![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
We already established that we are not going to add the Libertarian or the Green party in the infobox. This means that the "access to 270 electoral votes" criteria is not in use anymore.
Question: What should qualify for a candidate's inclusion in the infobox?
Options:
A. Must be a major political party
B. above 5% average in polls
C. Access to 270 electoral votes (old)
D. other
Thanks, Nojus R ( talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Likewise, how is it not a WP:CBALL violation to not include them in the page when we in fact have no idea as to how they will preform in the actual election?Can you explain how would that be a CBALL violation, please? I can't see the point at all. Specially when they are included elsewhere in the article: we do not exclude information from candidates in the article, but there is a misconception of the infobox having to show every candidate and that not doing so is unfair. That's not the case at all. Impru20 talk 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Note that it says "proportionally": i.e. fairness is not determined by giving equal prominence to all candidates, as that would mean outweighting some candidates compared to others with respect to what sources told us about them.
Extended discussion between
HeroofTime55 and
Impru20. Closer and others may wish to read, but collapsed for convenience.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk) 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
If they're not listed in the infobox, they are overlooked, so they aren't well known.Wikipedia policies are specifically against it being used as some form of soapbox or platform from which to raise a candidate's notability. If sources do not give such notability to candidates, it is not Wikipedia's job to "fix" that. Impru20 talk 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
"As a corollary, when an article lacks vital content, that content should be added as quickly as possible."and
"For this reason Wikipedia is frequently the first thing people read when, for example, they wish to find out about a political party or candidate during an election. Although it ought not be the final stop for someone seeking information of this kind, its ease of access frequently does make it the first and last source of information for many people."
"...that you elected to dismiss with a hand-wave because they didn't fit the objective (explicitly stated) of excluding, by name, the LP and Green candidates."was probably over the line, but I stand by the rest of what I said. HeroofTime55 ( talk) 05:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Look at the opening remarks to this discussion (...)Since you were a dormant account having only recently reactivated to participate in this specific discussion, I'll assume good faith and consider that you did not notice the two previous discussions on this issue that took place in the previous months. Two discussions which revolved on the issue of whether the LP and Green candidates should be in the infobox or not, and which resulted in an overwhelming consensus in favour of them being left out. That's what the opening remarks of this RfC are referring to, so it's not any kind of "bias infection". Probably you should take your time to review the whole affair, get yourself updated and put yourself into the context of it so that you don't come again around here launching random bias accusations at everyone, then having to come back to say sorry because you mistook who said what or misinterpreted the comment of someone. Impru20 talk 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Did the little tiny bit of information that was previously visible on Jo and Howie (without having to click) vindictively disappear as a result of one or more requests for them to be included in the infobox? Billbrandy ( talk) 21:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects; it has nothing to do with "controversial" aspects as you said in a comment below. I'm unsure whether you may be attempting to poison the well here, but this is clearly going around in circles. Impru20 talk 12:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
BTW, when was there a consensus to overturn the electoral vote standard for inclusion in the infobox? Clearly such a consensus doesn't currently exist.Oh yes, it does exist. There were two discussions on it, but if there were still any doubts about it, it seems that consensus in this discussion is also being clearly swayed towards some criteria other than ballot access. Cheers. Impru20 talk 16:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Note - I have requested a formal close here. I don't think this is ready to be closed yet, but given the high profile nature of this article (and the fact that November is quickly approaching), it is probably best that this is closed quickly once it has run its natural course. That probably, but not nessisarily, means it should remain open for 30 days. I will leave that to the ultimate closer. Anyway, it can't hurt to give potental closers a heads up.