelative (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Hi, Generalrelative, and thanks for visiting my talk page.
    When I'm closing an RfC with two options, my first question is: are those options mutually exclusive? Where there's a way that addresses the concerns that both sides expressed, that's clearly better than declaring victory for one side or the other. In this case I could see one. What's your objection to it?—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with that principle! And I'm sure that in most cases it works well. To restate (hopefully more clearly):
    1) Your close appears to be based on your own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate rather than an evaluation of what the discussants determined themselves. This is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome. Note that it says this in a couple other ways as well, including: The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate.
    See also where it says If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. In my view when one looks at "which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" the consensus for exclusion is quite clear.
    2) Your instructions (Editors are at liberty to remove it from {{Press}} and pop it in somewhere else near the top of the page, perhaps wrapped in {{small}}, and perhaps adding whatever context is appropriate, at editorial discretion.) do not appear to me to be clear enough to be actionable without getting us bogged down in a second acrimonious debate. After all, it was our differing understandings of what "common sense" dictated which got us into this mess to begin with. Given how deeply people care about a) templates and b) getting the race & intelligence topic area right, we really do need a clearer outcome.
    Another way to put this: the choices really are (as I see it) mutually exclusive. People arguing for inclusion did so largely because they cared, on principle, about the {{Press}} header being used in the way they deemed correct, while those arguing for exclusion did so largely on the basis that it is inappropriate to include this piece in the header at all. So an outcome that calls for it to be placed in some alternative but unspecified place in the header really addresses few-to-none of the concerns raised in the discussion.
    Does this make sense? Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • It does make sense, yes, although I dissent on both your points. I'll address them in the order that you raise them.
    1) Yes, I like to think of myself as very familiar with the information page you're quoting. A supervote is where I decide based on my own view of the debate. My own view aligns with MastCell's, and if I'd supervoted, I would have said that we should remove the article from {{Press}} without putting it anywhere else. My position is that looking for a compromise that addresses both sides' concerns isn't supervoting.
    2) Sometimes RfC closes can't be implemented for various reasons, and one of them is conflict between editors about how to implement them. I suggest that we'd need to try it and read the objections people raise before we knew whether that was going to happen in this case. I shouldn't specify exactly how to do it, because the people who edit the article usually know best, and closing an RfC doesn't make me Article Manager.
    Hope this helps!—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate this reply, and it's nice to know we both agree with MastCell's perspective. But as I stated above, I don't think you've addressed either side's concerns. And I guess I'd like to posit that there is more than one way to supervote, that imposing a "compromise" that no one in the discussion asked for, when consensus in one direction was reasonably clear –– even if it's in the interest of a higher principle such as "seek compromise when possible" –– is just as much a violation of the instructions for closing discussions as putting your finger on the scales for your preferred content. After all, the language of those instructions is crystal clear: you were just meant to evaluate the consensus of the discussants, not decide the issue as you see fit.
    I'll give some thought to next steps, that is, whether to proceed to a formal closure review at AN (on the basis that I don't think this closure was a reasonable summation of the discussion) or to let the matter drop. If someone can figure out a way to actualize your instructions which is amenable to both sides, that would certainly help. But I am one of those people who edit the article frequently, and I can't see it. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved with this discussion (I only found this page because of the Trump RfC), but I have to point out that the statement that Talk pages are unindexed is incorrect. Article talk pages are generally indexed: see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing and this VPR discussion about deindexing them, which resulted in no consensus. This can easily be verified by googling the talk page title with quotes. Malerisch (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice going

The Original Barnstar
Fucken nice close at the latest Donald Trump RfC. Honestly since nothing here is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr Trump, and since it'll all shake out in the long term, it must take a bit of patience not to close with something like "Not This Shit Again" lol, instead you took the time and thought to make a fine, transparent, and well described close. Good on you mate. Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Seconded. I just read the close and came here to say something similar. Also a wise move, in my opinion, not to mandate a specific wording. When you get too many mandated-by-RfC wordings in an article, you either get an odd disjointed article full of sentences that don't really fit next to each other, or you have deal with edit warring and bureaucratic BS when well-intentioned copyeditors come along and try to fix those sentences. ~Awilley (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Why, thank you both. I feel appreciated.  :)—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S_Marshall/Archive45&oldid=1245555184"