This is an archive of past discussions with User:S Marshall. 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.
Hi S Marshall, I noticed you draftified Draft:Jalal Jalal Shokouhi, an article which was created in 2016 and whose author is no longer active. You referenced a consensus decision about this, but I don't think I'm familiar with the context. Who is planning to work on this article? If it's just going to languish in draftspace for six months and then be deleted as a G13, wouldn't an AfD be more appropriate? Thanks. – bradv🍁17:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure. It's all a bit outside the norm, I'm afraid. This is the ongoing cleanup effort in relation to the content translation tool's first launch, which raised some concerns. The community expressed those concerns in this discussion. You'll note from that discussion that the community decided to create a special speedy deletion criterion, called WP:CSD/X2, to enable the defective translations to be deleted with less process. There were at that stage 3,613 articles in scope. After more than a year of ongoing cleanup effort, in 2017 the community reached a consensus to mass-draftify the disputed content. I had a wikibreak in 2018, and came back in 2019 to find that the community had reached the decisions but hadn't done the work. So I'm doing it. Last month I deprecated the speedy deletion criterion and set about draftifying the content that's in this list. In practice I'm giving each bit of content a quick glance over, and where I think it's a no-brainer for leaving in mainspace, I'm deciding not to draftify. You can see a list of the articles I haven't examined yet in my sandbox.I wish to finish this cleanup work, but as you can see, it's only me doing it and there are still about 1200 to go. The community has already rejected the idea that the cleanup volunteers should have to AfD each one and I definitely won't be doing that.—S MarshallT/C18:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there a more recent discussion about this somewhere? If deletion is authorized for these articles based on admin discretion, we should just go ahead and delete them. If not, there should be a discussion for each one. But I don't see the point of using draftspace for this - that's just discretionary deletion with extra steps. – bradv🍁18:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I should add that I'm not at all unappreciative of your efforts at cleaning this up – it looks like quite the unexciting mess. I'm just wondering why the community chose the route of using draftspace to clean these up when there are so few people interested in working on them. Perhaps in 2017 we were a bit more optimistic about people working on random drafts... – bradv🍁18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There isn't a more recent discussion to the best of my knowledge, just an old backlog that I'm working through.As you can see, in that 2016 discussion I said several times that dumping all these translations into draftspace in the hope that someone would clean them up and fix them was a forlorn hope at best, but the community subsequently decided to use draftspace anyway. The speedy deletion criterion has been deprecated, so actually, deletion is not currently authorized for all of them based on admin discretion, although there might be a policy basis to speedy all the ones created by our socky chum User:Duckduckstop.If you're still thinking that we need an AfD for each one, then I suppose you could revisit the issue at WP:AN, but before you do anything so soul-destroyingly demotivating to me, please could you read all of the discussions that I linked carefully and reflectively (and I know they're really long).—S MarshallT/C18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that we necessarily need an AfD for each one, but it doesn't sound like it was a good idea to deprecate the speedy deletion criteria that allowed us to bypass that process. What about using WP:PROD instead? That is another route for uncontroversial deletions where a full discussion isn't necessary. At any rate, I am opposed to using draftspace as a backdoor to deletion, especially in its current form. – bradv🍁19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope, I've tried PROD. The PROD patrollers see what superficially looks like a plausible article and dig their heels in. They haven't read AN/CXT, and they won't, because it's much too long and complicated. If you're opposed to using the draftspace, then I'm cornered and helpless. Would you mind opening a fresh discussion on the administrator's noticeboard and getting community consensus on how to proceed? I'm quite tired of the whole problem.—S MarshallT/C20:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll see if I can put together a request for more opinions at AN. This is complicated by the fact that the decision to draftify all these articles was made in July 2017, and in August 2017 the community decided to extend G13 to all draft articles and not just the ones that go through AfC. Without that change, these articles would have sat in draft space indefinitely, but now they will get automatically deleted after six months. – bradv🍁20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall, first of all, thank you for your help and concern about the safe area of the Wikipedia information, I am writing you about the moved page Talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) to Draft talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) the page has been created many years ago in order to maintain the work of the international actor that has been performed in many series and films worldwide, therefore we have Spanish, Russian and Catalan Wikipedia pages because of the appearance of the actor in different countries and speaking languages, please let me know what would you like me to do to have the page from your point of you being litigable and approved by you, also it would be very helpful if you can help me with it by giving me your advice.
