This RfC was closed by AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 25 January 2025.

I have discussed the closure with them at their talk page: Part 1 and Part 2, but I was busy earlier and couldn't bring it here. AirshipJungleman29 was also recently on vacation [1].

This RfC followed a previous attempt at WP:DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_251#Genocide

Main issues for review include:

1. Strength of arguments. There were quotes from introductory chapters of high-quality WP:Secondary overview sources, such as the Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. There were also quotes from genocide entries in WP:Tertiary sources such as the Social Science Encyclopedia. This should be clear in terms of WP:DUE

2. Potential misrepresentation of my position. I was also in favor of a general expansion, not just adding two more examples [2] [3]. One of the options in the RfC was about general expansion.

3. Potential for WP:Involved. When I brought some of these genocides at Talk:Human history/GA2, AirshipJungleman29 seemed sceptical [4]. Following further discussion, some of these were later added into the article [5] [6].

Additionally, the RfC closure includes comments on editors. I have never seen an RfC closed this way. Usually, it's just about content.

My questions to other editors such as this this were also called "WP:BADGERing". My aim was simply this: [7]. Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 was notified about this discussion. [8] Bogazicili (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barkeep49 and Vanamonde93: your comments from a different close review below have been cited by Isaidnoway in their closure endorsement, recommending me to refrain from behavior evaluation in future closes.

WP:ACD, while an essay, is widely cited; it advises that "Some closures may also require understanding of Wikipedia’s culture, dispute resolution procedures, behavioral standards, etc." (emphasis mine). It goes on to suggest that POV-pushing, a behavioral issue, might be a reason for a closure to state that consensus is unevaluatable. I have previously closed one RfC in that manner.

My position is that in exceptional circumstances, behavioural issues have to be considered by the closer. I would rather that this not happen, but sometimes it has to be done. Do you disagree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I don't take any issue with that closure, but I would not generalize such a principle. My argument below is that participants' failures to follow behavioral expectations should not, in and of itself, devalue their arguments, which should be handled on the merits. For instance, I would not devalue a comment because its author bludgeoned the discussion, though I may separately consider sanctions. Most of the matters you mention are either procedural (RFCNEUTRAL) or directly weigh on the strength of argument (COPYVIO in a proposed addition). More generally, some aspects of RfC participation may both affect strength of argument and be conduct issues, because there is substantial overlap between content and conduct, but I would not invalidate an otherwise strong argument on the basis of purely conduct issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The evaluation of consensus was correct, such as it was. That said, for an article this important, we ought to have much more participation than just seven editors (I had no awareness of the discussion). As a personal matter, I would have probably !voted to include if it just meant a small intrusion in the text, just to give readers links to examples of how this type of genocide occurred. The closer might want to consider reopening for further feedback. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was just fine. The RfC went off the rails because of problematic behavior by Bogazicili. A fresh RfC would be a better idea, with Bogazicili avoiding bludgeoning and badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as the only reasonable outcome. The matter is important enough to need more input, there were multiple problems with the RfC, including bludgeoning by the OP, and the outcome that had the most numerical support is not the outcome being advocated for here. Strength of argument matters more, but for a closer to find consensus for an option supported by two out of seven participants, there would have to have been some truly meaningless arguments on the other side. Bogazicili, the fact that you opened a close review here to argue that the closer should have found consensus for a position supported by you and one other editor, and substantively opposed by five others, is an indication to me that you have lost perspective and need to recalibrate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus was clear and evaluated correctly. As to the point - the RfC closure includes comments on editors - I agree with comments made below in another thread - an RfC closer shouldn't really be reading with behavioral conduct in mind, followed up with and re-iterated, an RfC closure should not be engaging with behavioral issues when assessing consensus, which is good advice that AirshipJungleman29 should attempt to follow when closing any future RfCs. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it does look like bludgeoning was going on and the entire RFC could be seen as a Discussion, not just the section labeled "Discussion". Typically, the first section of an RFC are editors weighing in on the options presented and perhaps offering a short explanation which is not what happened here. You really were a very large part of this discussion, Bogazicili. It looked like you either posted or were refered toby name ~37 times in this RFC. And, before you think to object, when you open a discussion like this, the focus is not necessarily just on the discussion closure but on the RFC, too. And, please, Bogazicili, do not comment on every comment made here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure but I'll just acknowledge in retrospect that I wasn't as concise as I would like. Bogazicili (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That discussion was virtually un-closeable. It was high-importance and sensitive, but it had low participation and some of those who did participate were overly invested in the decision. Therefore it shouldn't have had an outcome, and it didn't, so to that extent it does fit in the "no consensus" box. I'd suggest re-running it with a listing on WP:CENT, and encourage Bogazicili not to participate in the re-run. At all.—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Bogazicili's history of bludgeoning goes beyond what has already been mentioned. When this RFC was closed with the result Bogazicili didn't want, Bogazicili want on the closer's talk page not once but twice to complain the consensus was misrepresented. There is also another RFC on Human history that Bogazicili has been "bumping" since August 2024 to prevent it from being archived,[9][10][11][12] because that RFC also has a consensus that is not what Bogazicili wanted. Lastly, in this RFC, Bogazicili’s bludgeoning was perhaps at its worst among some other issues. Later Bogazicili even stalled under my closure request of the same RFC, a month after it. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In Human history topic, Talk:Human_history#Coverage_of_genocides_and_atrocities, there was no RfC. I have reached consensus with the editors responsible for GA promotion. The reason for bumping is I am going to return to it, following User:KhndzorUtogh and another editors opposition to one of the issues. I just didn't have the time.

  The RfC in Turkey reached a rough consensus and was closed by an admin. Bogazicili (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Talk:Human_history#Coverage_of_genocides_and_atrocities is as close to an RFC as it can get and has had a consensus for basically half a year now (not just based on votes but arguments from editors who didn't vote too). But yes, if we're being technical, it's missing the RFC template. The core of my point doesn't change though and it's telling that you choose to deflect from it to a minor technicality.

  The Turkey RFC has been challenged on the closer's talk and they agreed to reopen it [13]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from wrong section above) AirshipJungleman29's personal comments in the closure seemed questionable to me, especially since it came a few weeks after this interaction at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3: [14] [15] [16]. So I don't know how uninvolved they were.

Personally, I would have preferred RfC closure only sticking to content issues. AirshipJungleman29 could have mentioned bludgeoning etc in my talk page. That seems to be more in line with usual Wikipedia practice. Bogazicili (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that the RfC closure was endorsed.

3 people above seem to have suggested reopening or a fresh RfC. Is there any consensus for repeating the RfC about the general expansion of Genocide#History section with more examples, or specifically about these two examples (an RfC about examples in the second paragraph of Genocide#History section), or coverage of these issues article-wide?

If repeated or reopened, I'm planning a more limited role at most, perhaps such as just quoting the sources. I'd appreciate if someone else can take the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely start a new RfC rather than trying to reopen the old one. The old one is so messy that it would scare off potential participants. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm asking is that sometimes starting a new RfC short after an RfC is closed is seen as disruptive. Bogazicili (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bogazicili, you started this review of an RFC closure and now you're proposing a new RFC before this review is even closed? You're kind of jumping the gun here. If you are satisfied with the discussion here, you can request this conversation be closed but do not start a new RFC while a review of a previous RFC closure is still occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: no. I wasn't planning to restart a RfC right away, just like I wasn't planning to respond to every message.

The RfC was closed as "no consensus". That seems to have been endorsed here. Do we need a formal closure for that?

What doesn't seem clear to me is if there is a consensus for a new RfC. That's why I started this section. I will wait for comments and then ask for closure. If there is consensus for another RfC, I'll ask someone else to start the RfC.

Do you want me to ask for closure for the above part before asking if there is consensus for a new RfC? Bogazicili (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that is necessary. You're the OP and it seems like you are okay with a closure, other editors are endorsing the RFC closure that is being reviewed, it's up to an admin reviewing disussions to close this one unless there are objections. I expect this to be closed in the near future unless there are objections raised. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party (United States) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: 1

Reasoning: I request a review of this RfC at the Republican Party (United States) talk page. My reason is as follows: a number of arguments were made during the discussion, and Chetsford, as per their closure statement, determined that one argument from the exclude side was relevant: news sourcing are insufficient here, and academic sources are needed. They also determined that one argument from the include side was relevant: the level of academic sourcing is sufficient.

Chetsford concluded that there is no consensus to exclude or include the information, which resulted in exclusion by default (since that was the status quo). When I asked them for clarification regarding this, Chetsford stated that they disregarded the sourcing, and instead "divine[d] whether or not the community felt the sourcing was sufficient or insufficient" (as per this discussion on their talk page).

This line of reasoning fails to take strength of arguments into account: if editors demand a certain level of sourcing and the sourced are then provided, they have to make a case why the sources are still insufficient. Merely "feeling" that the sourcing is insufficient isn't a valid argument. Nine academic sources (not just the three mentioned in the closure statement) were brought up, which would provide a very high level of sourcing - higher than anything else in the entire article. Naturally, there is no specific hard number of sources that guarantees inclusion of information in an article. However, if the level of sourcing - the core of both the include and exclude arguments - is not taken into account, the closure boils down to vote counting. Cortador (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC ended with No Consensus (as opposed to consensus for Support, or consensus for Oppose). The opinion of the challenger here is that an RfC ending with a 50/50 split of "responsible Wikipedians" — with both sides making equally valid policy arguments — constitutes "as wide an agreement as can be reached" for Support. As I communicated to them, I reject the accuracy of that calculus.

• "Chetsford stated that they disregarded the sourcing" This is correct to the extent that I did not sit in singular judgment of the sources as this was not an evidentiary hearing and I am not a judge. It is not for a neutral closer to determine whether or not X# of sources meets an arbitrary threshold they independently determine. Rather, the closer's role is merely to evaluate the strength of policy-based arguments made by the editors as to why the sources are or are not of sufficient quality and quantity.
• "if the level of sourcing ... is not taken into account" No editor presented a policy-based argument in the RfC as to why X# of sources would vanquish the "overwhelming" criterion set by the Oppose side in their WP:YESPOV argument. This position of the Oppose camp was strengthened by three additional discussions from the summer of 2024 that were incorporated by reference and satisfactorily provided a superior quantity of sources that established an existing consensus that "academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism" (per Toa Nidhiki05).
  While there are many ways of establishing a sourcing threshold, the Support camp didn't try any of them and, apparently, were either relying on the closer to cogitate the arguments for them or were depending on me to arbitrarily decree 2, 20, or 200 sources was sufficient. And though Support failed to establish a threshold, the Oppose camp did -- that level which would overcome the conclusion of their incorporated discussions (as noted, they're not obligated to transcribe them into the RfC, and they can incorporate by reference). Indeed, not only did Support fail to set a threshold, they didn't even make an attempt to rebut or address the sources from the incorporated discussions. To my great surprise, they simply forfeited the entire question to Oppose.

