This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Smith0124 ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

With this RfC, I’m hoping we can resolve the issue of infobox inclusion criteria, which remain hotly debated for this and other primary elections, such as the Republican primaries. Multiple RfCs on this page were closed inconclusively. With no consensus, editors continue to boldly change included candidates on this and related pages for individual contests. Now that the primaries are nearing their conclusion, I believe there is more information with which to compare this year’s elections to past ones, and a consequently higher chance of closing an RfC conclusively. The most recent discussion on this page occurred at #Infobox (Part II). —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 08:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments struck to indicate limited scope. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Which of the following criteria should be used to determine which candidates are to be included in [the] infoboxes on United States presidential primary election pages, including those for ongoing elections?

Part of question struck to indicate limited scope. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• A: The candidate has won pledged delegates.
• B: The candidate has received greater than 5% of the popular vote.
• C: The candidate has won a contest. (Applicable to main pages only)
• D: The candidate has satisfied B or C or received greater than 5% of the pledged delegates. (We’ll need to add a parameter to the infobox template to show delegate percentages.)

Striking sockpuppet proposed option not supported by any other editors. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 03:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 08:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that this question is about the main page only, rather than individual contest pages. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 20:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

A - since delegates are what's required for nomination. GoodDay ( talk) 15:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So do you support including all seven candidates that have won any delegates? Are Gabbard's two delegates or Klobuchar's seven significant when we have 3,979 awarded in this contest?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 16:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

These articles are about primaries & caucuses, not general elections. So yes, delegates take priority over popular votes. GoodDay ( talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so you want an infobox containing at least seven people on the main page?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay ( talk) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: You seriously want Gabbard in the infobox? She was a spoiler candidate who got little media attention, only reason she got the two delegates from American Samoa is because that’s where she’s from and she got like 20 votes. I don’t get it. Smith0124 ( talk) 20:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr ( talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