Here is his management agency in London with his previous films and series http://www.diamondmanagement.co.uk/daniel-horvath[1]
I really want to have the best page I can do for this actor because I love his work and really think he deserves to have it with your help I am sure I will do a great job. Looking forward to hearing back from you.--Anonimoushh (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Daniel. I suggest you try submitting your draft for review by clicking the blue button on it; a user from AfD will either move it back to mainspace, or else give you some advice on how to improve it. Alternatively, you could try asking the Article Rescue Squadron for advice here. Hope this helps and all the best—S MarshallT/C22:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Anonimoushh, your phrase from your point of you being litigable leads me to suggest that you read the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Whilst your statement isn't a legal threat, as a Wikipedia editor you should be aware of this policy, and be careful to follow it. I've also left a note about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline on your talk page for your information. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, S Marshall , It's founding editor from infodrips.com, I found you the most experienced or probably established editor on wikipedia in my views after reviewing your contributions, I need your support to resolve WP:COI for a website infodrips that was blacklisted by user Beetstra , Hope that you will be interested for the help, Thanks. Aaqib AhmadTalk13:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, buddy: I'm definitely not the most experienced or established editor on Wikipedia, and I don't know enough about conflicts of interest to help you.—S MarshallT/C13:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I've taken a look. The blacklisting seems entirely justified based on the number and rate of links added to this site, and the persistence of the ips adding them. —Cryptic14:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest Cryptic, Yeah, no doubt on the blacklisting and it's justified, but there is a considerable point which is that, I didn't ignored the warnings intentionally, It happened because that time I was not registered user, therefore, I had not recieved the warnings properly that is now I'm receiving in my notification bell, And I already apologised my unaware editings with the user Beetstra. You can also have a look on my editings after being a registered user, That doesn't violated the terms. And the most important thing is that, website it self doesn't violating wikipedia terms. Hope that you got the case properly. Thanks. Aaqib AhmadTalk15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
If, as you imply, it was you that added some or all of the previous links, then it really doesn't matter that you didn't see the politer warnings. You shouldn't need to be told that placing a whole bunch of links to your website on a shared resource isn't going to be tolerated - the point of warning is that education is often more effective at stopping unwanted behavior than blunt technical measures. Anyway, we usually don't entertain requests to deblacklist directly from site owners or others with similar conflicts of interest, short of the rare case when the initial blacklisting wasn't justified. —Cryptic09:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Cryptic for the explanation of your respectful thoughts, I'm here requesting or discussing in the light of hope that education makes a person to respect or consider true apologies before taking measures as compare to drastic measures. Anyway, According to user Beetstra it was blacklisted due to ignorance of warnings, and you told that it doesn't matter.So, there is no doubt on justification, but misunderstanding of intentions surely. Hope that you are getting the point. Thanks —Aaqib AhmadTalk13:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion was archived without result, and isn't currently taking place anywhere. I intend to resume my old workflow and indeed I have started to.—S MarshallT/C07:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It's tiring to be asked to stop work yet again while the community fails to decide what to do. It would certainly help me feel a bit better about this if either of you actually helped to work through the backlog, rather than focusing on making rules about how others should do it.—S MarshallT/C15:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
For example, you could usefully deal with the de-prodding noted below? Make the required edits to the article, educate the contributor, enquire about the possibility of a COI? I don't wish to deal with it.—S MarshallT/C21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to get all this stuff categorized by source language, at which point User:Bradv suggested {{Cleanup translation}}, which can take a language parameter. Should have been bold I guess. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually before doing 1000+ edits I probably need some sort of.. not-objection, you know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
Thank you for your suggestions about this article. I tried to improve he text of this page as suggested by you. I hope it's good now.