After applying WP:DISCARD and de-weighting WP:VAGUEWAVEs, I determined that the two sides presented equally valid arguments (given the aforementioned forfeiture of Support to the most potent rebuttal of Oppose). In these cases WP:NHC directs that "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". In this case, with both sides presenting roughly equally valid arguments rooted in policy and with an equal split of editors who supported and editors who opposed the proposition, WP:NOCON was the only possible result. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There are enough WP:RS, both primary and secondary sources, that justify adding "Far-right" as a faction of the Republican party. Cortador linked many [17] [18] in addition to others [19] in the thread. The editors opposed to the change haven't argued why the many WP:RS should be ignored or provided WP:RS in rebuttal. Furthermore, Freedom caucus is listed as part of the Republican party in the infobox and they are considered far-right [20]. An editor mentioned the small size of the far-right faction[21] but I did not see an argument or discussion whether the faction is so small as to be irrelevant and therefore not subject to inclusion per Wikipedia policy. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close as this is an infobox entry that has to make a great reduction of context to come up with an entry. There was no agreement about this. Just because some sources exist is not sufficient reason. Absense of use on many other references s also important. But any way no agreement (not surprising) so that is a no consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no clear overarching policy here - there was an editorial decision to be made (a la due weight) as to whether it should be in the infobox. And there was no consensus if the burden was met or not. Sources existing does not mean something is due weight for inclusion in the infobox. The only possible outcome of this RfC was no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that, whether coincidentally or not, a new-ish editor claiming to be an IP editor has purported to close a similar RfC on the same talk page (Republican Party (United States) § RfC: Should center-right be removed from the infobox? with an outcome of "overwhelming consensus to list the Republican Party as a far-right party in the infobox". I will assume this is merely a mistake in thinking that consensus can override the clear no-consensus here, but I cannot help but think that second RfC was started because someone observed this RfC under question not going their way, so they were trying to shoehorn their desired POV into the article through another RfC. Ultimately, that second RfC should never have been started while this one was going on since the questions were so similar... but at this point, it's a huge mess. So while I stand by endorsing this closure, it may very well be better to simply "relist" it as a brand new RfC, from scratch, asking editors what term (or terms) the party should be described as in the infobox, if at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I would have closed the same way, and I see the opposing view as untenable.—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, noting that Chetsford explicitly did not find consensus in either direction, leaving open the possibility of continued discussion. Many arguments in that RfC are poor, with little or no reference to Wikipedia's policies, and this was not restricted to only one side of the argument. Applying fairly strict weighting I see more policy-based support for inclusion than exclusion, but not necessarily enough to call a consensus. If the RfC had been framed well it could possibly have resulted in a more nuanced outcome such as including "far-right" under positions, which had a little more support - but these options didn't receive enough attention. The RfC was also marked by some bludgeoning, particularly from the "oppose" side, but that's a behavioral issue that needs to be handled separately. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, as the arguments put forward by Springee, Nemov et al. Halbared (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, per Graeme Bartlett, berchanhimez, S Marshall, and Vanamonde93. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn. I could see this being NC, but given the closer's stated reliance on Toa's "evidence from past discussions" that, per @Aquillion, not only appears to be very weak/misrepresented but was part of a behavioral issue that got Toa TBANNED from this topic, I think a reassessment of consensus would be warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close The close is within the discretion of the closer and per

S Marshall, and Vanamonde93.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The side in favor of inclusion cited several reliable sources, including academic ones, showing that a faction of the Republican Party (the Freedom Caucus) is regularly described as far right, making its inclusion under faction ideologies due. Not one oppose explained why those sources were insufficient or pointed toward contrary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close This shouldn't even be a point of consideration. Their candidate won a majority of the votes in addition to the electoral college for the Presidency and hold a majority in both houses of Congress. While a small minority could be considered "far right", at this time, the party dominated by centrists and pragmatic right of center delegates. In addition, I see nothing in the notes of this closure nor the discussion which would sway me to consider that the closure of consensus (regardless of my personal opinions) was anything other than "no consensus" and status quo should remain as-is. Most if what I'm seeing here is wishcasting and vilification. Changing it now would only serve to bolster such actions. Buffs (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposal was to add far-right as one of the faction ideologies, not the ideology of the party. It's objectively true that various RSes describe the particular faction at issue in this RfC as far-right. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And we can agree to disagree that a) these are reliable sources and b) that these people are a "faction" and not an "insignificant minority", but I'm not going to do that here. I'll note that the article on Democrats doesn't show "far left" as a faction, but it most definitely has a sizable portion (especially its leadership) that fits that description. I'm not advocating for it either. They are a heavily vocal minority especially at the federal and localized state level that has highjacked a party drawing it further and further left, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of Democrats aren't significantly more moderate than them. The same holds true for Republicans: the big distinctions at the high levels of the federal government don't translate directly to the percentage of the party as a whole. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can agree to disagree about the sources here, but they were not adequately contested in the underlying discussion, which is what we look at in a close review. Several oppose !votes in the discussion said the sources weren't reliable, in particular claiming that there weren't academic sources being cited (which is untrue) and otherwise not explaining why the sources were insufficient. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll note that the article on Democrats doesn't show "far left" as a faction, but it most definitely has a sizable portion (especially its leadership) that fits that description. Uhhh...which US democratic leaders are even remotely far left? We barely have any socialists, let alone politicians to the left of that. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per TurboSuperA+. Feeglgeef (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Listen, if I had been a participant I would have supported including "far-right" too, but I also think any reasonable person reading that close has to concede that it is at least a reasonable representation of the consensus. Honestly I think that it is very transparently the most reasonable reading of the consensus and that supporting one side when the !votes are evenly divided is more likely than not to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Loki (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus is reached by evaulating arguments, not counting votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but not how persuasive they were to the closer specifically. How strong they were in the context of the argument, which is closely related to a straight vote count. Loki (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes but there was no valid argument on the oppose side, other than claims that "sources don't exist" when in fact they did. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not participated in the discussion, but I closed a couple of related discussions, including at Donald Trump, so I guess I'd be safer in this section.

Overturn. Supporters have demonstrated that there is ample sourcing to support the contention that at least a faction of the GOP is far-right, both in the media and the academia, which is the main metric that matters. They put up with the effort. As to the opponents... I would have expected them to say - these sources are bad, here are some academic articles saying that the Republicans are not in fact far-right/do not have far-right factions, decent news articles to the same effect. All I saw was baseless assertions that this is not how the academic mainstream sees the GOP, and that the Freedom Caucus is already labelled as right-wing to far-right, so no point to repeat this in the main GOP party infobox, and even then some of these folks agreed that maybe we should include the far-right label under "factions". There is a miscount of !votes in the closure, and the strength of arguments was wrongly assessed.

There was quite a bit of bludgeoning in the discussion from the supporters, but this doesn't change the overall picture for me: the sourcing is there, the opponents didn't really engage with the sources proposed, and objections ranged from personal opinions to esthetics of bloated infoboxes, but did not really discuss whether the reader stands to benefit from the omission in terms of whether the omission makes the article more informative, trustworthy, honest and neutral (or if they did, they were a minority). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically read the three discussions mentioned by Chetsford, and only the second one makes a real effort at evaluating sources. The sources support the notion that there is a far-right element in the GOP, but not that the Republicans as a whole are far-right. The other two discussions do not analyse sources but for the most part simply express opinions.

In contentious topics like these, I expect editors to engage in a discussion like this:

It's right to call the GOP far right, my sources are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...

OK, source 1 and 3 are academic and fine, source 2 is a blog, 4-7 are news and are OK-ish. But here's my sources to counter yours: 8, 9, 10, 11... Clearly, there is no agreement

Well, look, I agree with the opponent, I also have sources 12, 13, 14... to back this up.

That's not what was happening for the most part. What we need to reflect in the articles is the consensus of sources, not what editors think about US politics. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Overturn I was a participant in the discussion and advocated to include far-right in some form to the infobox. I do understand where Chetsford was coming from with the close - those of us who wanted to include far-right were unable to persuade the excluders. However Chetsford missed that I actually provided 8 academic sources, not merely 3 before I lost my appetite for reading about the Republican party. Chetsford also failed to note that one of the principal editors on the exclude side of the RfC was topic banned from AP2 for disruptive behaviour including their behaviour at the RfC. They were the one who claimed there were insufficient academic sources and these claims were pretty clearly demonstrated to show a double-standard. Consensus cannot be formed with someone who is going to ignore any evidence contrary to their position. For these reasons I think that Chetsford is, with this decision, allowing that an article can be kept in perpetual status quo so long as the most obstinate page-watchers just say "no," regardless of strength of argument. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It's baffling that they put so much weight on Toa Nidhiki05's comments, especially the flatly misrepresented discussions incorporated by reference (their misrepresentation of the consensus in those discussions, and their refusal to engage with the sources that debunked the arguments they made there and elsewhere, was one of the things that specifically got them topic-banned). It's also alarming that Chetsford put so much focus on the fact that, past a certain point, nobody bothered to continue replying to them. This was not a sign that the side for inclusion surrendered the point, it was because Toa Nidhiki05 was WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion with weak and duplicative arguments, which relied on flatly misrepresenting the contents of previous discussions in a way that was immediately obvious at a glance. Taking the position that every such vague and handwavy "nah the sources support me" comment must be replied to (even when so clearly and unequivocally misrepresenting the "incorporating discussions" that the person making them got topic-banned over it!) to would give too much force to bludgeoning. Discussions are decided based on the strength of arguments, not based on exhausting the opposition's willingness to continue. A closer obviously can't evaluate the sources in-depth, but when they feel that someone has caused another discussion to be incorporated by reference, there is some obligation to at least glance at the incorporated discussion to see if it could plausibly support their argument and therefore whether the incorporation is a weak or strong argument - which Chetsford clearly failed to do here given that (again!) Toa Nidhiki05's misrepresentation of those discussions actually got them topic-banned. Again, just looking between how scathingly Toa Nidhiki05's comments and interactions are described in the topic ban, as someone who bludgeoned the discussion while ignoring all arguments, and the glowing way Chetsford describes them here as if they made coherent points that went unrebutted, simply gives one whiplash. --Aquillion (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This was an overly long discussion but there are two factors at play. At the end of the day this is a case where what should be placed in the info box is a mix of editorial judgement and sourcing. This isn't a case where editors were arguing that this material couldn't be included in the article body. Rather the question was should such material be in a very high level summary box that by it's very nature doesn't allow for context etc. The closer correctly noted that just because some sources, even once published via scholarship, make a claim, that doesn't show this is a consensus view of scholars. In particular the closing comment that sources are more likely to say X is Y vs the negative would apply here. Second, when you have this many editors, a number who were not participants in the discussion, weigh in we can't just discount that editors felt this wasn't material that should go in this particular location. Springee (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - I’m baffled by the arguments for overturning this close. The discussion wasn’t about whether to include the information in the article — it was specifically about placing it in the infobox. There is no policy requiring this information to be in the infobox, and the RFC discussion clearly lacked consensus for its inclusion. I’m disappointed that anyone would suggest otherwise. The RFCs about politics really cause loose interpretation of policy. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. I think it's fairly obvious the discussion ended with no consensus. In my view, the discussion below is proving that. Not loving that many RfCs I am in are making appearances here! Carlp941 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Chetsford's comments above:

with both sides making equally valid policy arguments This is a misrepresentation of my case. The case I made above is that the arguments brought forward are not equally valid. The exclude side demanded sources, the include side provided sources, and the exclude side did not provide a reason why these sources are insufficient. In fact, no direct replies were made to the comments in which Simon223 and I provided said sources explaining why they are insufficient. Furthermore did never claim that a split RfC should result in an include. My argument is that - based on arguments made and not votes - there is no 50/50 split.