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I would even argue in favor of raising the percentage threshold, since unlike in the primaries, gaining some percentage of the vote means nothing if a candidate doesn't win any states.This fundamentally misunderstands what the infobox is for (and what happens in the primaries where candidates often recieve over 5% but no convention delegates). An infobox is a summary of the election, not simply a tally of electoral college delegates. It contains those that win and those that lose. It attempts to provide a balanced summary of the important points of the entire election. While electoral college votes are important, it is a mistake to think they are the only thing that matters to the summary. Someone that recieves 5% of the vote will have nearly seven million votes (if voter turnout is comparable to 2016). Whether the electoral college system rewards that or not, it is significant and something that belongs in a summary. It is also important to remember that in close races (or not so close ones), 5% going to a third party candidate or independent almost certainly changes the election by splitting the vote and affecting the vote in some states. Finally, it would represent a significant increase in third party support (50% increase if the Libertainians just accomplished it, nearly a quintupling if the Greens accomplished it). That significant improvement on its own would warrent prominent mention. We should not confuse how the system decides to give meaning to the votes (electoral college delegates) with what is significant in that election.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 04:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
“ | I noticed that you would like to see Jo Jorgensen listed in the infobox on the 2020 United States presidential election page. There is currently an RfC (request for comment) discussion taking place on the talk page where you can voice your opinion. The old criteria of requiring ballot access to 270 electoral votes would allow her inclusion in the infobox. (Option C"). JLMadrigal @ 14:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC) | ” |
“ | I read what you wrote above about moving the goalposts and I think that is concerning. We should not be changing our criteria for each election solely to end up with only the Democratic and Republican nominees. | ” |
notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular wayand is malicious by nature. The literal text of your message (which you have quoted above) is textbook canvassing, i.e. notifying editors who you think will support your cause to bring them into the discussion to influence its outcome in your preferred way (and it indeed happens that both Billbrandy and Give the Facts2020, whom you notified, had shown support for Jo Jorgensen being included in the infobox in past edit requests: [20] [21]). In the case of Tartan357, you also used the "
Option C vote required for placement of Jo Jorgensen in the infobox"-heading in the notification ( [22]), which you didn't use for the other two users. Further, this came after you had opened a discussion fork below commenting that
There are at least eight voices in opposition to overturning the original criteria [...] This implies that there is no consensus for changing the criteria( [23]), so it's obvious you sought to artificially increase the number of "opposers" to reinforce your own argument in order to attempt torpedoing the RfC because it wasn't going the way you liked. So much for "no malicious attempt" when the evidence is all over there.
so it would make sense to include candidates polling over 5%. Nojus R ( talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Kevinwm0 ( talk) 12:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
There are at least eight voices in opposition to overturning the original criteria of allowing inclusion of all candidates who have sufficient ballot access to secure victory in the presidential election - 270 electoral college votes - in the infobox. This implies that there is no consensus for changing the criteria. Doing so would be contentious at this moment. Since there is no consensus for overturning the original criteria, it's time to close this RfC and put these four candidates in the infobox. They are currently Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Jo Jorgenson, and Howie Hawkins. JLMadrigal @ 12:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Correction: Howie Hawkins currently has access to 262 electoral college votes (if his page is up-to-date - and my tally is correct), so he will qualify after his team gets ballot access in one or two more states - depending on their respective ballot access numbers. JLMadrigal @ 12:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Citing your own numbers, more than a third of these editors would like to keep the ballot access criteria. BTW, speaking of Wikipedia guidelines, shouldn't the Infobox currently have all three candidates - since the RfC hasn't been settled yet? JLMadrigal @ 13:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
more than a third of these editors would like to keep the ballot access criteriaAnd? What does this even mean? WP:CONSENSUS does not require getting 100% support for a change to be approved (and nonetheless, 1) 66% > 33%, and 2) Arguments proposed for change are most sensible to Wikipedia's policies than attempts to advocate for some particular candidates). Do you suggest that, for some reason, you have a right to constitute some sort of "veto minority" that can blockade any attempt to change consensus?
shouldn't the Infobox currently have all three candidates - since the RfC hasn't been settled yet?You seem to have missed the part where two previous discussions this year already resulted in a large consensus for removing them.
Feels a lot like a "consensus" to commit rampant
WP:OR fiddling around with media polling. Inclusion should be based on either a simple, objective verifiable fact (like ballot access), or much more appropriately, the infobox should summarize the article which at present contains 4 sections for 4 different candidates. If the standards are going to change, it should be done right, not go even deeper into a rabbit hole of
WP:OR on steroids. Is consensus to commit
WP:OR a valid consensus under Wikipedia policy?
