Note. This is solely a talk page here. No barnstars, no DYK/GA/whatever notifications besides such that would be needed for Wikipedia's administrative purposes (such as warnings, ANI discussions, RfC/article help etc.) You are always welcome to talk to me. But please let's keep order. Any contributions that I consider worthwhile are here.

All alerts in contentious topic areas are posted here. Editors in areas with extended-confirmed protection may want to read this.

Thankyou so much for your good article review of white chocolate. I was very impressed with the quality and thoroughness, particularly on evaluating broadness. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Szmenderowiecki, I've expanded this article by about 50% and I'm looking to nominate it at FA. Would you mind having another look over before I go ahead with this to flag any issues I may be missing? Thanks a lot, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you haven't edited in a few weeks. Good article nominations are automatically flagged as inactive after three weeks of no edits, so I wanted to make sure you're still able to respond once a reviewer comes along. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, due to my off-wiki duties I'm semi-active. I log in into my account once every couple of days, but I'm not doing much editing lately (maybe a quick WP:RX request). When the review comes, you can be sure I will respond within a week. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Le Touquet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The GAN has been live for six days with no response from you, and I'm not inclined to go on talking to myself there. If you can't engage now I'll close the review tomorrow and leave it to you to re-nominate when you feel able to do so. I've left 40 or so suggestions you may like to consider. It's a fine article and deserves to be GA when you are ready. Tim riley talk 19:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Le Touquet you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Le Touquet for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to withdraw the mass AfD, at least for now. One response: The fact that a team plays a schedule consisting of major powers is actually an indicia of notability, and not simply an argument for inheritance. Teams that play major college football receive abundant coverage. We agree that coverage is the key under WP:GNG, but teams that play major opponents will typically receive more SIGCOV than teams that compete exclusively against small colleges.

If you have any questions or want input on any proposed RfA, feel free to drop a note on my talk page or ping me here. I have actually nominated a lot of lower level season articles for deletion. My experience suggests several broad points:

1. Major college football programs (currently known as NCAA Division I FBS) almost always generate sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG and warrant stand-alone articles.
2. Lower level college football programs (e.g., NCAA Division II and III and NAIA) generally don't receive the depth of coverage to warrant stand-alone articles. E.g, 2022 Shorter, 2022 North Greenville, 2021 Lock Haven, 2016 WPI, 2016 Hampden-Sydney, 2014 Chicago, 1998 Saint Francis, 1943 Massachusetts State, 1924 Michigan Mines. At lower levels, I generally believe that stand-alone season articles are warranted only if there is something truly extraordinary like a national championship.
3. The quantum of coverage in the 19th century was far lower than in the 20th century. Moreover, teams in the 19th century often played very abbreviated schedules. For this reason, redirecting or combining multiple seasons makes a lot of sense for many 19th century teams. See 1881 Randolph-Macon, 1895 Pacific, 1884 DePauw, 1903 Western Illinois, 1884 Wabash, 1881 Georgetown, 1897 South Dakota State, 1893 Western Maryland, 1900 CCNY, 1896 Indiana State, 1879 Swarthmore.

Cbl62 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 I will send you the list of articles I consider problematic, primarily because of lack of demonstrated notability in the article(s); I will start from the East Coast only, because I've processed 20 or so unis and I didn't even go much beyond New England and New York; all I can say for now is that the article quality problem is indeed systemic in the seasons of college football teams articles (regardless if they are in NCAA Division I, II or III - not that it doesn't matter, because as you rightly note, the top league should generate enough coverage, but then again it isn't there. It is a bit of a WP:LUGSTUBS situation, minus the asshole behaviour on AfD and the blocks). The FAs and GAs cited in the aborted AfD seem to be exceptions that confirm the rule.

Admittedly I don't know that much about American football, but I do know that the articles I compile for that list suck and are very unlikely to be expanded (or if they in fact will be, we can always split them, that's totally fine) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that much about American football, but I do know that the articles I compile for that list ... are very unlikely to be expanded I've been working on college football seasons for big chunks of the past 15 years. I have a pretty good sense of which articles are unlikely to be expanded. Per my notes above, it's generally going to be smaller college teams (Division II and III and NAIA) and 19th century teams. I believe that every Division I FBS program (the 100 highest-level teams) are all capable of expansion. Moreover, there are a number of programs that were "top level" for some periods of time (e.g., Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Fordham, U. Detroit, Colgate, Cornell, Lafayette, etc.) even though they no longer are. Cbl62 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe let's do it this way: I will process this list and post it here with a ping to you, you are going to tell me what is likely to be expanded within, say, 3-year timeframe (because, as you say, these teams were top-notch for at least some periods of time). I will post your assessment to the RfC, together with the presentation of my point of view as an outsider who sees problems with article quality (regardless of how likely the expansion is or will be), and you are going to propose your ideas as a person in the know. Either way I believe we need more eyes on this issue, and I will welcome your comments during an RfC that hopefully is going to make these articles go in the right direction, i.e. away from a permastub state. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I had to stop at 13 states (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD, WV, VA and the District of Columbia) because compiling the list took too much time, and it's already pretty long.