No editor presented a policy-based argument in the RfC as to why X# of sources would vanquish the "overwhelming" criterion set by the Oppose side in their WP:YESPOV argument. I fail to understand why the include side bringing forward sources seemingly doesn't matter, yet the exclude side setting a vague "overwhelming" threshold needs to be argued against specifically (and not just by simply providing a high number of high-quality sources).Cortador (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The exclude side demanded sources, the include side provided sources, and the exclude side did not provide a reason why these sources are insufficient.", I describe above -- and in my many other communications -- that this is simply not true. Toa Nidhiki05 (for instance) did, in fact, provide a reason they these were insufficient. And, to my shock and surprise, the entire Oppose camp simply surrendered the point, even though it would not have been a too difficult argument to overcome. Unfortunately, it's not appropriate for the closer to "fill in the blanks". Merely thinking a rebuttal is not sufficient, nor is enunciating it after the fact; one has to actually type it out before the close. I can't make arguments for you.
  with both sides making equally valid policy arguments This is a misrepresentation of my case. The case I made above is that the arguments brought forward are not equally valid. I'm not trying to represent your case, I'm making a statement as the closer. This seems to be an enduring issue of misunderstanding -- the expectation that I should be acting to further your interests. Chetsford (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Toa Nidhiki05 did not provide any arguments why the sourcing is insufficient. They made the following arguments: the RfC is unnecessary, far right would be a label, the sources aren't academic, the Freedom Caucus is also described as right-wing, academic sources actually describe the party as centre-right/right-wing, not enough academics support this (without providing sources), the Freedom Caucus is already listed, and the RfC is actually about describing the whole party (which is was not). Those are all the arguments they made, and I failed to see how these counter the argument that there is enough sourcing.

  You stated above: The opinion of the challenger here is that an RfC ending with a 50/50 split of "responsible Wikipedians" — with both sides making equally valid policy arguments — constitutes "as wide an agreement as can be reached" for Support.

That is what you claimed is my opinion, and this is how you presented by case, and it is not an accurate representation. Cortador (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Toa Nidhiki05 did not provide any arguments why the sourcing is insufficient." You must have missed this: "academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism". They bulwarked this statement by incorporating all of the sources in these three separate threads [22], [23], [24]. You chose not to respond or explain why the sourcing you had cited would overcome the voluminous sourcing the Oppose camp provided by invocation, instead spending your time on arguing against the more irrelevant positions of the Oppose side like their Freedom Caucus OR (in fact, you continue to argue exclusively against their weakest and most irrelevant arguments even here, ignoring their core presentation).That is what you claimed is my opinion, and this is how you presented by case, and it is not an accurate representation. I was making a statement of fact, not a representation of your opinion. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Chetsford (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was making a statement of fact, not a representation of your opinion. You literally wrote: The opinion of the challenger here is That is how you chose to word this, and what you wrote is neither my opinion nor a "statement of fact". I never claimed that a 50/50 split should result in inclusion.

  Two of those links don't link to any specific threads, just to an archive page in general. The first one has one discussion ("Please change to "centre-right to far-right". Here are the sources.") that only features sources in support for there being a far-right faction. A second discussion ("Centre-right and far-right faction") doesn't list any sources that contradict that the GOP has a far-right faction. The second link likewise doesn't link to any specific discussion. It has one discussion ("Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties") where Toa Nidhiki05 claims that there's academic consensus that the party isn't far right. They don't provide any sources for this supposed academic consensus, and also state that part of the party is far-right. Another editor, Viriditas provided a source that the party as a whole drifted to the far right. The third discussion ("Center-right", Center-right to right-wing", or "center-right to far-right") contains no sources except for one NYT opinion piece.

  I can't see whatever "voluminous sourcing" there supposedly is - unless you just took an editor's claim that there is sourcing at face value without the supposed sources actually having been provided. Cortador (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of fact that the RfC ended "with a 50/50 split of 'responsible Wikipedians' — with both sides making equally valid policy arguments". Your opinion is that this constitutes support, with which I disagree.

Except to say that I believe these are woefully inadequate characterizations, I can't address your other points, I'm afraid, as they are relitigations of the RfC, as opposed to challenges of the closing rationale. Chetsford (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that a split means consensus for support. This is something you (charitably) misread, and quite frankly I don't understand why you keep repeating it. If you think I did, please point to the exact sentence where I said so.

I believe you can't address the other points because, as other editors also pointed out, there's nothing to address. There is no "voluminous sourcing" in the links provided.

I also find it concerning that you were happy to repeat TN's argument that there are sources in the links, but when it comes to substanting it, you suddenly "can't address" it. This comes across as just accepting one side's arguments without assessing whether they are valid. Cortador (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I never claimed that a split means consensus for support." Then I guess I'm not entirely sure what the point of this close challenge is, if you don't think there's a consensus for Support. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is a case for inclusion based strength of arguments. I don't see how you could possibly conclude from that that I think support for a chance should be the consensus if the mere vote count is split.

Also, please point to the sources that TN supposedly brought up with those links. Cortador (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the question was "do any sources call parts of the GOP far-right" then the strength of the arguments would win. If the question was, "can we mention far-right in the body of the article" then I would agree. However, this is a question about putting an arguably contentious LABEL in the info box where context isn't provided. In that case editorial judgement is critical and editorial judgement didn't support inclusion in the info box. Springee (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was very long, winding and often hard to follow but Toa Nidhiki05 did provide reasons why a number of the scholarship sources provided at various points during the long discussions failed WP:V for the claims for which they were offered. However, the where and how "far-right" was to be included seemed to drift over time so it would be easy to see how a source dismissed for one use might be sufficient for another. Springee (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TurboSuperA+ - two questions:

• You said "there are enough sources". For my edification for the future, what number is "enough"?
• You said "The editors opposed to the change haven't argued why the many WP:RS should be ignored or provided WP:RS in rebuttal." For my edification for the future, can you describe why the three threads from 2024 that Toa Nidhiki05 incorporated by reference into the discussion with counter-sources and his argument as to the sufficiency of the sources provided, don't constitute a rebuttal?

Chetsford (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. In this source several academic sources are provided for far-right. Toa Nidhiki05 made a throw-away comment that there was a prior consensus. No sources provided to support.
2. In the second source, Toa Nidhiki05 points to a prior consensus but does not specify what evidentary basis it has. Viriditas provided several sources to remove "centre-right" from the article.
3. In the third source Toa Nidhiki05 claims academic reliable sources support center right and not far-right but doesn't identify any such sources. So, no, there were no sources in these links of TN05's that supported their position. They were just spamming links that referred to them making the same argument sans evidence in the past.Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   And that is why nobody addressed TN's "sources" - there were none to address. That came up a lot in the AE discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with this interpretation of the linked discussions, but have to leave it at that, unfortunately, as a point-by-point analysis gets into a relitigation of the RfC, unfortunately, as opposed to a challenge of the closing rationale. Chetsford (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please then tell me what reliable sources TN05 brought up in any of these three threads. Because you asked for an interpretation, one was given, then you said "well I disagree but I won't get into it."

No, please, get into it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to this that TN brought up those links to demonstrate that academic sources "broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing". Even ignoring that no actual sources were provided, just vague links, the RfC wasn't about party position, but the ideology of a faction within the party (which was pointed out by another editor). Taking this single comment that doesn't even address the question of the RfC and stating that it somehow has equal weight to all other sources that were actually linked to (and thus qualifies as an argument against inclusion) is beyond baffling. Cortador (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which we're relitigating the RfC here is bothering me. The view from 30,000 feet is that this RFC expired without consensus. Parsing it individual source by individual source is distinctly unhelpful.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Nobody has been able to provide the supposed sources in the past discussions. Relying on sources that can't be shown to exist to demonstrate strength of arguments isn’t acceptable. Cortador (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with S Marshall. This is an unproductive line of query and should cease forthwith. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was the closer's view that both sides provided reasoned arguments grounded in PAGs, and the closer specifically cited the !vote in question and its purported source analysis for that proposition. It's not counterproductive to point out that that particular !vote didn't actually discuss any sources in making a sweeping claim about the state of the academic literature. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN"... should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

User:Toa Nidhiki05

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban from AP/2

Administrator imposing the sanction

User:Rosguill

Notification of that administrator

[25]

I had debated making an immediate appeal, as I felt the decision was not in line with the facts of the case. The recent closure of the relevant RfC, where my arguments were directly cited by the closing admin, have given me reason to appeal.

The essential gist behind this topic ban, as I understand it, is that I refused to engage with sources and was pushing a point of view in a request for comment at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States). I argued that previous discussions on the page resulted in a local consensus for what the infobox should say about political positions, and that there is no academic consensus on whether the Republican Party is far-right, or at least enough to include it as a faction in the infobox. Like a dozen other editors, I opposed including it; the closing admin found no consensus for or against conclusion, and has cited my arguments in the closure. I did not edit war in regards to this subject, and there was no disruptive editing to the page in question; only discussion on the talk page.