Please let me know if there is any other improvement I may do. Thank you very much Paolippe (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Paolippe (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
LISTGAP reminder
Quick reminder for you and any talk-page stalkers: Please don't change the initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) when replying. In a discussion, do Y this best practice:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]]
** Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
or Y this acceptable practice:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]]
*: Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
but N don't do this (switch type from bullet list to description list):
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]]
:* Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
Changing the initial (leftmost) list markers makes bad HTML and noise for people who are using screen readers. The rightmost one is the marker that you get to choose. The first ones should match the previous line's markers exactly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You may have an opinion...
I'm honestly not sure where you will come out on this, but you may care about [1]. I'm a little hot about it, but maybe I'm overreacting (it's been a long week). Hobit (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, mate! I certainly do care about it. In response to that incident, I've amended WP:NAC to clarify that the "sysop unilaterally overturning" clause only applies to deletion debates. I've also opined at considerable length on WT:RFC. I don't want to edit the arbcom case because I think this is about RFC closes rather than about Guy.—S MarshallT/C17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
An unregistered user left a message on my talk page about an issue they had trying to add a logo to this page. I checked it out myself and see that Checkmarx.com is blacklisted. Not all that surprising given the history of the page. However, adding the logo to the page seems like a reasonable request. Is the blacklist something that should have been removed with the page lock? Or if those are unrelated, is there a workaround for adding a logo? Seems if the page could be published, a logo would be allowed. Reaching out to you since you had been the one to publish the page. Thanks, Metromemo (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd give very long odds that the IP user on your talk page represents the company and wants to add their logo for promotional reasons. I'm disinclined to get involved and if I were you I'd consider directing them to the Teahouse for advice. All the best—S MarshallT/C23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It was too much bother to add those one by one btw, though for merges it'll still have to be done by hand.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
In cases where the original article is barely more than a list or I don't recognize the contents in the merged article, I'm skipping the {{Translated page}} addition. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you know how the original list was compiled, ie how do you get a list of articles tagged with "contenttranslation"? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I was asking because eswiki might want to start something similar. (not sure if they're serious though) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
the admin who deleted my article last sentences was here for drafting..he was one of 3 Afd commentors! the article meet wp:SNG and wp:GNG.your action wasn't correct. do you have access for seeing history of articles? this topic needs that for deciding--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
that was not true and not wp:CON. in these case you must read the topic and discussions then close something.please change your action and let one admin do that (Because of the sensitivity of the issue).it's not a simple topic.many others see that earlier than you but no action was done.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A listing on the administrator's noticeboard has absolutely no prospect whatsoever of changing the outcome, because administrators do not make binding content decisions. Nevertheless, you're welcome to take it there if you wish.—S MarshallT/C14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Translations that need checking
As there now does seem to be a community consensus against draftification, I shall do as you wish and desist from working on this backlog.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is only a new parameter argument for {{Cleanup translation}} and it has already been adopted by some other editors. (though the vast majority of entries in the categories is still from User:S Marshall/sandbox)
Hmm, so the problem is that we've now got two ways of working. I'm working from my sandbox as I always have, but you're working from the category of articles with the template on. Is that right?
It's unfortunate that the template isn't unique to this project and is being used by other editors. This means that the template doesn't coincide with the authoritative list of the 3,613 articles to which the summary draftification provisions apply.—S MarshallT/C16:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
3613? Where does this number come from? And why should it coincide with yet another list? It wouldn't be impossible to make the template unique, but why? I have been working from the categories, but I also removed articles from your list after checking.