HeroofTime55 (
talk) 20:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yet it has not been until recently that you have started to report alleged "OR" issues on the RfC format itself, or on the alleged requisites that, according to you, should be of application for considering the RfC's outcome validFunny thing, I've changed my mind as this discussion has gone on, and you'll see I also changed my mind earlier in the discussion, while you were still ignoring my new points and accusing me of bludgeoning. In fact, my views have been slowly shifting over nearly the entire course of the discussion, which I thought was part of the point of consensus building. I am sorry that you are interpreting my change of mind as insincere. Among A, B, and C, "C" in my view remains the best, but I have since developed a new view that, in reality, none of these are great, and constitute varying degrees of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Though I'm glad you finally acknowledge that I have changed my stance, even if you are only doing so in order to accuse me of ulterior motives. HeroofTime55 ( talk) 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I would love to continue participating in this discussion, but the original question has become so muddled that I'm not even sure how to anymore. Perhaps Darryl Kerrigan is right about the need to close this RfC. Additionally, I was just canvassed by JLMadrigal who wanted me to repeat my comments because they apparently aligned with their position. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 21:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
“ | I read what you wrote above about moving the goalposts and I think that is concerning. We should not be changing our criteria for each election solely to end up with only the Democratic and Republican nominees. | ” |
@ Darryl Kerrigan: I saw you requested a closure at WP:AN/RFC. Do you see any sort of consensus coming out of this discussion as it stands, and if so, what is it? — Tartan357 ( Talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If consensus is the basis upon which edits are approved by the community, then it would seem there is, as yet, no consensus on this issue, but there was a prior consensus that I gather was akin to option C from the survey above. Since some kind of policy has to exist for candidate inclusion, then it seems to me the status quo should be maintained until such time as a new consensus exists. This is not a vote, so a 66/33 split on a new policy doesn't automatically win and it actually is appropriate for a relatively small minority to block a change in that policy, especially if the result of a policy shift is to REMOVE accurate information from an article. If the purpose of this site is to provide information, then defaulting to a half-changed policy that restricts information is a really bad way to operate. Citizenslave ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the RfC consensus applies to individual state contest pages? Infobox inclusion on them is still quite contested, and we may need an RfC specifically addressing that. See the edit history at Maine, Washington, and Alaska. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 20:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I hope readers of this will forgive my ignorance of Wikipedia but I am confused about why the RfC was closed on 30th July by Serial. In the one line closure message Serial states that "interest ... has declined sufficiently to warrant closurea" and that "there is a clear consensus to implement option B".
Given that there were four new top-level comments/votes in the last day, how is it that "interest ... has declined sufficiently"?
I've looked through the responses myself and arrived at the following totals:
Clearly, in a FPTP election B would have `won' but how is a "clear consensus" justified from these numbers? I struggle to see one. Etsnev ( talk) 13:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
interested in [robustly] contributing to the discussion, not playing telltale. If you believe that perhaps you should comment at WP:ANI (as that is the correct forum for that editor's behaviour). If you are going to comment there however, I recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG as those reporting or commenting at ANI are not immune from their own behaviour being questioned. I say this not to question your contributions, but because questions like
is there no presumption of innocence on WP?suggest you may not be fully aware of some of our policies. Legal principles like the presumption of innocence do not apply on Wikipedia. In some cases we have similar policies like WP:AGF. But we do not strictly adhere to any legal principles. An editor can be blocked, sanctioned etc. despite not being "guilty" beyond all reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, WP:SOCKs and other WP:DISRUPTive editors can take advantage of that doubt, so it has its limits on the platform. If you want to discuss the state pages, I suggest you discuss that in the appropriate section. As I have already stated, I do think there is grounds for the close Serial has made. It is also worth noting that this RfC, followed other RfCs/discussions including this one and this one. Anyway, I hope you find that information helpful.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
We already established that we are not going to add the Libertarian or the Green party in the infobox. This means that the "access to 270 electoral votes" criteria is not in use anymore.