As the closing admin for the RfC repeatedly has noted in the closure review for the RfC, I did use and engage with sources. Moreover, the biggest example used by administrators to justify the topic ban - a refusal to engage with sources provided by Simonm223 - is not accurate. You can see the context in this diff and this diff; in neither one am I even near the conversation, and yet Simonmn223 somehow holds me responsible for not responding. Simonm never linked me to where sources were provided; when they gave sources to me in a separate discussion, not only did I like the sources, I suggested they be used in the article. Essentially: I do not think it is fair to hold me responsible for not responding to a single editor's sources, in an RfC involving over two dozen editors - especially when said editor never presented the sources to me at any point, nor did they tag me in them, or even direct me to their location.

In the original AN/I thread, numerous uninvolved editors felt that my conduct on the page contained "no wrongdoing" or expressed outright confusion over what the behavior issue supposedly was. Other editors identified it as a content dispute. Even some of the administrators who ultimately supported a topic ban felt my behavior was "an opinion on a content dispute, not on editor behavior" or that they "[didn't] see much separating Toa's behavior from the crowd".

I contend that I didn't engage in wrongdoing here, and certainly not worthy of a topic ban. I was topic banned from AP/2 years ago; I fully take responsibility for my behavior then. However, I cannot take responsibility for things I have not done, and if my arguments at the RfC were compelling enough to be cited by the RfC closer, I don't think they can be called plainly disruptive. Toa Nidhiki05 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bludgeon, but I want to ask a question, Barkeep49. Can you please point to an actual example of me, on the page, being presented with academic sources, and immediately switching gears? In the AE thread, you based your comment on this about Simonmn's claim about presenting me sources. But, they never actually did this, as I showed above - they posted a handful of sources in a 25-person RfC in response to other people, and never pinged me, never tagged me, and never directed me to said sources.

I went back and looked at all my comments actively on the page - I looked at the RfC, and I can't find an example of me actively denying a source when presented it. My general point was I didn't think the academic consensus backed the claim, not that no sources existed - I think? Can you please show diffs of this happening? This would provide some clarity to me. Toa Nidhiki05

I might be blind but, I've scanned this multiple times and at least at the point in the thread you linked to, I don't see any sources provided by Simonm, let alone to me? At least at where you linked to (I'm assuming the discussion below, which is about the Tea Party), I don't see any sources presented by Simonmn. There are a few by Theofunny, about the Tea Party, but I'm hardly the only person to not respond in that specific comment chain - frankly, nothing said contradicted what I said (a chunk of the Tea Party became Trumpist).

I'm not demanding diffs for any malicious reason, and you're clearly not persuadable, so I'm not going to try to. I just don't believe that's an accurate reflection of what happened. I'm not going to acknowledge something I don't believe happened, let alone apologize for it, if that makes sense. Again, I don't want to bludgeon, and you probably think this is some sort of civil attempt at something malicious, so this is the last I'll talk about it, but it's genuinely frustrating. Toa Nidhiki05 03:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see what the context is. I did respond in an area, close to sources Simonmn provided. Except, it's not in that discussion - it's in a separate comment chain, nearly a day after, on an entirely unrelated subject. This was also the first time I commented in that thread since January 13 (eight days prior). So no, I wasn't actively involved in Simonm's discussion beforehand, so I'm not sure why a direct rebuttal of sources given to someone else would be expected?

Anyway, that's the last I'll say there. It's clear that there won't be any budging from either of us on this. But I felt I needed to make this clarification so you knew I had actually seen it eventually. Toa Nidhiki05 04:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, I don't think you are accurately describing the situation.

• My argument was that previous discussions ([26] [27] [28]) yielded a local consensus for center-right to right-wing, backed by reliable sources, and that Warrenmck's proposal (adding "far-right" and "anti-intellectualism" to the infobox) and sources weren't convincing, especially when said changes had been rejected in numerous other discussions. Moreover, I agreed with suggestions for a moratorium on changes, as the topic of changing the political position comes up almost daily on the talk page (I also supported instituting a moratorium on changes following the closure of the RfCs in question, regardless of the outcome).
• I reject Rosguill's claims that I misled. In fact, Rosguill's analysis is lacking, or in some cases, in error; for example, they claimed that I gave a diff as evidence of Warrenmck doing something, but the diff was not of Warrenmck. However, the diff in question wasn't of Warrenmck doing anything - if was of another user acknowledging a local consensus existed, something Warrenmck denied. Essentially: Rosguill misread what I said, and when I pointed this out, they essentially shrugged it off as the "vague recollection of the prior discussion" without acknowledging they misread to begin with.
• Much of the rest of Rosguill's case is arguing previous discussions didn't show a local consensus - but this is their opinion, and other editors (like BootsED) have disagreed on the matter. Regardless, it had been established on the article for over half a year, meaning it pretty unquestionably was a status quo. Rosguill also argued I didn't provide sources, when I did, from the previous discussions; Chetsford actually cited this in their closure ("For my edification for the future, can you describe why the three threads from 2024 that Toa Nidhiki05 incorporated by reference into the discussion with counter-sources and his argument as to the sufficiency of the sources provided, don't constitute a rebuttal?").
• When Simonm223 added their sources, it was to their initial vote on January 20; I had not participated in the discussion since January 13, and did not comment again until the 22nd. Simonmn223 did not give their sources in response to me, they never responded to any of my comments with them, and they never linked me to them or tagged me to them. It should not be a surprise, then that I didn't respond to them. Compare this to a separate discussion on a separate topic where they did do those things, I liked their sources and suggested adding them to the article. In fact, you can find numerous other discussions where I actively worked with and collaborated over sourcing - both during the run of the RfC, and in the prior discussions, where I was actively involved in finding the best sources. If I was refusing to engage with sources, why did I not only engage with sources from editors I was in conflict with, but approve of them?
• Essentially: I don't think Rosguill's case established I lied. I also don't think Rosguill claimed that, either - they claimed I misled. But I don't think I did that, either, and I don't think the evidence backs it up. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess:

• To your first point: Rosguill misread what I said, or the situation. Here's the link to the relevant RfC that gave an initial consensus for right-wing. The closer's wording was very specific: there was a consensus to include a political position, and to include right-wing, provided reliable sources were given. Take a look at the RfC and you'll see the issue. By my count, only one user - Springee - gave a source in the entire discussion. This is the opposite of how things are supposed to work. You don't don't decide what to write first and then find sources - you look up sources first, and write based on what they say. So, an immediate discussion after this (this one) was about what sources to use. We ultimately found a lot of sources to back up the claim - but we also found a lot of sources for center-right. In this very large thread, editors ultimately worked together to find sources for both, and this stuck for about six months as a local conensus. Those are the three discussions I've used when referring to what editors ultimately agreed to, although they aren't the only discussions on the matter.
• To your second: I'm referring to the local consensus that was created. To be clear, I was not saying there was an RfC, nor was I saying there was unanimous agreement. But there ultimately was a wording that was agreed upon by enough editors to stick for six months on a very contentious topic. That's the consensus I'm referring to. This doesn't preclude discussions or additional findings - this is just what me, and a bunch of editors, found while working on the page. A similar process happened at Democratic Party (United States), where the broad agreement was that center-left on its own was the appropriate descriptor. The last year saw, after two decades of not having a position listed, rough agreements on what the political positions should be - as well as over factions. I participated in both, and I'm reasonably proud of how editors came together on both pages.
• For the third: What I was referring to was a frequent claim Warrenmck (the editor who brought the AE complaint) made - that there was no consensus at all. They referred to it as a "mythical previous consensus" in their opening statement. My presented diff was, essentially, entirely misunderstood by Rosguill. I used it to debunk Warrenmck by pointing out another editor involved in the discussion corroborated what I was saying (that there were multiple discussions that resulted in a consensus). In contrast, Rosguill looked at the diff, saw Warrenmck wasn't involved at all, and said "The diff... does not demonstrate evidence of Warrenmck doing anything in particular" - and even after I explained it to Rosguill, they didn't seem to understand. Rosguill used this as a key argument to prove I was misleading people - but what actually happened is Rosguill just misunderstood what I said.
• Hopefully this was helpful, Chess. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chess:
• The closer of the RfC, Mdann52, explicitly confirmed what I am saying in this diff where they elaborated on the close ("I don't recall any mention of sources in that discussion, so I haven't considered them, and hence that caveat. If there had been discussion of sourcing, I would have worded it more like "as backed up by the sources cited below" or similar, but there was no discussion of sources so I deemed that appropriate for another discussion"). I would personally consider this sufficient, but I think, broadly, the (at minimum) two additional discussions on sourcing also drive forward this point. Among the thread, myself and users Moxy ("Yes need academic sources that go into detail and explain things... and not connected to the United States directly"), DMacks ("As several have mentioned (and the closer has confirmed[1]), the consensus you keep pointing to does not rule that that these refs support the text") and Carlp941 ("I agree that the initial sourcing was thin. I have added better sources, quoted and bolded the relevant texts that I believe call the Republican Party right wing in some form") felt a look or addition of sources was needed; only one user, Cortador, disagreed and said that "If you believe that sourcing wasn't strong enough, the time to bring that up as the now-closed discussion above".
• For the second discussion - I think it's fair to question whether the thread resulted in a consensus on the matter, in hindsight. There wasn't a formatted RfC, and many users only commented once. I'll note that of those who participated more than once, three (myself, BootsED, and Carlp941) felt there were sources for both, while JohnAdams1800 supported having right-wing, with a note saying there are center-right and far-right factions. Mhoat and Viriditas did engage generally in opposition, but I don't think either really gave a vote; The Four Deuces has always opposed having a position listed at all. Ultimately, the discussion did result in center-right to right-wing sticking on the page for six months - I don't think there's any real debate on that front. I consider that a fairly stable local consensus, which is what I'm referring to - especially given how contentious the page is. But if you're looking for the discussion to firmly end in a decision... yeah, it's fair to say it kind of trailed off, without closure.
• I'd be happy to elaborate further if needed. Toa Nidhiki05 03:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this appeal addresses the bulk of the evidence and discussion at Special:Diff/1276375953#Result_concerning_Toa_Nidhiki05. To that end, it's worth noting that despite the layout of this appeal, the decision to impose a tban was made by a consensus of 5 admins in discussion, with Vanamonde93, the sole dissent, stating We should close with a TBAN. I don't feel the conduct rises to the level of a TBAN but I do feel there has been misconduct, and as such this isn't a hill I will die on. Ironically, one of the issues from that AE that I personally found most concerning and necessitating sanctions was Toa's tendency to misrepresent past discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the remaining admins that participated in that decision, Seraphimblade, Barkeep49, Guerillero. as well as Liz who chimed in but deliberately avoided asserting opinions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess regarding the last bullet point about accusing Warrenmck of denying past discussion without evidence, my concern was that the diff attached to the claim did not provide evidence concerning Warrenmck's behavior, and as such the accusation was essentially an unsupported allegation. Toa removed the claim while rewording responses, so I would consider that issue retracted and settled. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised Toa's comments were cited by the closer. Many of them were good and an RfC closer shouldn't really be reading with behavioral conduct in mind. In the same way AE admins shouldn't be engaging with content. But, as I noted at AE he also engaged in what I believe was Civil POV pushing at the RFC with the clearest example being around the moving of goalposts when it came to academic sources - first claiming that they needed to be produced and then changing gears when they were. Examining his behavior in a vaccuum I'd have supported a logged warning. However, we're less than 6 months removed from a topic ban being loosened. That is what separated Toa's conduct from "the crowd" in my mind. I look forward to reading what other editors think, but will repeat a point Rosguill made above: this was endorsed by 4 admins with a 5th finding misconduct but supporting a lesser sanction and a 6th offering a general assessment. This stands in contrast to many AE threads which end up with ~3 admins deciding the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toa: I formed my belief of your civil POV pushing after reading the entire discussion (and parts of the prediscussion). And by providing single diffs it could inaccurately suggest that whatever limited diffs I present are the only reason why I came to the conclusion I did rather than in the context of a much longer discsussion. But since you have started this by saying you're not interested in bludgeoning and thus are, I would presume, unlikely to try and play that game, I will gladly present you a diffs in answer to your request. Here you are replying in discussion of evidence Simon presented around discussion of academic, making no effort to acknowledge what has been presented. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I weakly opposed a TBAN at AE not because Toa's conduct was acceptable but because there was considerable misconduct of the same sort in the discussions we were examining. Having re-read the RfC referred to above in the context of the close review referred to above (where, for the record, I endorsed the closure) I am not willing to grant an appeal on the basis of the sanction being wrong; Toa was unquestionably engaged in civil pov-pushing and gatekeeping, and a failure to recognize any misconduct is an indication to me that the TBAN was the appropriate outcome at AE. I also second BK49's statement that an RfC closure should not be engaging with behavioral issues when assessing consensus, and as such the persuasiveness of Toa's arguments in that RfC are a non sequitur. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this appeal has changed my mind that reinstating the topic ban from American politics that was loosened less than a year ago was a reasonable action by myself and the other AE admins to limit disruption in a contentious area of the project. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've got much to add that has not been said. My primary concern was not that Toa Nidhiki05 was engaged in conduct particularly more egregious than anyone else warned here, but rather that he had already been recently banned from the topic area, and had the ban lifted recently. I think having been already sanctioned is more than warning enough, and I cannot imagine additional warnings being effective in such a scenario, so the only real options were to either do nothing or reinstate the sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post this here (as opposed to the uninvolved section below) since I was part of the discussion that led to the ANI discussion (though not the ANi discussion itself). TN has not address the primary reason for the ban with this appeal, and due to the previous ban, this ban does not stand in isolation. The reason brought up below to lift or shorten the ban are insufficient. "Other editors are problematic too" is an argument to sanction other editors, not to not sanction TN. Shortening the ban needs a reason, and none was given. Lastly, TN did not engage with the sources provided in that discussion, and merely claimed that there was already consensus in archived threads they linked to. The links did not contain sources supporting his arguments. Cortador (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has the definition of uninvolved changed? Several of those commenting below took part in either the AE thread in question, at various American politics-related pages, or both. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that my first interaction with Tao was at Talk:National_Football_League#Change_the_term_club_back_to_team. While it's obviously not a contentious topic area, his behavior in that thread was far from ideal. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I qualify as an involved editor or not, but I have been heavily engaged in several discussions with Toa on the pages for the Republican and the Democratic Party pages and in a prior noticeboard about him. I want to speak to Toa's character.