She's won delegates, unless ya'll want to wait until we see how the delegates actually vote, at their respective national conventions. GoodDay ( talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A, if a candidate has won delegates, than that is automatically pertinent information worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If someone gets less than 5% of the vote it isn't considered notable enough to go in the infobox. 2 delegates (Gabbard's total) out of 3,979 is 0.0005%. Is getting 0.0005% of delegates really notable? Smith0124 ( talk) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr ( talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A and B: I have previously offered my opinion that the infobox should feature those who have had significant coverage of electoral victories. By that criteria, I'd exclude any who did not win any delegates, as well as those who only won a handful of delegates. But when it comes right down to it, with Biden having now clinched the nomination according to most sources, for myself, I am far less concerned than I would have been weeks or months ago about the extent of the criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Just my two cents here, for what they may be worth to anyone. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 23:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Jgstokes: It's worth a lot to me, especially since I haven't seen your opinion around here before. The goal of this RfC is to establish a consensus for other US presidential primary election infoboxes, as well. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 07:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, although I have had around 14 years of editing experience here on Wikipedia, I'm a relatively new contributor to pages about political matters, races, and candidates. In a lot of ways, I'm still learning the ropes when it comes to things like this. But I have observed a lot of the back-and-forth conversations over time about the infobox for this page, and if my comments, such as they are, can be helpful in crafting policy relative to current and future usage of infoboxes going forward, I'm happy to weigh in regarding such matters. FWIW, I appreciate you taking the initiative to try and resolve this question more effectively. As a relative newcomer to pages of this sort, I hope that when I do weigh in, my comments can be useful. If you need further clarification about my viewpoint on this or any other issue, I'd be happy to provide it. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Jgstokes: I appreciate that. Would you be willing to switch to just option A? It looks like there's a lot of support for that. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 03:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Tartan357:: My one reservation about that idea is that neither major political party in the United States, insofar as I am aware, has ever nominated a candidate who won single- or double-digit delegates. The delegate count can be found elsewhere in this article. Do we really need to bog the infobox down with every candidate that won a delegate, no matter how remote their chances to secure the nomination might be? -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A — In line with what GoodDay said, having at least one delegate is what qualifies a candidate for representation at the national convention. Adding criteria devised by Wikipedia editors beyond that for the national summary would not be neutral. Humanengr ( talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A — Based on the same reasoning used by Devonian Wombat and Humanengr. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 07:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If someone gets less than 5% of the vote it isn't considered notable enough to go in the infobox. 2 delegates (Gabbard's total) out of 3,979 is 0.0005%. Is getting 0.0005% of delegates really notable? I hope this is a less hostile way of putting it. Smith0124 ( talk) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr ( talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Smith0124: This is a much better way to put it. I think it is notable because delegates are what matters at the convention. More importantly, my opinion is informed by the need for an inclusion criterion that is both definitive and simple. I would be just as happy with C, which would keep Gabbard and Klobuchar out. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 04:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think option A is overly simple and lets spoiler candidates that got little coverage be included in what is supposed to be a summary. All the options are simple and Option D is inclusive while also setting a bar that is not only widely used but accurately represents significance. Smith0124 ( talk) 04:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr ( talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Smith0124: On which pages is D already in use? —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree that 199 delegates is the right cutoff (it is far too high in my view), Smith is correct that for main pages winning one delegate (out of thousands) has not been seen as enough to include a candidate in the infobox. Of course, the infobox is meant to be a fair summary of the election (identify the main candidates, and show who won and who fell a little short, and who even if they didn't win had a big impact on the race). If you look back on the past Democratic contests pages, you will see that candidates who have won delegates are regularly omitted from the infobox. In 2012, Keith Russell Judd, Randall Terry, Jim Rogers all "won" delegates, who then faithlessly voted for Obama at the convention. None of them are in the infobox. In 2004, candidate Dennis Kucinich received 40 and Al Sharpton received 26. While their delegates seem to have been faithful, neither is in the infobox. In 2000, candidate Lyndon LaRouche recieved 7 delegates and is ommited from the info box. Same for the Republicans, in 2016, many candidates recieved some delegates but were ommitted from the infobox: Ben Carson (7), Jeb Bush (4), Rand Paul (2), Carly Fiorina (1) and Mike Huckabee (1). It just makes sense to exclude candidates that only recieve a few delegates. If 20 people ran for the Democrats in 2024 and all of them won at least one (just one) delegate would we include all 20 in the infobox? I beleive someone told me before that the infobox template itself is only formated to allow something like 9 or 12 candidates. Anyway, food for thought.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to it. I'm leaning towards switching my vote to option C, which would also thin the number of candidates in the way you want. I would like to see some examples of Smith's specific option D being the consensus on other pages, though, since he's said it is "widely used." Would you be willing to support option C? —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am open to something like B+C, that is after all pretty close to my proposal. The problem with C alone is that it would pull Warren out of the infobox despite her having more delegates than Bloomberg or Buttigieg. I will leave it to Smith to answer your question for him.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A seems popular and is the most inclusive, so I'm going to stick with my initial position of supporting it. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• 5% of the votes, wins a contest, or wins a "significant" amount of delegates - I had previously proposed this option which was somewhat lost in the shuffle which occurred during the initial days of this RfC, when unfortunately a indef blocked editor was quite active here. A version of that comment is below. I think what is a "significant" number of delegates changes as the race unfolds (and more delegates are issued). Having two delegates may be significant when only a dozen or so states have voted. It is less significant when all 3,979 delegates are awarded. As the infobox's job is to act as a summary of the race I think including everyone who has won any amount of delegates at the end, is WP:UNDUE and not a good summary of the race. It is also a bit overly cumbersome. All of this said, I agree that the most prudent thing to do now may be to apply the SpinningSpark consensus ( a delegate or 5% of the vote) to the main page, notwithstanding the inconclusive second RfC, which is also at least somewhat tainted by sockpuppetry. My expectation is that if Tulsi Gabbard is added back to the infobox either at the time of the convention or shortly afterwards other editors are likely to challenge whether her two delegates (out of about 4,000) warrant inclusion, but I agree that for the time being applying the SpinningSpark consensus is prudent. We can deal with reassessing this when or if editors propose we do so.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: FWIW, I concur with the latest option suggested by Darryl Kerrigan here. I would have no problem whatsoever with the parameters of his latest suggestion, which would, in fact, satisfy any previous concerns I expressed on this matter in the recent past. Seems like the best option to me of anything that has so far been suggested. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 23:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly opposed to A It makes no sense to include someone who got less than 1% of the pledged delegates; 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 2004_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 2000 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 1988 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 1984 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; 1980 Democratic Party presidential primaries doesn't list everyone who got delegates in the infobox; I think you get my point. Criterion A here, when we use it in no other similar article is non-neutral and should not be used here. Personally, I think anyone who couldn't win 1% of delegates shouldn't be in the infobox, so that would be anyone with fewer than 39 delegates. But since B is simpler (I guess) and leads to pretty much the same outcome, I am also fine with that. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• A and Comment: Of these listed options, A makes the most sense. However, I'd like to note that if A was the standard even the two delegates "Uncommitted" got in Kentucky would meet that standard. U-dble ( talk) 21:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• C: In accordance with our former standards, only those who win a race should be listed: it keeps the clutter off of the main page, too. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean when you suggest C is [i]n accordance with our former standards. For past elections we have included candidates who have failed to win a race but received over 5% of the vote, or who have won a significant number of delegates. Have a look at 2000 Democratic Party presidential primaries or 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries as examples. There are many others out there. Using C as the guideline would be a departure from our usual standards, not in keeping with it.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @ Tartan357, thank you for placing the hat note on this RfC re the disruptive sockpuppet. I add the following note to provide fuller context. Humanengr ( talk) 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer: This RfC should be evaluated in view of Part B of the original RfC which asked, After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest?. The closer wrote Participants rejected the proposal in part B as written. The voting was 7 for yes and 11 for no. However, a large number of voters (11) qualified their response by suggesting the criterion should be 5% of popular vote or a delegate. In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. There were 22 votes in toto.