As you noticed, it's hard to find people to help with your sandbox list, while several people have worked on the categories. I think I could remove all entries from your list that are listed on Category:Wikipedia articles to be checked after translation, leaving only those that weren't tagged for whatever reason. (probably not many) That would mean, essentially, the end of your list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I refer to the 3,613 articles discussed at WP:AN/CXT and the consensus that the same may be speedily draftified (despite Bradv's wish to change that consensus it still exists). The original list of 3,613 articles is kept at WP:AN/CXT/PTR and my sandbox contains the ones that haven't been checked yet. I'm now realising that what I'm doing is only tangentially related to what you're doing. —S MarshallT/C11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure now what either one of us is doing? Why do articles that have already been checked matter at all? The 3613 number has no relevance whatsoever? And articles on your sandbox list/in the category are also irrelevant after they have been checked?
As was discussed, relying on consensus from 2017 before G13 was extended is a bit dubious, to put it lightly. Everything you move to draftspace is just scheduling it for deletion in 6 months. IMHO these articles should either remain in article space (potentially with added problem tags), or go to AfD if not notable or truly impossible to salvage. And that recent discussion does have a consensus that draftifying as a backdoor to deletion is bad, thus the previously existing consensus is now void.
Stop draftifying, either keep (with problem tags where needed) or send to AfD.
Work from the categories. I cleared out the Dutch category, you guys know German, Danish, Russian (ru-1 but still) and possibly more that I don't know.
Write a "guide" with some pointers on how to check articles (I can help with that) and advertise the project a bit better.
I could provide a bounty maybe. Something like a photoshop for every 25 properly checked articles. You say what you want to see, optionally specify the source material (must be freely licensed of course) and I make it. A fisherman reeling in a car? You got it. Your favorite celebrity riding a monkey? No problem. Or something actually useful, like the digital restoration of an old photo? Would this motivate anyone? (it's the best I can think of that I could offer) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
So, what I'm doing is cleaning up a mess made by the WMF when they enabled the content translation tool and encouraged users to drop raw machine translations into the mainspace. They stopped doing that in summer 2016 leaving a specific, defined, identifiable set of problem articles which I am now working through. The list of unchecked articles is in my sandbox and I'm removing them when done. I have about a thousand left to work through so at this rate I should be finished in early 2023. Thank you for your help, even though I am confused about what exactly you are doing.
I regret that you're pinging people who aren't helping with the cleanup. Unless they intend to do actual work on this backlog I would prefer that they not make rules about how I should do it. —S MarshallT/C22:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I am pinging them because some of them have expressed interest in helping, but this was not easy with the list which was the only option at the time. Why is it such a problem to send articles to AfD (or adding problem tags and leaving them in mainspace) instead of using a draftify-deletion-backdoor? Why is draftification the only acceptable solution to you? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Because AfD is a colossal time-sink and I shall not spend my volunteering time on it. The alternative to draftification is for S Marshall to stop working on this completely and overwrite his sandbox with something less urgent but more fun.—S MarshallT/C23:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Create the AfD, unwatch and leave it? Don't engage in discussions if you don't want to? You don't want to continue doing checks unless you have a deletion method at your disposal that others effectively can't (or are highly unlikely to) comment on? Your work depends on the availability of a deletion backdoor? Do I understand that right?