I found Toa to be very civil and insightful in conversations I had with him. While I did not always agree with him, I found he based his reasons in policy and did not engage in emotional, personal attacks. I can see why some would see his behavior as civil POV pushing, but I would disagree that there was any ill intent and that such actions were misinterpreted. Talk pages on politics can get very heated, and at times individuals push blatantly wrong or loaded assertions and misinterpretations of policy. I noticed that Toa always tried to stay civil and calm. A lot of the conversations and allegations of misinterpreting past discussions, I believe, are not due to ill intent, but the simple fact that such discussions happened over so many months over so many talk sections that they tended to all blur together.

I can also easily see how Toa did not intend to misinterpret any prior discussions, but sincerely believed that he was correct in his recollection of prior conversations. Several prior discussions regarding whether to call the Republican Party "center-right" and disagreements over consensus had me confused, as I also had a similar understanding to Toa that such prior consensus had been reached. I don't believe that Toa should be topic banned, as he did some very good work on other political pages, such as helping solve the long-standing debate over whether to call the Democratic Party "center-left" and assisting myself in grading the sources I had found on this topic. If a ban is necessary, I would propose a temporary topic ban, not a permanent one. We need more good editors on Wikipedia. BootsED (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the last 15 years to see what the info-box said for political position and put my findings below. They include today's version and the one's for the end of each quarter. I apologize if any errors were made.

The position in the political spectrum field was blank for over a decade before editors decided to re-add it last year. During that time, adding specific descriptions were discussed and rejected and sometimes edit-warring occured. Anyone who has followed the page during that time, including Toa would be correct in determining that there was consensus against each and every one of the possible descriptions. That's why the field was left blank. It would be onerous on them to go through 36 pages of talk page discussions and thousands of article edits and pinpoint where exactly each consensus was formed.

In any case, anyone who disagreed on content can always say that consensus can change. It does not stop them from arguing for change to the article.

While the outcome of an RfC was to re-add the field, there was no consensus for what it should say. I was in opposition in that RfC because the terms can denote different things, depending on context. Right-wing and far right usually mean more right-wing than the speaker considers acceptable, while center-right, centrist, center-left and left-wing usually mean within the acceptable range of political views.

In any case, the finding of fact in the RfC on how to describe the position of the Republican Party on the political spectrum proves that TN was correct in their assessment. This is a content dispute and should be treated as such.

TFD (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Right-wing" [15:44, 1 March 2025][29]
• "Center-right to right-wing" [31 December 2024][30]
• "Center-right to right-wing" [30 September 2024][31]
• "Center-right to right-wing" [30 June 2024][32]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2024][33]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2023)[34]
• (Field blank) [30 September 2023)[35]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2023)[36]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2023][37]
• (Field blank) [27 December 2022][38]
• (Field blank) [28 September 2022][39]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2022][40]
• (Field blank) [28 March 2022][41]
• (Field blank) [30 December 2021][42]
• (Field blank) [27 September 2021][43]
• (Field blank) [29 June 2021][44]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2021][45]
• (Field blank) [28 December 2020][46]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2020][47]
• (Field blank) [28 March 2020)[48]
• (Field blank) [30 December 2019][49]
• (Field blank) [30 September 2019)[50]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2019][51]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2019][52]
• (Field blank) [28 December 2018][53]
• (Field blank) [27 September 2018)[54]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2018][55]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2018][56]
• (Field blank) [28 December 2017][57]
• (Field blank) [28 September 2017][58]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2017][59]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2017][60]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2016)[61]
• (Field blank) [26 September 2016][62]
• (Field blank) [23 June 2016][63]
• (Field blank) [31 March 2016][64]
• (Field blank) [29 December 2015][65]
• (Field blank) [29 September 2015][66]
• (Field blank) [29 June 2015][67]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2015][68]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2014][69]
• (Field blank) [27 September 2014][70]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2014][71]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2014][72]
• (Field blank) [27 December 2013][73]
• (Field blank) [30 September 2013][74]
• (Field blank) [25 June 2013][75]
• (Field blank) [29 March 2013][76]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2012][77]
• {Field blank) [30 September 2012][78]
• (Field blank) [30 June 2012][79]
• "(Position in national political spectrum) Center-right" [31 March 2012][80]
• (Field blank) [31 December 2011][81]
• "Center-right" [26 September 2011][82]
• "Center-right" [19 June 2011][83]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [31 March 2011][84]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [27 December 2010][85]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [29 September 2010][86]
• "Fiscal: Center-right/Social: Center-right" [30 June 2010][87]
• (Field blank) [30 March 2010][88]

• I think it's fair for Toa to ask for the specific evidence and the rationale used. One of the purposes of an appeal is to determine whether or not the admin team's decision was supported by the evidence. Rosguill is the admin that gave the most comprehensive explanation, so I'll pattern after that:
  • The first issue is whether or not Toa accurately represented past talk page discussions, including the state of past consensus.
    • In this appeal, Toa agrees that they argued that past consensus was to exclude the term "far-right"... and doesn't actually provide a defence here. At the AE thread, Rosguill analyzed several diffs that demonstrated Toa lied about past discussions, not just about the strength or state of consensus but about actions other editors have taken.
    • In contrast, the most I can read into Toa's appeal is a claim that Chetsford's close endorsed their view. Chetsford endorsed that a no consensus result means the WP:STATUSQUO. This is not an endorsement of whether Toa accurately summarized consensus, it's an acknowledgement that the article did not have "far-right" in the infobox before the RfC. For it to be an endorsement of Toa's position, it would have to explain that the status quo is a result of a specific discussion. I'll get into more detail about this later.
    • Lying to influence discussions is generally considered disruptive behaviour warranting of a topic ban. Because Toa has not (yet) given reasons as to why they haven't lied, I will take Rosguill's assessment of the situation at face value, so that justifies the topic ban.
  • The second issue Toa brings up is that the biggest example used by administrators to justify the topic ban - a refusal to engage with sources provided by Simonm223 - is not accurate.
    • This does not appear to be an accurate representation of the AE thread. Quoting Rosguill (emphasis added):

    • Refusing to engage substantively with the sources provided by Simonm223 is not sanctionable on its own. However, taken together with the other issues identified here, and the continued general participation in proceeding discussion, it is very bad form and a missed opportunity for Toa Nidhiki05 to demonstrate good faith editing.