From that it can be seen that 7 said that all candidates who earned ‘a delegate’ should be included; 7 + 11 = 18 said that all candidates who earned -either- a delegate or 5% of the popular vote should be included.

As I wrote in more detail below, after all the votes in that original RfC were cast (but before it was closed), the sock started another RfC to distract from and mischaracterize the original RfC. That and other efforts by the sock sowed further confusion and eventually led to a perceived need for the current RfC. The sock’s motive, clearly indicated in the stricken comments above in this Survey section, was to exclude Gabbard after she earned her delegates, satisfying the criterion clearly established by 18 of 22 votes. Humanengr ( talk) 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposing other option - The candidate has won a contest, received >5% of the popular vote or received a significant number of delegates (say 40 out of 3,979). We have a long standing consensus to include candidates that receive >5% of the vote. We have also long included candidates who win a primary/caucus (this is also helpful given the map in the infobox). In any event, I do not think we should have more than six candidates in the infobox. I think Gabbard receiving 2 delegates and less than 1% of the vote is not significant and she should not be included. I also think Klobuchar has also done little to warrant inclusion (her 7 delegates and 1.63% of the vote at this stage), but am fine keeping whomever is sixth in delegates in the infobox. I am also okay leaving her out. If she is selected as the democratic vice-presidential nominee that would be a factor in her favour. If not, I am fine with leaving her in or out. Hope this fourth RfC on this issue will lay this to rest, it is beyond frustrating that we are still holding RfCs on this issue.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 16:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not opposed to considering a higher (or lower) threshold for number of delegates as Smith0124 has proposed. I am not sure 5% of delegates (ie 199 delegates) is the right number to set, but I agree some level of "significant" delegates is an appropriate non-exclusive qualifier. I expect a lower number of delegates might still signal that a candidate or their ideas had a significant effect on the race and thus should be included.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Darryl Kerrigan: Wouldn’t we need to add a parameter to the infobox for delegate percentages? —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No. 5% is 199. We already have a delegate number in the infobox.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As Davemoth wrote in his summary of the Two-part RfC, "[That RfC] would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article." Commenters praised the summarizer for his efforts and none objected.

A close reading of the votes on that first RfC finds there were 15 votes in favor of "either 5% of the popular vote or a delegate"^*, 4 votes for "delegate only", 2 for "5% of the popular vote only", and 1 for "top 6 by delegate count". There was nearly unanimous agreement — 19 votes out of 22 — to include all candidates who had a delegate.

At a minimum, those votes should be added to those here in favor of Option A.

Given the overwhelming vote in the first RfC, I am restoring the infobox to include all candidates who won 'a delegate -or- more than 5% of the popular vote'. Humanengr ( talk) 23:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Humanengr: That RfC was closed by a neutral closer, SpinningSpark, who deemed it inconclusive. And we now have a new RfC ongoing, so the infobox should not be changed yet. That being said, I see the previous support for what is now option A in that old RfC. Note that option A is not to include those who won "a delegate or more than 5% of the popular vote." The only criterion for option A is that the candidate won a delegate. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 03:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Tartan357: The RfC that was closed as "impossible to determine consensus" was the one started by Smith0124. It was *not* the one I am referring to — the earlier Two-part RfC — for which the closer said of Part B: "In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote." I'm glad that you also see support for what is now option A in that old RfC. I can detail that support for you that shows that fully 20 supported including any who 'won a delegate' — as I said, a) 15 as *either* 'a delegate' *or* '5% of the popular vote', b) 4 indicating 'a delegate' was sufficient in and of itself, and c) 1 the same as (a) but limited to 6 candidates. That's 20 out of 22 who find that 'a delegate' is sufficient, the same as your Option A. My analysis solidified the closer's judgment. I hope that resolves your concerns. Humanengr ( talk) 05:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It seems like most people support A, but I'm going to request a neutral close because of how controversial this has been. —  Tartan357  ^{( Talk)} 08:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