Question: What should qualify for a candidate's inclusion in the infobox?
Options:
A. Must be a major political party
B. above 5% average in polls
C. Access to 270 electoral votes (old)
D. other
Thanks, Nojus R ( talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Likewise, how is it not a WP:CBALL violation to not include them in the page when we in fact have no idea as to how they will preform in the actual election?Can you explain how would that be a CBALL violation, please? I can't see the point at all. Specially when they are included elsewhere in the article: we do not exclude information from candidates in the article, but there is a misconception of the infobox having to show every candidate and that not doing so is unfair. That's not the case at all. Impru20 talk 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Note that it says "proportionally": i.e. fairness is not determined by giving equal prominence to all candidates, as that would mean outweighting some candidates compared to others with respect to what sources told us about them.
Extended discussion between
HeroofTime55 and
Impru20. Closer and others may wish to read, but collapsed for convenience.--
Darryl Kerrigan (
talk) 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
If they're not listed in the infobox, they are overlooked, so they aren't well known.Wikipedia policies are specifically against it being used as some form of soapbox or platform from which to raise a candidate's notability. If sources do not give such notability to candidates, it is not Wikipedia's job to "fix" that. Impru20 talk 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
"As a corollary, when an article lacks vital content, that content should be added as quickly as possible."and
"For this reason Wikipedia is frequently the first thing people read when, for example, they wish to find out about a political party or candidate during an election. Although it ought not be the final stop for someone seeking information of this kind, its ease of access frequently does make it the first and last source of information for many people."
"...that you elected to dismiss with a hand-wave because they didn't fit the objective (explicitly stated) of excluding, by name, the LP and Green candidates."was probably over the line, but I stand by the rest of what I said. HeroofTime55 ( talk) 05:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Look at the opening remarks to this discussion (...)Since you were a dormant account having only recently reactivated to participate in this specific discussion, I'll assume good faith and consider that you did not notice the two previous discussions on this issue that took place in the previous months. Two discussions which revolved on the issue of whether the LP and Green candidates should be in the infobox or not, and which resulted in an overwhelming consensus in favour of them being left out. That's what the opening remarks of this RfC are referring to, so it's not any kind of "bias infection". Probably you should take your time to review the whole affair, get yourself updated and put yourself into the context of it so that you don't come again around here launching random bias accusations at everyone, then having to come back to say sorry because you mistook who said what or misinterpreted the comment of someone. Impru20 talk 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Did the little tiny bit of information that was previously visible on Jo and Howie (without having to click) vindictively disappear as a result of one or more requests for them to be included in the infobox? Billbrandy ( talk) 21:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects; it has nothing to do with "controversial" aspects as you said in a comment below. I'm unsure whether you may be attempting to poison the well here, but this is clearly going around in circles. Impru20 talk 12:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
BTW, when was there a consensus to overturn the electoral vote standard for inclusion in the infobox? Clearly such a consensus doesn't currently exist.Oh yes, it does exist. There were two discussions on it, but if there were still any doubts about it, it seems that consensus in this discussion is also being clearly swayed towards some criteria other than ballot access. Cheers. Impru20 talk 16:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Note - I have requested a formal close here. I don't think this is ready to be closed yet, but given the high profile nature of this article (and the fact that November is quickly approaching), it is probably best that this is closed quickly once it has run its natural course. That probably, but not nessisarily, means it should remain open for 30 days. I will leave that to the ultimate closer. Anyway, it can't hurt to give potental closers a heads up.