    • Rosguill has explicitly said that Toa's refusal to engage with Simonm223 is not the main reason for the topic-ban. Instead, Rosguill appears to be saying that if Toa displayed more collaborative behaviour elsewhere in the discussion (e.g. by conceding Simonm223 brought legitimate, peer-reviewed articles or by refuting them), that would be a mitigating factor.
    • I would side with Rosguill here. Editors that consistently go out of their way to collaborate with others should get the benefit of the doubt. But let's say I completely agree with Toa's logic that this is a completely unrealistic expectation and mentally delete those paragraphs. That does not invalidate the original reason for the topic ban, which was lying about past discussions. It only invalidates a mitigating circumstance that could've gotten Toa off the hook. To be convinced, I'd have to hear from Toa how they did engage with other editors' sources.
  • Toa also cites various editors at ANI who think a topic-ban would be unjustifiable. That is unconvincing because it doesn't provide any reasoning as to why it's unjustified beyond "other people said so".
  • The final argument is that because Chetsford endorsed Toa's reasoning, that makes the topic-ban unjustified. The problem with that (and I stated this above) is that Chetsford mainly endorsed Toa's reasoning that there should be a strong sourcing requirement of academic articles. That does not automatically entail endorsing everything Toa said, and as I explained above, Chetsford did not endorse the untruths about past consensus.
• To conclude, I would endorse the t-ban. Toa's ban was primarily based on lying about past discussions, which is disruptive behaviour. Toa has not given a justification about why they did not lie about past discussions. While Toa disputes other aspects of the AE thread, failing to address the main reason one was topic-banned means the topic ban was probably justified. I'm not an admin and I'm mostly uninvolved in American politics (with the exception of Talk:List of nicknames used by Donald Trump and closing some RfCs). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toa Nidhiki05: The dispute over whether you engaged with Simonm223's sources was not the main justification for the topic-ban, so adding more information on that won't convince me.

  Your burden (in my mind) is to show that Rosguill was wrong about the three examples cited at the AE thread of you misleading other editors. That means I disagree with Barkeep49's position that by providing single diffs it could inaccurately suggest that whatever limited diffs I present are the only reason why I came to the conclusion I did rather than in the context of a much longer discsussion: I believe it is a requirement that closers/admins should explain the reasons for their decision and explain what evidence they relied upon so others can effectively challenge the process, so I'm not giving weight to views that aren't reasoned from evidence. Point by point, your most recent comment doesn't refute Rosguill's three examples:

  • Rosguill said It is highly misleading to summarize this discussion as "agreed that the initial consensus didn’t actually look at sources". I understand that your argument is that there was consensus as a result of that discussion (and others). But you haven't explained how your specific word choices were not misleading, such as the claim that the "consensus didn't actually look at sources". You'd have to give me a detailed explanation of what happened at that discussion and what part of Rosguill's point is invalid as a result.
  • Rosguill said Similarly, the [89] discussion which is summarized as "a later discussion found that reliable sources also say the party is center-right, and that this should be included as well" shows extensive disagreement as to whether center-right belongs in the article. You haven't explained here how, at that specific article, there actually was a consensus among editors about the term "center-right".
  • Rosguill said The diff given to support "Warrenck, who did not participate in any of these to be clear, insists this never happened, despite being directed to it numerous times", does not demonstrate evidence of Warrenmck doing anything in particular. Can you give the full context of what you said here, and why Rosguill misread it? This one I see your point on, and would appreciate Rosguill's clarification about.

  Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Toa and Rosguill agree that the third point probably shouldn't play a role in the topic-ban. That being said, I'm not convinced by Toa Nidhiki05 that the first and second points were accurate.

  • Specifically, your first point argues that this RfC[90] didn't actually look at sources. You didn't get the t-ban for arguing that, you got the t-ban for representing that there was wide agreement with your view. So, the burden in my mind is to show that your description of this follow-up discussion as "agreed that the initial consensus didn’t actually look at sources" was accurate. I'd like you to explain specifically, cited to quotes (or diffs), what parts of that discussion show an agreement the initial consensus didn't look at sources.
  • Your second point again asserts that a consensus was created at [91], and that the consensus stuck for 6 months. That's a conclusory statement, because you're not explaining how, based on that discussion, a consensus was formed.

  Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't see much here to warrant a topic ban. Distorting/misrepresenting (if not outright lying) about sources and so on are things I've seen happen in just about every talk page discussion here. (Not to mention the gatekeeping stuff, which is occurring on a lot of pages.) What is interesting (at least to me) is the fact that this type of thing typically happens to the right-wingers here, and nothing ever happens to left-wingers. Outside of vandals, I can't think of the last time I've seen this happen to someone POV pushing left-wing talking points.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Nobody follows the rules anyways, so we should give up on enforcing the rules" doesn't explain how the t-ban failed to prevent disruption in the American Politics area, so it's not reasoning that can play a role in closing the thread. The current policy is that if one feels a left-wing editor is POV-pushing and lying about sources, one should bring that editor to WP:AE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the rules don't mean much if they are selectively enforced (or reported). Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do something about it then. Call someone out and risk your social capital/status by filing a WP:AE complaint. The rules are meaningless if they're not enforced at all. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet just 3 days ago someone who generally seems to have a left-wing PoV and is not a vandal was topic banned in a thread above. And that wasn't even their first topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Who are we talking about here? Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles affected have been stagnant for some time...... let's see what other editors can do with the sources rather than being overwhelmed. Moxy🍁 00:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nil Einne, I think a difference here is the editor I believe you are mentioning has quite a history of trying to push negative, partisan material into articles and also has a history of ignoring things like BRD while expressing hostility towards editors who object. As individual edits they don't obviously cross CIVIL but the sum over time is significant. Springee (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want to compare the two as it's not of much relevanceto the appeal, one reason I didn't link to the thread or mention the name. My sole point is that it's ridiculous for Rja13ww3 to complain about "I can't think of the last time I've seen this happen to someone POV pushing left-wing talking points" when it happened a few days ago on this very board which is or was still visible at the time. And this editor has been topic banned before a few months ago further it isn't some non occurrence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So how about name who we are talking about so we can see how ridiculous my complaint is (second request)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No for the reasons stated. Springee has established that it did happen if you doubt it. If you can't figure it out on your own, maybe just accept that AE topic bans happen all the time many without even making it to ARE or AN and you don't know about them all? They are of course always logged. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I guess I'll have to ask Springee (although he has noted some issues with this comparison, whatever it may be).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) BTW having looked at the logs for 2024 and 2025, for AP only there were less individual sanctions than I expected but also I challenge anyone to argue it's only right wingers who are sanctioned. If anything I saw more editors who seem to have a left-wing PoV there and at least it's about 50-50. Of course we're talking under 15 editors so any stats are fairly silly anyway Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I sure haven't seen it. The sanctions I have typically seen against left-wingers here (at least on the American politics pages I monitor) are almost always cut and dried stuff (like 3RR and so on). Or we are talking about trolls with not much of a posting history. I (almost never) see the kind of charges brought against Toa leveled against left-wingers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  {{UnpopularOpinionPuffin}} Just going to note here that even if this is absolutely true, there's an alternative hypothesis to 'Wikipedia is biased': that people on one side of the political spectrum are more likely to step in it than the other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is important to keep in mind. Wikipedia's core policies are affected by WP:ACADEMICBIAS - we treat high-impact academic sources, and the mainstream media, as being generally neutral and reliable; conversely, while some sources may be very high-quality and considered the paper of record or a gold standard in their topic area or the like, no individual source is given absolute authority (which particularly means religious sources.) If you look at the current political alignments in the United States, this is going to frustrate people on the American right, since their political alliances contain many more people who reject academia and the mainstream media, or who believe that religious writings should be the ultimate source of truth. People like that, editing here, are going to have to constantly grind their teeth as they're forced to accept that the New York Times is a better source than Fox News, or that a peer-reviewed paper by Nikole Hannah-Jones is a better source than Newsmax, or that a big pile of academics and historians can have more weight than what they consider divinely-ordained truth, or that we need to take a global viewpoint as opposed to a nationalist one. And a lot of them are unable to cope with that to the point where they're just not able to fit in here - if someone can't work with those things then they're literally not here to write an encyclopedia, as we describe it. Obviously there's a wide range of people out there with a wide range of views and we get good editors or bad ones from all over the political spectrum (the list of banned left-leaning editors contains plenty of people who eg. reject the mainstream media, too); but in terms of its basic structure and viewpoint, the focus of the American Right, as it is now, is structured in a way that creates a core tension with trying to write a neutral, global encyclopedia based on high-quality academic sources and mainstream papers of record, which means it wouldn't be surprising for us to get more WP:NOTHERE editors from the right. And this also creates, I think, a sense among some right-leaning editors that they're being oppressed even when eg. the statistics show we're nonetheless banning people roughly evenly - because the core of Wikipedia's purpose is, in fact, sometimes incompatible with their outlook and beliefs. Their reaction is similar to the reaction they have to academia, which is inevitable given that Wikipedia is fundimentially academic in structure - they see their ideas and beliefs being, in their eyes, disrespected, and to them this refusal to engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE is evidence of bias. --Aquillion (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is truth there but I didn't think that covers all of the topic. When it comes to behavioral issues there is a perception and concern that being aligned with the general majority results in more latitude given to otherwise the same behaviors. There are quite a few discussions about the unlockable editors, the editors who are often uncivil but it's "ok because they do good work". The same behavior in an editor who is going against the majority would be quickly squashed. There is also a concern that articles move from impartial to negative based on how much emphasis wiki editors place on RS'ed content they feel is DUE. See the debate about Patel and conspiracies theorist in the opening sentence. I know I've been accused of white washing right wing figures but that isn't my intent. Though it happens far less I've also rejected such content on left wing topics/people. This is why I often think it's worth looking at En. Britannica as a reference not for specific content but rather for tone and weight. When editors are fighting to make an article more negative we should err on the side of caution left or right. That's the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a commentary article. Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well put Springee. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well anyone can claim they did or did not see something in their experience. It's fairly useless as evidence for anything. As I said if we examine the evidence it tells a different story. This year 2025 there have been 7 editors with logged actions on AP Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025. 3 of these have under 250 edits so I think we can ignore them as insignificant. Of the remaining, one of them only received a warning, actually this was at the same time as Toa's sanction I believe. Another only received a 1 week partial block so again seems to be whatever. So of the two remaining editors there's Toa and an editor who largely edits from the left.

  Going back to 2024 Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024, I count logged actions involving 14 editors. Two of them have now been blocked as sockpuppeters, so I think we can ignore these two. One has under 200 edits and was eventually indefed for spending all their time arguing while another with under 150 edits was indeffed for making legal threata, again I think we can ignore these two as well. Another just received a warning, again seems reasonable to ignore it. Another received just a one week partial block, so seems fair to ignore it. One initially received a 24 hour block later converted to an ordinary block, again seems fair to ignore it. (This editor was later indeffed as an ordinary admin action then eventual found to have socked anyway.) One received a 24 hour block again can be ignored especially since they were later found to have socked. So that's 8 editors.