In the initial days of the first RfC (started by DavemothMrX) it is correct that he said he intended it to apply to both the main article and the sub-articles. At that time, despite attempts to direct all discussions to one place, multiple discussion were opening on the main page and template page about this, and a short-time later Smith created the second RfC (not to be confused with "the third" which he also created). The second RfC ran roughly the same time as the first (created by DavemothMrX). While he said that his initial intention was that his RfC deal with both the main page and sub-pages, I believe this changed before it was closed. Perhaps, DavemothMrX himself can clarify that? In any event, the participant discussion seems to me to accord with my understanding that "at some point" it was largely accepted that we needed a different standard for the main article and sub-pages (or at least it needed to be settled in different discussions):

Scope: The initial scope of this as noted by the submitter was that the guideline would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article.

'Out of Scope:' The following were not presented and did not receive any significant discussion:

*The 2nd Rfc Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Rfc_regarding_the_2020_Democratic_presidential_primaries_infobox_template would apply to only the main article and the Infobox Template. My assumption is that Option C would accept the findings of this RfC as the new status quo to "keep as is" for the main article (while individual primary and caucus articles would follow this RfC.)

Given this understanding which existed as the RfCs were running, I think the closer should be focusing on the second RfC (started by Smith), not the first one (started by DavemothMrX) when closing this RfC. Unfortunately, multiple RfCs and discussions have made closing this much harder. Jeeze in linking this I found another "RfC" Smith opened on the topic which was archived without being closed, and which I had forgot about. What a mess.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Re your "In the initial days of the first RfC (started by Davemoth) it is correct that he said he intended it to apply to both the main article and the sub-articles." [emphasis added]:

1. That first RfC was not created by Davemoth; it was created by MrX.
2. Davemoth wrote what you quote ("The initial scope of this as noted by the submitter was that the guideline would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article.") on March 10 — 6 days after the last vote was cast in that first RfC. That's not 'initial days'.

Re your "The second RfC ran roughly the same time as the first (created by Davemoth)." [emphasis added]: That is similarly wrong and misleading. The 2nd RfC did not begin until March 4 (one day after it was reported that Gabbard earned her first delegate) by Smith — a sockpuppet of a banned user — with the unsupported premise "Previously, there was an Rfc about state pages". 'Roughly the same time' — you mean that the votes in one occurred entirely before the votes in the other?

Re your "While he said that his initial intention was that his RfC deal with both the main page and sub-pages, I believe this changed before it was closed." [emphasis added]: What are you claiming was changed? by whom? when?

Re your "In any event, the participant discussion seems to me to accord with my understanding that 'at some point' it was largely accepted that we needed a different standard for the main article and sub-pages (or at least it needed to be settled in different discussions)" [emphasis added]: "At some point' — when? 'Largely accepted' — by whom? What specifically do you see in the ' participant discussion' you linked that 'accords with' your understanding?

Re your "Given this understanding which existed as the RfCs were running, I think the closer should be focusing on the second RfC (started by Smith), not the first one (started by Davemoth) when closing this RfC." You have provided no support for the first boldface text. You have expressed preference (in the second boldface) to use an RfC created by a user whose later RfC was closed by S Marshall as "This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it."? By a sockpuppet of a banned user? An RfC with an unsupported premise?

Re your "Unfortunately, multiple RfCs and discussions have made closing this much harder.": I count two RfC's by a sockpuppet of a banned user. As for discussions, I see one opened by you that begins with Well, since the RfC concerning the infobox here has now been closed without any consensus. and which ignores the 1st RfC.

Re your "Jeeze in linking this I found another "RfC" Smith opened on the topic which was archived without being closed, and which I had forgot about.": More fully, the one that was closed as "This isn't a good faith RfC; it's disruptive sockpuppetry.".

Re your "What a mess.": Agree.