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I would even argue in favor of raising the percentage threshold, since unlike in the primaries, gaining some percentage of the vote means nothing if a candidate doesn't win any states.This fundamentally misunderstands what the infobox is for (and what happens in the primaries where candidates often recieve over 5% but no convention delegates). An infobox is a summary of the election, not simply a tally of electoral college delegates. It contains those that win and those that lose. It attempts to provide a balanced summary of the important points of the entire election. While electoral college votes are important, it is a mistake to think they are the only thing that matters to the summary. Someone that recieves 5% of the vote will have nearly seven million votes (if voter turnout is comparable to 2016). Whether the electoral college system rewards that or not, it is significant and something that belongs in a summary. It is also important to remember that in close races (or not so close ones), 5% going to a third party candidate or independent almost certainly changes the election by splitting the vote and affecting the vote in some states. Finally, it would represent a significant increase in third party support (50% increase if the Libertainians just accomplished it, nearly a quintupling if the Greens accomplished it). That significant improvement on its own would warrent prominent mention. We should not confuse how the system decides to give meaning to the votes (electoral college delegates) with what is significant in that election.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 04:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
“ | I noticed that you would like to see Jo Jorgensen listed in the infobox on the 2020 United States presidential election page. There is currently an RfC (request for comment) discussion taking place on the talk page where you can voice your opinion. The old criteria of requiring ballot access to 270 electoral votes would allow her inclusion in the infobox. (Option C"). JLMadrigal @ 14:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC) | ” |
“ | I read what you wrote above about moving the goalposts and I think that is concerning. We should not be changing our criteria for each election solely to end up with only the Democratic and Republican nominees. | ” |
notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular wayand is malicious by nature. The literal text of your message (which you have quoted above) is textbook canvassing, i.e. notifying editors who you think will support your cause to bring them into the discussion to influence its outcome in your preferred way (and it indeed happens that both Billbrandy and Give the Facts2020, whom you notified, had shown support for Jo Jorgensen being included in the infobox in past edit requests: [20] [21]). In the case of Tartan357, you also used the "
Option C vote required for placement of Jo Jorgensen in the infobox"-heading in the notification ( [22]), which you didn't use for the other two users. Further, this came after you had opened a discussion fork below commenting that
There are at least eight voices in opposition to overturning the original criteria [...] This implies that there is no consensus for changing the criteria( [23]), so it's obvious you sought to artificially increase the number of "opposers" to reinforce your own argument in order to attempt torpedoing the RfC because it wasn't going the way you liked. So much for "no malicious attempt" when the evidence is all over there.
so it would make sense to include candidates polling over 5%. Nojus R ( talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Kevinwm0 ( talk) 12:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
There are at least eight voices in opposition to overturning the original criteria of allowing inclusion of all candidates who have sufficient ballot access to secure victory in the presidential election - 270 electoral college votes - in the infobox. This implies that there is no consensus for changing the criteria. Doing so would be contentious at this moment. Since there is no consensus for overturning the original criteria, it's time to close this RfC and put these four candidates in the infobox. They are currently Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Jo Jorgenson, and Howie Hawkins. JLMadrigal @ 12:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Correction: Howie Hawkins currently has access to 262 electoral college votes (if his page is up-to-date - and my tally is correct), so he will qualify after his team gets ballot access in one or two more states - depending on their respective ballot access numbers. JLMadrigal @ 12:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Citing your own numbers, more than a third of these editors would like to keep the ballot access criteria. BTW, speaking of Wikipedia guidelines, shouldn't the Infobox currently have all three candidates - since the RfC hasn't been settled yet? JLMadrigal @ 13:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
more than a third of these editors would like to keep the ballot access criteriaAnd? What does this even mean? WP:CONSENSUS does not require getting 100% support for a change to be approved (and nonetheless, 1) 66% > 33%, and 2) Arguments proposed for change are most sensible to Wikipedia's policies than attempts to advocate for some particular candidates). Do you suggest that, for some reason, you have a right to constitute some sort of "veto minority" that can blockade any attempt to change consensus?
shouldn't the Infobox currently have all three candidates - since the RfC hasn't been settled yet?You seem to have missed the part where two previous discussions this year already resulted in a large consensus for removing them.
Feels a lot like a "consensus" to commit rampant
WP:OR fiddling around with media polling. Inclusion should be based on either a simple, objective verifiable fact (like ballot access), or much more appropriately, the infobox should summarize the article which at present contains 4 sections for 4 different candidates. If the standards are going to change, it should be done right, not go even deeper into a rabbit hole of
WP:OR on steroids. Is consensus to commit
WP:OR a valid consensus under Wikipedia policy?