  Of the remaining 6. One left leaning editor received a 90 day topic ban from a specific article, we could ignore this but it's the same editor who generally seems to have a left-wing PoV, who was recently indefinitely topic banned, they also received a warning in 2024 so seems fair to count it them to me. Another editor who again seems to have generally a left-wing PoV received 6 month topic bans. And yet another who seems to generally have a left-wing PoV received a voluntarily but enforceable ban for 6 months. AFAIS, none of these cases were 3RR or anything that simple. One editor who I'd say has more right-wing PoV successfully appealed a topic ban. Another who's PoV I really have no idea successfully appealed a topic ban. Toa of course also successfully appealed their topic ban. (To be clear, all these appealed topic bans don't show up in the 2024 log, I assume they were from before.)

  So again where's the evidence for your claim?

  Note I am not interested in discussing Springee's claim that editors who operate from a right wing PoV are generally sanctioned more severely. That's a much more sophisticated claim which requires careful analysis of the relative behaviours etc which IMO seems clearly offtopic here. However the claim that left-leaning editors are never sanctioned is IMO clearly silly when we examine the evidence. I only did a quickish analysis so perhaps I missed one editor or two. And this is only editors sanctioned under CTOP for AP rather than those who receive a community ban or whatever; and any of those blocked as an ordinary admin action. And I guess some might quibble with excluding those editors with very limited sanctions feeling they need to be counted. (Although I'd note I'm unconvinced even if we count these there's a clear bias.)

  Likewise I guess some may suggest we drove those who were socks into socking due to unfair treatment or those who had very few edits would have made brilliant editors but they gave up or whatever. However this seems to cut both ways. One reason it seems to me fair to exclude them is because the initial statement said "outside of vandals" so IMO it's fair to exclude anyone who doesn't seem to have fairly engaged with wikipedia or who have very few edits even if they're not vandals. Of course even an editor who has socked can make it back, in fact the editor who's PoV I don't know who successfully appealed their ban did get in trouble for socking in prior years, but redeemed themselves enough that they managed to appeal their ban and have so far not received any further ban. However those editors who got in trouble last year, haven't yet managed to do so.

  Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well no offense, but pardon me if I don't take your word for those situations.....considering the fact you wouldn't reveal the comparison you made here [92]....and I don't blame you (now that Springee has told me who you are comparing), considering those situations really aren't that comparable. Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO, his t-ban should be lifted. At the very least, shorten the t-ban to six months. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconded. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a tban was warranted here. If admins felt some type of sanction was warranted I would suggest something that slowed down the number of rapid fire replies vs an outright Tban. TN did engage with the sources presented to them on the talk page. In particular a large number of sources were presented as "proof" for one of the discussions. TN took the time to review the sources and explain why most failed WP:V. That is exactly the sort of thing we want an editor to be willing to do. I don't see the claim of prior consensus as a critical issue since, during a rapid fire series of responses, a case where an editor is basically being tag teamed, it's easy to overstate the outcome of discussions buried in the talk archives. This is especially true when some of the involved editors, including the one who brought the original complaint, were making questionable article level edits rather than getting consensus first. If I was going to be critical of TN's actions I would say the worst thing they did was reply too quickly, too often. TN was civil the whole time (something even the complainant admitted). If a sanction is needed I would suggest something like a daily reply limit. That keeps the flood of replies down and often forces the limited person to more carefully weigh their replies since they can't fire off a large number of short replies. I suggested this to, I think, Barkeep49 at the time and would suggest it again as a minimum sanction needed to address the problem. Springee (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Several editors have said TN doesn't look at sources added by others. Here is an example where they reviewed a whole list of sources added to the article. I'm not sure why it was already in the archive since the discussion related to the far-right sources [93] and the discussion was just just a month back. I haven't traced through the article edits to see who added these to the article. Regardless, other than the rapid fire discussion getting in the way, TN clearly is willing to review sources and engage in discussions of the same. Around the this of these accusations there was so much rapid fire editing that is was hard to follow all of it and take the time needed for detailed replies. Springee (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Posted at 02:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User_talk:Szmenderowiecki#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

Reasoning: The RFC was closed a week early despite votes still coming in, as acknowledged in the close discussion. I'm counting by rough math at least 5 to 1 for oppose vs. support, but saw that it closed with no consensus. Would like to confirm math behind discarding the votes like that.

I'm not even reading the justification for the close, editors simply shouldn't close contentious RfC's early -> who gets to decide what is "too soon?" There is an informal rule of thumb saying you generally shouldn't do that before 7 days have passed, but here we have 19 days. There is nothing wrong with letting discussions go even for two months, but this is really becoming a big timesink, the returns are diminishing and I think that we should just move on. The result is very unlikely to have changed within that week or so. If there is any problem with the merits, I'm ready to address it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Springee It doesn't say that. The page about requests for comment says this:

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

Emphasis mine.

There definitely is more than enough comment at this stage to make a proper determination. 30 days is an arbitrary threshold that Legobot uses to sort discussions which should be stale/mature from all other discussions. It doesn't mean that a 30-day old discussion is stale or mature, or that a discussion younger than 30 days is not ripe for closure. RfCs can last for 10 days or 60 days, but what matters is the amount of comment. My determination is that running it further is going to be a waste of editors' resources that could have been more productively spent on editing or creating articles. And anyway, we don't have to stick rigidly to most rules; with the exception of some basic non-negotiable principles.

I invite any parties that believe that there are some arguments that haven't been mentioned yet but should be to reach out to me or here. I said just that in the closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dw31415, the "KO" comment was just an analogy. It was not meant to make you fight and stand your ground till the bitter end (in fact, you shouldn't - if you feel that "my cause lost and I shall make sure it is victorious at the end of the day", you should seriously reconsider if editing Wikipedia is appropriate for you). What I only meant is to clarify that consensus means "fairly obvious the proposal is rejected/confirmed", and that's not how I saw the discussion unrolling, after making corrections for apparent efforts to manipulate the decision-building process - just like it's normally obvious that a person who delivered a knock-out won, but when the boxers stay for full 12 rounds, it is often not that clear who won. Also, as stated in the closure and as I clarified on my talk page, in articles about living people, only content for which there is consensus can stay, and anything short of that mandates removal. The only practical difference is that relitigating the issue without substantial new information may be considered more disruptive/more often considered disruptive if there was consensus against the proposal - complaining about time sinks, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and all that. However, consensus can change, so even a "consensus against" outcome, which is not applicable here, does not prohibit you from trying to advance new arguments that may reasonably change other people's minds. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, @Szmenderowiecki, I'm replying to clarify my position, not to request a reply or action on your part. In the RfC, I oppose the inclusion of "conspiracy theorist", so I'm not seeking to overturn the result. I understood your KO analogy (and even enjoyed the quality of the writing), but I don't think it's helpful since the closing text can lean on Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:BLPRESTORE without a bloody analogy. If it were just the two of us, I'd offer a specific edit to improve the closure statement and leave it to you to decide. I think the key questions for an admin to review are (and why more than a single "horse" is on the track):

1. Whether and how to address that "conspiracy theorist" remained in the opening during the RfC, but BLP Restore indicates that it shouldn't. Maybe a process note could be added to the closure. Assuming there was an edit war about it, what venue was appropriate to resolve that while the RfC carried on?
2. Whether the degree of bludgeoning in the discussion (or other factors) warrant reopening to avoid the appearance of a rush to judgement.
3. Whether skipping the Wikipedia:Closure requests step is permissible or wise. (I think it was skipped, but please correct me if I'm wrong).

I share the sentiment that you clearly did a lot of good work in writing the closing and I appreciate it. Dw31415 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen - Again, RFC should be open for a full month. In other words, one more week. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen I'm not even reading the justification for the close, editors simply shouldn't close contentious RfC's early. Looking at the list of replies this clearly isn't a SNOW case and given the dispute this is a contentious topic. Closing the RfC early is something that should not be done absent a SNOW case, even if the final close is identical to the close in question. In the event of a SNOW closing, if someone protests the SNOW closing, it's not a SNOW closing. There is no harm in letting the process (and timer) play out. Note my comments here do not otherwise reflect on the quality of the close, only the premature closure. Springee (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowiecki, in response to your question, the standard RfC period is 1 month. I see no benefit to closing early and certainly drawbacks such as editors being unhappy about the early close. If the RfC is closed early participants may feel "their side" didn't get the chance for all their views to be presented. Net result is discontent. Early closes can also look like a type of gaming the system because, at least sometimes, they are. I don't mean you had any ill intent. However, delaying until the RfC has run avoids event the appearance that a RfC might have been closed early for strategic reasons which would again result is discontent. Springee (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there was an initial closure by the opener of the RfC, plainly against policy! So many reasons to let this one run its course, in my opinion. Carlp941 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is 30 days an unwritten norm? I’m new to this. Dw31415 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not strictly a rule, but from WP:RFCEND

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the {{rfc}} tag) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time.

IMO, if those involved with the discussion still have plenty to say and believe a consensus can be reached, 30 days is appropriate. Carlp941 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be right there with you if there was evidence that those involved with the discussion still have plenty to say, but I just double checked @Szmenderowiecki's talk page and I don't see any Support editors claiming their arguments were not accounted for. My read of the Support opinions is that they were willing to accept treatment short of conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. The objection to closure seems to be a process related objection. I expect that the closer would be open to adjusting their closure statement upon request. There is a lot to find fault with in this RfC and I hope the community can learn from this one. The narrow question of this RfC and a finding of "no consensus" means there's plenty of room for further discussion in a new, broader topic or RfC. Also, I hope that a fresh discussion, in the absence of a good faith BLP/NPOV challenge of the current content (and absence of IP quipping) might yield more productive results. Thank you so much for listening to my thoughts on the matter. Dw31415 (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps either the Duration section or the Reasons and ways to end RfCs section at WP:RFC needs a slight rewrite then. As it is written, it seems to me that it is acceptable to close an RfC early when it is guaranteed that there will not be a consensus by the reading of WP:RFC. When what is written is out of alignment with practice, it is likely best to attempt to have the written portion be re-aligned. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this take. It does not seem to me like Szmenderowiecki's closure runs afoul of the "norms" as currently written on that page. And, if the standard RfC period is 1 month, and anything else, especially a shorter duration in a contentious discussion, is viewed as a generally unacceptable duration, then that needs to be made clear to editors. NewBorders (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that further revision of the RfC page would be helpful and I’m happy to participate in that after this RfC is resolved. Specific questions (for later consideration):

1. Can an “uninvolved editor” of any experience or role judge that the discussion has run it’s course?
2. Can a single editor determine the consensus of 50 other editors?
3. Does the content in question remain frozen during the RfC period?
4. Is it helpful to the community to have an RfC narrowly defined to two words in a single sentence?
5. Do issues with NPOV have a different consensus threshold (aka a Knockout threshold as used in this closure)?