You complain about nobody helping you, but at the same time you seem to want to dictate exactly how that help is offered, and any compromise seems impossible. I tried to help by tagging articles, adding attribution to talk pages and clearing out the category for Dutch articles. But if you wanted this to be your monolith, I only got in your way. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would tell me why you want to draftify an article (as you now seem to be moving them without comment, so I have no idea) I guess I could start the AfD. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I do welcome help; what I resist is changing my workflow. I've tried a lot of the things people are suggesting, and my experience has been that they're very unsuccessful. AfD is purely a forum for deciding notability. If the article looks plausible and has sources, it decides to keep; the AfD-focused editors will tell me that it's notable so I need to fix it. They don't know or care about WP: MACHINETRANSLATION and will ignore it completely unless I, personally, sit in the discussion repeatedly reminding them of it, and even if I do, they still decide to keep a bunch of stuff for someone else to fix (you will almost never see an AFD inclusionist repairing the translation, they're only there to vote). And once you've AFD'd something, that's it: it's unremovable. IMV it's always to be avoided. You can, if you like, accuse me of dodging community scrutiny of my actions, but the intent is to review and decide about each article in a proportionate amount of time. The process you're suggesting is disproportionate because you could machine-generate these articles at the rate of several per minute, and some users did. We need efficient means of dealing with them.—S MarshallT/C10:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
That is precisely the issue SMarshall. If there is a consensus at AfD to keep something, we keep it, whether that's your preferred outcome or not. It's extremely inappropriate to use this as a reason to avoid the established deletion process. Your workflow has to fit the community's consensus, not the other way around. I think I've said this before but if you are finding working on this backlog alone too burdensome, then the solution is to stop working on it. The encyclopaedia will survive having a few thousand bad translations. – Joe (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I will be the judge of what I should do, Joe Roe. And considering that we've now had defective translations of BLPs in the mainspace for upwards of four years, I think what's extremely inappropriate is to be lackadaisical about it. If you think they should be AfD'ed rather than dealt with summarily, Joe Roe, then you are welcome to AfD them.If a community consensus exists that I should not work in this way, then I will be delighted to stop; but this means me downing tools and abandoning the work. I will not AfD them.—S MarshallT/C14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
These articles are all draftified out of process, and the redirects suppressed inappropriately. These pages all need to be restored to mainspace. If you don't want to AfD them, that's fine, the encyclopedia will survive with these articles. But no one can move these to draft simply because they don't want to go through the AfD process. As has been pointed out to you many times, the consensus that you claim to move these to draftspace was not a consensus to delete them, which is now done automatically after 6 months. That change makes the consensus you continue to quote irrelevant. Please just follow the usual deletion process, or find something else to work on. – bradv🍁15:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
But that's not true, though, is it, Bradv. Community consensus to mass-draftify all those articles does exist and has not been repealed. I cite it on every draftification I perform.—S MarshallT/C15:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
But then, I'm not deleting them. Instead of restoring these articles to mainspace, you could also tag them with something that says "do not delete after six months".—S MarshallT/C15:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
That won't work, as no one reads the drafts after six months. They get tagged by a bot, and then mass-deleted via Twinkle. – bradv🍁15:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
In my view, you are displaying poor editorial judgment in restoring what are, obviously, defective translations of BLPs into the mainspace. Please consider desisting.—S MarshallT/C16:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If you don't think these articles belong in the encyclopedia, you may take them to AfD, per the deletion policy. That is what everyone has been trying to tell you. Unilateral decisions about whether these belong are inappropriate. – bradv🍁16:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If "everyone" had been trying to tell me that, then my actions would have been significantly different. With all due respect, it's very far from "everyone" who's telling me that, in the discussions on the administrator's noticeboard which were archived without result or the one Alexis Jazz has just started on VPP. I think it's self-evident that the community is not of one mind on how to deal with these articles and in my view, the draftification process does still enjoy widespread support.I still believe that you are being unwise and you should reconsider your decision to restore those defective translations into the mainspace, even if only the BLPs. It is not urgent to restore them and it is open to you to repair the translation before you do so.—S MarshallT/C16:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I've commented at the Village Pump. We just had a discussion about this that resulted in a clear consensus against unilaterally moving old articles to draft space. – bradv🍁16:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I feel you've invented several requirements for a trial where none of those were supported, or even discussed in the RFC. I would ask that you undo the closure and let BAG review this. Or at least leave the details of the trial to BAG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Second User:Headbomb this is BAG territory. Anyway I don't see anyone championing CBD. It's either gonna be a simple self-regulating structure within existing systems (BAG) or it's not going to work. Leave the details to BAG. -- GreenC05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thirding this. Putting you own "proposals" in the closure wasn't helpful, considering that most of the points are of dubious technical feasibility. While the discussion gives the BAG an idea on what the community opinion is regarding cosmetic bots, it hardly needed a formal closure. Note that there has already been one largely cosmetic BRFA which was approved much before the CBD discussion was closed. – SD0001 (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I personally did think formal closure would be helpful, given these things are usually controversial, but I don't think technical requirements should be prescribed (unless closer is BAG/botop), simply because it's hard for other groups to match arguments to technical feasibility. MonkBot is approved under the deprecated params exemption to COSMETICBOT. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think I was fairly clear about distinguishing the consensus from my suggestions for implementing it. I definitely do not think the community decided to have CBD but leave it to the BAG to decide the technical details. In the circumstances you should probably decide what's technically feasible and then set up a second RFC with each option listed for community approval or rejection.—S MarshallT/C10:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