HeroofTime55 (
talk) 20:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yet it has not been until recently that you have started to report alleged "OR" issues on the RfC format itself, or on the alleged requisites that, according to you, should be of application for considering the RfC's outcome validFunny thing, I've changed my mind as this discussion has gone on, and you'll see I also changed my mind earlier in the discussion, while you were still ignoring my new points and accusing me of bludgeoning. In fact, my views have been slowly shifting over nearly the entire course of the discussion, which I thought was part of the point of consensus building. I am sorry that you are interpreting my change of mind as insincere. Among A, B, and C, "C" in my view remains the best, but I have since developed a new view that, in reality, none of these are great, and constitute varying degrees of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Though I'm glad you finally acknowledge that I have changed my stance, even if you are only doing so in order to accuse me of ulterior motives. HeroofTime55 ( talk) 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I would love to continue participating in this discussion, but the original question has become so muddled that I'm not even sure how to anymore. Perhaps Darryl Kerrigan is right about the need to close this RfC. Additionally, I was just canvassed by JLMadrigal who wanted me to repeat my comments because they apparently aligned with their position. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 21:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
“ | I read what you wrote above about moving the goalposts and I think that is concerning. We should not be changing our criteria for each election solely to end up with only the Democratic and Republican nominees. | ” |
@ Darryl Kerrigan: I saw you requested a closure at WP:AN/RFC. Do you see any sort of consensus coming out of this discussion as it stands, and if so, what is it? — Tartan357 ( Talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If consensus is the basis upon which edits are approved by the community, then it would seem there is, as yet, no consensus on this issue, but there was a prior consensus that I gather was akin to option C from the survey above. Since some kind of policy has to exist for candidate inclusion, then it seems to me the status quo should be maintained until such time as a new consensus exists. This is not a vote, so a 66/33 split on a new policy doesn't automatically win and it actually is appropriate for a relatively small minority to block a change in that policy, especially if the result of a policy shift is to REMOVE accurate information from an article. If the purpose of this site is to provide information, then defaulting to a half-changed policy that restricts information is a really bad way to operate. Citizenslave ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the RfC consensus applies to individual state contest pages? Infobox inclusion on them is still quite contested, and we may need an RfC specifically addressing that. See the edit history at Maine, Washington, and Alaska. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 20:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I hope readers of this will forgive my ignorance of Wikipedia but I am confused about why the RfC was closed on 30th July by Serial. In the one line closure message Serial states that "interest ... has declined sufficiently to warrant closurea" and that "there is a clear consensus to implement option B".
Given that there were four new top-level comments/votes in the last day, how is it that "interest ... has declined sufficiently"?
I've looked through the responses myself and arrived at the following totals:
Clearly, in a FPTP election B would have `won' but how is a "clear consensus" justified from these numbers? I struggle to see one. Etsnev ( talk) 13:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
interested in [robustly] contributing to the discussion, not playing telltale. If you believe that perhaps you should comment at WP:ANI (as that is the correct forum for that editor's behaviour). If you are going to comment there however, I recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG as those reporting or commenting at ANI are not immune from their own behaviour being questioned. I say this not to question your contributions, but because questions like
is there no presumption of innocence on WP?suggest you may not be fully aware of some of our policies. Legal principles like the presumption of innocence do not apply on Wikipedia. In some cases we have similar policies like WP:AGF. But we do not strictly adhere to any legal principles. An editor can be blocked, sanctioned etc. despite not being "guilty" beyond all reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, WP:SOCKs and other WP:DISRUPTive editors can take advantage of that doubt, so it has its limits on the platform. If you want to discuss the state pages, I suggest you discuss that in the appropriate section. As I have already stated, I do think there is grounds for the close Serial has made. It is also worth noting that this RfC, followed other RfCs/discussions including this one and this one. Anyway, I hope you find that information helpful.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)