Note: I previously requested closure within the RfC discussion, but hope this is the right spot for my comment. I look forward to the admin’s decision and really appreciate your work. Dw31415 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen let it run its course completely. I would add that "no consensus" definitely doesn't seem to fit the discussion. I would !vote to overturn "no consensus" to a very clear oppose. Buffs (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure I wish the RfC demonstrated a clear consensus to include this information in the first sentence of the lede - but there was no consensus coming out of that discussion and another week isn't likely to change that. I don't see any reason to keep the RfC going for another week when the end result - a maintenance of article status quo - will be the result. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC) I've been taking in some of the arguments from the people advocating to re-open the RfC. I had assumed a status-quo would be effectively the same as an oppose consensus - with the language being in the third para of the lede rather than the first. While I'd supported first para in the RfC I didn't see it as being particularly high-stakes and so didn't want to be seen as trying to fight past a consensus against movement. If, however, status quo is to restore the language to the first para then, considering the numerical balance, it is more important that a closer be very careful to assess the weight of arguments accordingly. A !vote is not a numbers game but those arguments that were made should be shown to have been seen. As such I'm changing my !vote here to reopen not on the basis of the time the RfC was open for (which I think is a non-issue) so much as on the basis of the lack of sufficient adjudication of arguments in the closure notice. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tank you for these comments and clear rationale. Your comments get to the heart of the ambiguity. What should the state of the first sentence be during the RfC and what does a result of “no consensus” mean for the sentence? ScottishFinnishRadish says that BLPRESTORE applies. I think @Bluethricecreamman‘s criticism of the closing has some merits. I’d prefer that the closing statement lean more heavily on BLPRESTORE than establishing a new “KO” threshold. @Szmenderowiecki, are you open to modifying the closure statement? Dw31415 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure per the closure's reasoning, where their argument quotes from the RfC information article, which 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.

At this point, with everyone in the RfC repeating the same arguments and nobody changing their mind, it's clear that 1) we have reached a consensus and 2) keeping the discussion open will only be a timesink for everyone and not benefit the discussion in any way. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that thinking but what if more editors join? If say 20 more editors join all on one side of the debate vs the other does that change things. I do get that such a question could be asked the day after a 1 month close. I have seen cases where a later argument was put forth and editor after that point were clearly swayed. I'm such cases it's useful to let things play out. Springee (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The close was no consensus, despite there being at least 5x as many opposes as supports. even assuming that as it currently stands, 4/5ths of the oppose votes had to be discarded, and none of the supports, the continuing trickling in of oppose votes could easily have changed no-consensus. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the same outcome though. My understanding was that the status quo was that the text was in the third para rather than the first. A no consensus close enforces the status quo which is the same result as a successful oppose !vote. As such, even if 100% of oppose !votes were considered the end result would have been the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not quite.

• its easier to point to "consensus was oppose" if someone were to try to start an rfc in future. if there was no consensus, bit harder to argue the matter settled.
• i don't see summarization of some arguments. for example many of the oppose votes agree on inclusion of info about kash patel as a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede, just not in first sentence or even first paragraph.
• the current close is transparently a WP:SUPERVOTE.

• the first 2.5 paragraphs are closers own thoughts.
• closer summarizes the responses in the next 1.5 paragraphs, but includes significant synthesis and commentary from closer.
• final paragraph is just asking community to bring more evidence to discussion in future. quite literally wasting more time.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that “conspiracy theorist” was in the first sentence when the RfC was started. As I recall, @Wikieditor662 started the RfC with the intent to remove it. A previous discussion topic was unable to resolve the question. That discussion dates from Dec 1[94]. In my opinion, there is some harm to Wikipedia’s NPOV if the RfC is reopened and “theorist” is restored to the first sentence while another 8 days pass. Dw31415 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content that has been subject to a good faith BLP objection cannot be restored without consensus to include it. See WP:BLPRESTORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In retrospect, it would have made for a calmer discussion if “theorist” were removed at the start of the RfC. Even better if a proponent of “theorist” was the one to open it. Maybe the RfC description could give better guidance on inclusion of contentious content having the burden of consensus. Dw31415 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said: If say 20 more editors join all on one side of the debate vs the other does that change things.

That's theoretically possible, but there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, and WP:SNOW states If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, for Wikieditor662's very correct reasoning. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse re-open, but requesting admin clarity on... everything The closure's reasoning falls outside Wikipedia policy. If "Both arguments are strong and valid so I can't declare a KO for either "team"." is true, then wouldn't that support going back to previous consensus? The closure is saying that neither side won a "KO" (a poor framing for any content dispute), but they are taking the side of Oppose. We can't have it both ways. To me that reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Frankly, this RfC process has been a disaster. I think it was poorly formed to start with, then it was closed by the editor who made it, then it was closed with an unclear, contentious outcome. Unfortunately I think any result will be fruit of the poisonous tree. Carlp941 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Carlp941: the "previous consensus" didn't exist, since the terms were added without consensus about a month ago, which is why we opened an RfC; therefore, the terms should have been removed anyway. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP is clear that consensus is required to include contentious BLP material. No consensus defaults to removal in BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: exactly what I wrote in my comment, but you've explained it more accurately and concisely. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  hmmmm. seems reasonable to me. thanks for the clarification. I wish the closure didn't bury that under several paragraphs of text. Carlp941 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, and the article includes multiple mentions, with well sourced citations, about Kash Patel promoting various conspiracy theories.

  From my understanding of the RFC, the main issue was WP:DUEness around where that information belongs in the lede, or if it even belongs in lede. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been informed by @JacktheBrown of the BLP policy that is underdiscussed in the closure reasoning. In line with BLP, I believe the contentious material should not be restored under any outcome here.

  This RfC was initially prematurely closed in clear violation of policy, and that puts a bad stink on the process. A bunch of unsigned IPs and editors who made accounts just to skew discussion puts more stink on the process, and it makes me think WP:SNOWBALL doesn't apply here. I do think it will lower tensions to let it run a little longer. Carlp941 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: After taking some time to review Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:RfC, I initially concluded that this RfC should remain closed and the current state of the introduction should be considered the current consensus. I’ve modified my position. Given (a) the heavy bludgeoning in the initial period of the RfC, especially by IP editors, and (b) the closer’s apparent unwillingness to improve the closure statement based on the discussion here, I could see the benefit in reopening. In any reopening, the admin should note that “conspiracy theorist” should remain absent the first sentence per BLPRESTORE. (My deleted, but now restored with strikethrough follows)
  Endorse Closure: After taking some time to review Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:RfC, I conclude that this RfC should remain closed and the current state of the introduction should be considered the current consensus. Editors wanting to treat the subject’s support of conspiracy theories more prominently in the introduction should start fresh with a bold edit and proceed afresh through the consensus building process. The bold edit should not include “conspiracy theorist” in the first sentence because there is clearly not consensus support for it.
  Rationale: Individual administrators should not be asked to adjudicate fine grained content assessments. The closer followed documented rationale for closing an RfC and the RfC process does not define 30 days as a default period, rather An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. For editors that object to the summary of the closer and want to establish for the record a different summary, perhaps they could document their assessment of the consensus in a new talk section (such as RfC - Other summaries).
  Personal note: While I’m a 19 year editor of Wikipedia, this is the first RfC that I’ve participated in. My above proposal reflects how I’d like to see this process work than any longstanding norms than I’ve observed.
  Edited per request Dw31415 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dw31415, please do not delete content from a discussion, instead "strike" your comments that no longer represent your perspective. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do. Thanks. Dw31415 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

would like an admin review at this point. appreciate the work done by original closer, regardless. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the review results in a reopen, I request the admin please make clear that “conspiracy theorist” should not be added back to the first sentence during the remaining RfC period (provided that the admin agrees with @ScottishFinnishRadish’s comments here about BLPRESTORE). I say that because some editors involved have already expressed a strong expectation that “conspiracy theorist” remains until after the RfC closes. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admins! Please address this request or openly decline to address (in the spirit of Wikipedia:DONTPOSTPONE. I think there’s not a lot of policy guidance to make clear how you should address this. If that’s your reluctance to take this up it would be helpful to know that and we could address some of the RfC questions that this (and similar requests) have raised in a separate forum. Thanks!!! Dw31415 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Software question: I'm trying to understand why this edit[95] to my comment also resulted in the "user requesting review" to change to my name (scroll down to the actual text to see the change). The edit diff doesn't show a change but in the previous and next edit the requestor is Tule-hog. In that one edit it shows me as the requestor. Springee (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a bug with Template:RfC closure review. I thought it worked OK Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears to show the last editor as the requestor (you are it until I hit reply). Perhaps the original requestor, Bluethricecreamman, is OK with manually inserting their name? Springee (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that manually, since they are the ones who requested review. I'm not sure how to fix it though, as I thought that substing {{REVISIONUSER2}} should have done the job. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a procedural note, some participants have !voted as non-participants. This is a minor process thing but, in a review largely about process, it would probably be wise for the participants to move their !vote comments to the "participant" section. I'm getting lonely there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing. To my recollection @User:Super Goku V was a non-participant. My comment builds on theirs so I’d like to keep it were it is (it’s also a comment, not a !vote). Dw31415 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just meant the !votes. I have a threaded comment up there too. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I came across the RfC when I saw this closure review, though I don't plan on participating if the RfC ends up reopened. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes someone a participant? Is it someone who voted in the RfC, someone who started the RfC, or only those who closed the RfC and challenged the closure? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if you !voted in the RfC then you're a participant. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I moved my vote from the non participant to participant section. Thank you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I don't have to feel so lonely. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create a Geonotice for an American Academy of Religion Editathon at Arizona State for March 15 from 2:45 to 3:45.

I need permission to post? How do I set up URL and is there a template?

Thanks RosPost 18:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you need to put in a request at WP:Geonotice, for which you need the coordinates for which you want this message to display. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's an {{FPER}} on Wikipedia talk:Geonotice/list.json. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? WP:Geonotice says 'To propose a geonotice, simply create a new third level section (using ===) under the "Requests" section, using the boilerplate text below, and follow the instructions in this section', and says nothing about an {{FPER}}, nor can I see any evidence of that page being fully protected. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Geonotice/list.json is fully protected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Moxy🍁 03:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]