It is hard, nay impossible, to come up with a standardised set of guidelines or a checklist for this task along those lines, even ignoring the fact that another RfC takes another month. Every point is way too dependent on what kind of task it is, who is operating it, what it's doing, what it's targeting, etc. At an edit rate of 12 edits / minute, that's only 17,280 edits per day, once per month. Handing out random page lists is a sure-fire way to make this a useless task. It is infeasible for even one bot to guarantee only one edit to an article, for technical reasons mentioned (tasks often do not communicate with each other). For MonkBot, which is editing half of the encyclopaedia's articles, it's important for randomisation, and hence its BRFA mentions it, but many CBD tasks will probably be targeted to a certain scope, so their randomisation will be different. There's also no reason to think approved cosmetic tasks will malfunction and cause BLP violations, certainly no more than any other task, so excluding it from BLPs also defeats the purpose unnecessarily, but sure perhaps some tasks will need to stay away from certain categories. These are all things that cannot be written up into a single guideline and put forth into another RfC, it's just not feasible to write about them in the abstract, which is why they need to be considered per-BRFA. My reading of the discussion was not that the community consensus supported a trial only (only a couple of comments - valereee, nosebagbear - mentioned that), or that they wanted another RfC to try create an unattainable guideline. Such a close kills this proposal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I do not think that at that discussion, the community approved the use of cosmetic bots and delegated the hows and whys to the BAG, and I will not re-close the discussion to say that. Would you like me to begin an RfC close review on the AN?—S MarshallT/C12:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Not yet, I think it's appropriate the others above have a chance to see your response and consider first. If a close review is required I think it's best it be started by someone who actually disagrees with the close, with their perspective why, rather than a self-referral. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The community approved a trial and a general exploration of more edits from cosmetic bots / a cosmetic bot day. The details of this are very complex, as outlined by ProcrastinatingReader. So again, I ask that you undo the close and let BAG handle thing, or leave the details of the trial to the BAG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}12:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No one will volunteer to develop software under those difficult and arcane conditions. You can stick by your close but no one is going to make a cosmetic bot. It will roll off into the archives and be forgotten by January. The close should have been done by someone familiar with enwiki bot processes and software development. -- GreenC22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @S Marshall: 6 editors responding to the RfC at Talk:Kiki Camarena supported inclusion of the text, including in the lead, while 3 editors opposed it. That means editors supported inclusion of the text by a 2:1 margin. Among outside editors coming to the page for comment — that's the point of an RfC — 5 editors supported inclusion, and 1 opposed: a 5:1 margin. Editors supporting inclusion point out that WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously", and also point out that arguments opposing inclusion are based almost entirely on WP:OR. Because your close so wholly disregards both the policy-based arguments and the overwhelming majority of editors responding to the RfC, I'm going to challenge your close at WP:AN, per policy. I'm informing you here first, as you've requested. -Darouet (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I stand by that close, and I join issue with you on every point you raise. I will welcome community scrutiny on the AN, and I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved. Merry Christmas.—S MarshallT/C18:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey @S Marshall: - sorry to be causing you drama at the New Year. I read over your user page, and — I've spent many years of my life spending a ton of time with professional historians — I feel like we'd get along, despite this one disagreement. I sincerely wish you a Happy New Year and great editing in 2021! -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please do not make baseless insinuations about other users, especially without discussing with them first
Sir, you recently opened a Deletion Review about an AfD that I commented on[1]. You claimed that my account was "suspicious" since I had not edited Wikipedia for many years. You made no attempt to contact me first, or even after making this allegation. You accused the accounts you listed (including mine) as being possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets without any evidence (since no such evidence exists, at least where my account is concerned). Your actions were uncivil, unprofessional, disruptive, and completely against everything that Wikipedia claims to stand for. I cannot assume good faith, because there was not even a shred of good faith involved in your actions, nor from your subsequent comments on that page does there appear even a shred of doubt or reconsideration. I can only hope that this was a moment of poor judgement, especially as you appear to be a professional off-Wiki, which makes your conduct all the more egregious. Your actions are very similar to the reasons why I stopped editing Wikipedia so many years ago (which apparently makes me suspicious). I do not know whether you will delete this comment, or ignore it, but I hope, possibly with undue optimism, that this might be a learning experience where you may step back and reconsider accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being suspicious and accusing them of malfeasance. Perhaps instead of dismissing everyone else, you could consider reading their comments and consider that they might have a different point of view.
