User talk:S Marshall/Archive24

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gay Wikipedians
Hello fellow Wikipedian!

Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation!

Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5
Am I overly wordy? Dloh cierekim  17:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. Lady of  Shalott  16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)
Hi S Marshall. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Grant
An old 2009 unsourced, non-notable bio was redirected to River City. OTRS got an email asking why it redirected there. I don't see the connection.... Is that the proper redirect? You were the one who proposed it at the AFD. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ocaasi, thanks for the message. I don't remember my train of thought in a three-and-a-half-year-old AfD, but I imagine that a Paul Grant was an actor in River City; I would have approached that AfD differently nowadays.— S Marshall  T/C 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There were only two sources available, but they were from BBC and the Telegraph, so I went ahead and wrote a (stub) article. I think it should stick:  Paul Grant (bodybuilder).  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Nice start, there.  Different Paul Grant, I think.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 00:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

About the deletion of Kumar Parakala page
Hi Marshall, Please excuse my naivety but i am new to wikipedia and had created an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kumar_Parakala which has been deleted. I noticed your comment on today's deletion review. I couldn't understand a few parts of it. My request is that the article was speedy deleted because of lack of substantial sources but i assure you that the article was written with a neutral point of view and had no element of promotion what so ever. Please advise me if the article can be retrieved back and then i can add other sources and make it better with the help of wikipedia admins. PriyankaLewis (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis

Articles for deletion/Kumar_Parakala
Do you really think I "invent [my]own speedy deletion criteria, or [...] go outside the speedy deletion criteria the community has set for [me]"? The content was broadly the same as that which had an WP:AFD in mid-2011 so deleting largely the same recreated article seems a perfect match for the speedy deletion criterion of G4 (I'll get it right this time). Note: I make no comment on the quality of the AFD but the material I deleted this time was largely the same as that which had a consensus to delete. I don't think I "invented" anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the criteria for speedy deletion are very clearly-written. By longstanding convention at DRV, they're interpreted narrowly and strictly, which is as it should be; we have a long history of overturning speedy deletions for reasons like this.  G4 applies to material that's "substantially identical".  I wouldn't object to an AfD concerning this material, but based on what Hut 8.5 says, it seems very clear to me that no speedy deletion criterion applied.— S Marshall  T/C 16:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well a lot of it was word for word. I don't appreciate the assertion that I made up speedy deletion criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will strike it.— S Marshall T/C 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And note, I didn't delete it per your comment "It doesn't say "delete articles about living people that are poorly-sourced".", I deleted it because it was substantially similar (almost verbatim in some cases) to the article deleted as a result of the AFD. Please strike that false accusation as well.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for you to strike this false accusation, even if the discussion has been closed. Ahem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

G4
No need to clog an AFD discussion with this, but your interpretation of G4 is excessively literal. The purpose of G4 is to prevent the community's time from being wasted on repetitive discussions that will inevitably lead to the same result. It has nothing to do with justice or editor retention. If the new version of the article doesn't address any of the issues that the original AFD was based on, it's substantially identical. That's the difference between between being substantially identical and textually identical.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, and it's very important to correct you about this, because if you do abuse G4 in this way then you are seriously exceeding the authority the community has granted you as an administrator. This has potentially damaging results for the project and is a significant conduct issue on your part. Firstly, the purpose of G4 is to prevent copy/paste re-creations of the same material by the original author or his/her sockpuppets or meatpuppets.  It has nothing to do with wasting the community's time.  This is why it uses the words "substantially identical". Secondly, you are not the judge of whether the issues at the AfD have been addressed.  You are a sysop, with jurisdiction over conduct, consensus and copyright violations.  You have no jurisdiction over content.  Specifically, it is not for you to evaluate whether these sources are better than those sources, or whether this text is better than that text.  Only the community is fit to make that decision. Thirdly, speedy deletion is inherently bite-y and contrary to what you say, it absolutely is an editor retention issue.  Possibly the single most important one.  Therefore there must be an appeal from any and all speedy deletions that don't exactly fit the criteria, and sysops who do exceed their authority with speedy deletions must be brought to heel.  That's DRV's job---to see that the process is strictly and exactly followed.— S Marshall  T/C 18:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of G4 is redundant with G5.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) I can see that there is a very narrow application of your interpretation of G4 that is distinct from G5, where the editor has not yet been blocked for the disruptive recreations. You are still excessively narrow in your interpretation of the criteria, though: an article that addresses none of the original reasons for deletion is a candidate for G4.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not where there's fresh writing and fresh sources. As I have explained to you, administrators have no jurisdiction over that.— S Marshall  T/C 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, in this case, the new version was substantially similar to that which was deleted following the AFD. Therefore the speedy deletion wasn't an "abuse" of G4, it didn't have "damaging results".  If you have an issue with G4, take it up centrally.  It is designed to save time when people continually recreate articles which have already received a consensus for deletion by the community via WP:AFD.  Finally, if you have an issue with "speedy deletion" being "bitey" etc then do something about it centrally (again), don't just whinge about it here because this will _not_ change anything.  Interested that you continue to assert that I "exceeded my authority" and that I needed to be "brought to heel" despite the fact the article I deleted was previously deleted with community consensus.  You need to start apologising.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You did exceed your authority and you were rightly overturned, Hobit and JClemens having agreed with me.— S Marshall T/C 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? When I checked the article against the one deleted (and I provided you with at least three examples of verbatim copied phrases), it was clear it hadn't been substantially changed in any way.  If you continue to accuse me of going beyond my remit, I demand you initiate a discussion to have my admin rights removed.  Either that or you retract your accusation.  Get Hobit and Jclemens involved too. And also note, I overturned myself just so we could go through another AFD.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no workable community de-adminship process on Wikipedia. When and if we finally get one I'll start working down my list... I've explained very clearly in exactly what sense your authority was exceeded.  New writing, new sources, administrators don't have jurisdiction over content, QED.  Please actually read and digest this, both of you, thanks.— S Marshall  T/C 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note, I read the new version, compared it with the old version, demonstrated to you and the community that it was virtually identical, so the speedy deletion criterion applied. Please now accept you are wrong and apologise.  If not, please start an RFC or similar to have me de-sysopped because I will wholeheartedly not accept your baseless accusations of admin abuse.  You could use WP:AN/I if you like.   If you don't, I want you to retract your accusations of abuse of my position.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been an active contributor to DRV since 2008; I see administrators exceeding their authority most weeks. If I started a RFC on every administrator I come across who exceeds their authority and needs overturning, I'd never do anything else.  But I'm not wrong, I'm not sorry, and my accusations are not baseless.  If I see this kind of thing at DRV again, I will use the same kind of language, and based on extensive past experience, I will be confident of an "overturn" outcome.— S Marshall  T/C 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been an active contributor to Wikipedia since 2005. Whatever, it makes no difference here.  You made a mistake.  The article I speedily deleted under G4 was substantially similar to the one deleted following an AFD.  Hopefully you'll learn by this mistake and not repeat it.  Note, once again, I overturned my own deletion, no-one else did.  And now go look at the new AFD, good use of the community's time?  Once again, I'll ask you to take my "misuse" of admin tools to WP:AN/I or similar because I will not accept that I "exceeded" any authority.  I deleted an article which was substantially similar to one which had a community consensus to delete via AFD.  Perhaps you don't understand that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The content wasn't substantially similar, comprising as it did a fresh set of sources and new text. The fresh sources are particularly important because administrators are not given jurisdiction over sources. You aren't authorised to make the decision that you made. The community decides about sources and content in a discussion. Administrators do not decide about sources and content. To your credit you did, wisely, overturn yourself before the community did it for you.— S Marshall T/C 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When I speedily deleted it, yes it was similar. And as you can see from the current AFD, this is probably all academic, since it's going south anyway.  I appreciate you giving me "credit", but if you ever accuse me of abusing my position as an admin, you'd better be ready to take it all the way to the bank because I won't tolerate it for a moment.  I've spent over seven years trying to make this place good, and your flippant accusations of abuse of position over the past two days are a disgrace. You want to keep people editing here?  Well try keeping those of us who edit a few times a day to keep this whole thing working.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll still be right here telling it exactly as I see it. Have a great day.— S Marshall  T/C 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Incremental?
I realize that your edits at WP:V are small (and mostly uncontroversial) and that you would like to get them done... but slow down a bit, please. There is no need to rush. In a major policy like WP:V, even a small edit can have a big impact on how people interpret what the policy says. Give others a chance to think about (and if necessary comment upon) an edit to one sentence before you move on to editing another sentence. An hour or two (or even one day) between edits will not overly delay the process. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