Humanengr ( talk) 21:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that MrX started the first RfC. Not sure, why I started thinking it was Davemoth. In fairness, as I have pointed out this conversation took place over multiple pages and RfCs, with users starting new conversations and RfCs before the previous one had closed. While the last comment of the first RfC was on March 10, it continued to run at least until the end of the 30 days, as you know a formal close came months after it was opened. I will see whether I can locate some of the specific discussions by which we seem to have agreed the first RfC was limited to the sub-pages. In fairness to MrX, I am not sure if he ever agreed to that (but he did vote to support the participant discussion which seemed to recognize a limited scope). I did quote a relevant portion of that participant discussion for you above, specifically under the Analysis and Proposed Consensus, Scope section Davemoth wrote The 2nd Rfc would apply to only the main article and the Infobox Template. My assumption is that Option C [Keep as is] would accept the findings of this RfC as the new status quo to "keep as is" for the main article (while individual primary and caucus articles would follow this RfC.. If memory serves Davemoth didn't just propose that out of the blue then, there were other discussions that the first RfC would deal with the sub-pages and the second with the main page. Sorry, I can't do better then "at some point" until I spend some time, digging up the actual discussions. Shifting gears, concerning my comment that from the Infobox (Part II) discussion that Well, since the RfC concerning the infobox here has now been closed without any consensus... referred to the RfC about the main page infobox and the second RfC (which at least some editors and in the participant discussion was agreed was the one that applied to the main article), which was clearly closed with "impossible to determine consensus". Your quote of me from the Infobox (Part II) discussion was solely about the main page infobox (not the sub-pages). Now, the fact that Smith started the second RfC and many editors seem to have accepted that the MrX RfC was limited to the sub-pages, means that ignoring the second RfC which explicitly applied to the main page is problematic. Reasonable folks, could as you have done, suggest that the first RfC should also apply to the main page, but I don't think that permits us to completely ignore the comments and votes in the second which was clearly about this page. Furthermore, as a technical point the consensus that was reached in Part B of the MrX RfC only applies after the primary is over, so reasonable folks could disagree whether having a "presumptive" nominee means it is over, or it needs to actually be over. Anyway, thank you for correcting me about MrX. I will see if I can locate some of the specific discussions that gave rise to the acceptance in the participant discussion that there was one RfC for the sub-articles and one for the main page.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Humanengr:, I am concerned about ignoring the votes of others in the second RfC, that said it was mostly a scratch. The most prudent thing may be to just do what you suggest: apply A to the main page (or A plus 5% per SpinningSpark's close). Archive all of these RfCs, participant discussions and other discussions and if really necessary someone can start fresh with a new RfC clearly around the time of the convention (if they really want to). While that is not my favoured option, there is value in wiping the slate clean and starting fresh.
For what it is worth, if you go to my note comment at 22:51 on 4 March 2020 in the first/MrX RfC, you can see that there seems to have been some edit warring happening, and I told folks to discuss it in the RfC. Then I note shortly below I note that Smith is talking about starting a second RfC (about the template, the infobox used on the main page). That discussion seems to be this one that occured on the talk page for the infobox template. That seems to be the origin of the second RfC. Despite the fact that MrX's RfC was happening, there were several discussions that kept popping up on the template page, for example here and here. There were also some happening here including this one. Smith's behaviour was disruptive, but there were many folks popping up on the template page and here calling for removal of certain candidates specifically on for the main page. Anyway, that seems to be the backdrop, not sure that helps us though.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Darryl. Yes, let's return to Option A. I do think that honors the first RfC and judiciously avoids contamination by the actions of a sockpuppet. Would you care to make the change?

Also agree re ""Archive all of these RfCs, participant discussions and other discussions". And thank you for providing the links to that other background. Humanengr ( talk) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I would rather leave it for someone else to do. I have been along for this whole long ride, which makes it easier for me to put things in a bit of context, when my memory doesn't fail me. That said, I have also been rather close to this one. As I am the one that had the most significant conflict with Smith, it is probably best for everyone if someone else does the honours. Tartan357 may also be right that a formal close is the best way to go.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oddball opinion here: any of the following should qualify: "5% of vote", "won a contest", or "more than half of voteshare of someone else who qualifies". In the 2008 primaries, Edwards, while winning delegates in the beginning, was largely irrelevant and unmentioned. Whereas, in a race with more candidates like 2020, candidates who ended up doing just as badly are more relevant. It would make no sense to not include Buttigieg, given that he won Iowa - and by the same token Kloubuchar, who did a bit more than half as well as him in the popular vote - and therefore, Gabbard should be included too. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 07:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)