Welcome back after your seven year editing break. Yes, I found your account's behaviour suspicious, together with the behaviour of many other accounts in that AFD. I hope that venting on my talk page helped you feel better about it; but I'm afraid I still have my suspicions. The history of that article is full of ducks for UPE.—S MarshallT/C03:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't really care much about the history of the article. I explained on the AfD page why it should be kept, including an argument for why it meets two separate prongs of WPNMOTO (and it only needs to meet one). Several others made good arguments as well. I found that article while reading about the W Series and its inaugural season, every other driver in that season has a page, as well as many of the drivers who entered the initial tryouts but didn't make the cut. I say this not as an argument for notability, but to point out that it seems far more likely that she has a page, and that people are working on her page, for the same reasons that they are working on pages for everyone else who competes in the same series. You seem to believe that there is some sort of shadowy conspiracy here (WAnon? Formulanon?) rather than a bunch of editors who enjoy motorsports, and who are excited about the possibility of more women competing.
From an outside perspective, you're coming across as cross between Inspector Javert and a conspiracy theorist, and I hope that's not your intent. But it is a problem, because you seem to have made up your mind, and anyone who suggests a different idea, you conveniently dismiss as "suspicious". If you think I'm a sockpuppet, go ahead and ask for an investigation, but I'm just a government healthcare worker with an interest in formula racing when I'm not dealing with, y'know, this death plague. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you're gonna throw around accusations, stop whining and follow through, put up or shut up. Right now you're just using "I have suspicions" as a shortcut to avoid critical thinking. I have to clean up the mess from people who act that way in my day job, and I have no real patience for it. Hyperion35 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Republican Party talk page
Sorry to bother you with this, but some people are reading things ([3]) into your absence in a conversation related to a RFC you closed sometime ago on the GOP talk page. We may need your guidance. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. I added a timestamp to your closing statement at Talk:Peppermint (entertainer). I figured you mistakenly typed ~~~ instead of ~~~~. I also added {{nac}} following the timestamp. Feel free to revert either if you intentionally left them out. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Proud Boys RfC
Hi, I don't think your non-admin closure of the RfC at Proud Boys makes sense. Not regarding there being no consensus on the RfC, but there being a status quo ante that we're reverting to at all. The label was added less than a month before the discussion/RfC above, without discussion and without citations: [4]. There was then some brief discussion on the matter [5] without any clear consensus (I'm counting 2 editors in favour and 2 editors against in the extremely minimal discussion that ensued).
This isn't a case of a status quo ante being returned to, this is new content that is being disputed for which there was never a clear consensus to include in the first place. The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include content to establish consensus for its inclusion, not on those who wish to remove disputed content.
I'm happy enough to just drop a message here first if this is a simple enough matter, but if you still agree with your closure I guess WP:AN would be a better place for this. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