2017
Re "Incremental simplification; at this rate the policy ought to be somewhat clearer by 2017" — Hmmm......... 2017. Was that year chosen because it fits into your plans for this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Offensive
Spartaz Humbug! 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Offensive because false? Or offensive because true?— S Marshall  T/C 12:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Plain offensive and I'm disappointed because I gave you more credit than that. Spartaz Humbug! 02:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably need to take a wikibreak soonish; small things, like that one, are annoying me.— S Marshall T/C 08:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm I noticed you have become a little bit judgemental & snippy recently. Spartaz Humbug! 11:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Will probably take a short break after the ArbCom case I've managed to get named in.  Have you finished taking offence yet?  Because I do have a point about ATD.— S Marshall  T/C 12:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * S Marshall always has a point. Almost always a very good point. And he makes his point on the front foot, which is usually a very effective way to do it. It's a fine line to giving offence. But I am sure that S Marshall always means to emphatically convey his point, and does not do thing to offend. I like him. Spartaz is a great asset too. Usually comes across as wise and mostly calm. Please have a Merry Christmas both of you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, I've named you as a participant because you proposed de-admining him, but if you want to beg off I would not object. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Category Freemasons Proposed Deletion
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Barrie Wilson
When I go to the trouble of starting a new article about a person who doesn't have one, you are entitled to edit it, to add to it, to criticise it. You are not entitled arbitrarily to delete it. Wilson is a professor and published author, he meets any reasonable standard of notability, and if I want to write an article about him, I will do so. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to write a biography of a living person, then I'm afraid independent sources aren't optional.— S Marshall T/C 02:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a fair ground for criticising the article, not for deleting it. I will locate some sources. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I didn't delete the article, and I don't have the power to delete material from Wikipedia. (This is reserved for administrators.)  I redirected it—an appropriate approach to an biography of a living person because it's easily reversed once independent sources are provided.  There's policy about this at WP:SELFPUB, if you're the sort of person who cares about policy.— S Marshall  T/C 02:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't play games with me. You reverted the edit by which I created the article, so that anyone searching for Barrie Wilson would find only the redirect to the Procol Harum guy. That amounts to deletion as far as readers are concerned. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you're quibbling on my talk page instead of finding a source, I'll tag the article appropriately and we can see what other editors think.— S Marshall T/C 02:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Barrie Wilson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrie Wilson 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 Articles for deletion/Barrie Wilson until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care sufficiently about this to argue with you further. I bought his book, I looked him up and found he had no article. As I often do when I find this, I wrote one myself. None of the facts stated in the article are in dispute or remotely controversial, and I think you are being extremely pedantic to question the sources. But if you want to delete it and leave readers in ignorance, that's up to you. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If people cared enough to want to know more about him then there would already be a sufficiency of sources. No? Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)