I'd like to ask you to evaluate which articles you believe probably should be deleted/consolidated/whatever, based on at least on one grouping of teams as provided in the collapsible box, and which seasons articles you believe may be notable and deserve a standalone article because it's best covered this way.

Because most of the articles have more or less the same template, particularly with that schedule template, and I was told that the 1927 NYU Violets article is good enough because there is consensus it's OK, can I please see where that local consensus is? Because maybe I'm dumb but I just can't find it.

Btw, the 1926 article you edited recently is already better, though I'm still not sure if standalone treatment is the most appropriate. But at least it's going in the right direction.

• The problem with your AfD was that it was grossly overbroad, covering four programs and more than 300 articles. Instead of narrowing the scope, you've multiplied it by more than 25-fold to cover over 150 programs and more than 10,000 articles! I would strenuously oppose such an RfC on mass-casualty WP:TRAINWRECK grounds. There are likely some articles that are worthy of consolidating or deleting, but I don't have time to review and assess over 10,000 articles, and throwing that enormous quantity of work against the wall in a single RfC is not appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (Moved your comment because it didn't display) I just asked you to choose one of the several areas, so that could be around 10-15 programs. Of course, you are under no obligation to provide an analysis, but I thought you'd be willing to help.
• Also, my proposal is not necessarily to delete it. My question will be what to do with it, and with WP:AMF in general, because it appears that standards in this area are pretty lax and new seasons articles keep being added, including those for 2025, where matches are only due in half a year and which therefore have no meaningful content. I understand that your concern is that there is disparate worth in each article, because a seasons article in Division I is not the same as in Division III, and a trophy season may be more notable, and I agree with this. However, the question here is less about the fate of these articles - something we will have to get to talk about sooner or later - and more with the general quality of these groups of articles in general. Editors in AMF could have just created at least passable articles and we wouldn't need to have this discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to assess at one RfC 10,000 articles of widely varying quality, length, and notability. It's more practical to discuss specifics. Accordingly, I'll provide comments on a few specifics as time permits:

• Middlebury. Middlebury has played college football for more than 125 years, and I agree with you that most seasons of Middlebury football do not warrant stand-alone season articles. In fact, only two such articles have been created. The 1972 Middlebury Panthers football team was a rare perfect season (8-0) and received sufficient SIGCOV from reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. This one clearly warrants keeping. 1961 Middlebury Panthers football team can be debated but certainly is not in the "Lugnuts" category you reference above (the "Lugnuts" controversy dealt with one-line sub-stubs sourced solely to a database, and even those were not mass deleted). Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yale. Any discussion of Yale needs to be split between its period of national significance (1872 to roughly 1949) and its post-1950 era.

In the former period, Yale has arguably the most distinguished history of any college football program. Indeed, the modern sport of American football was largely developed there under the guidance of Walter Camp (the "Father of American football"). Between 1872 and 1927, Yale won 27 national champions, and its players won Heisman trophies in 1936 and 1937. Moreover, many of the Yale articles are in decent shape, e.g., 1885, 1888, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1895, and 1897, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1909, etc. -- and none are in the "Lugnuts" category. I'd be opposed to either deleting or redirecting any of the season articles in this period of high significance.

As for the period after 1949, Yale was no longer a national football power, and the articles generally lack depth (e.g., 1951, 1962, 1965, 2002). As an experiment last year, I expanded 1961 Yale Bulldogs football team, and I was surprised to see that Yale continued to receive SIGCOV (including major publications like The New York Times). There are some modern seasons, e.g. 1975, that are well developed. You may want to confer with Yale experts like User:Billcasey905 about the viability of stand-alone articles for Yale in the modern era. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delaware. I'll add my two cents to what User:BeanieFan11 said. I don't know much about the notability of the early or very recent Delaware seasons, but they went through a 60-plus-year period from 1940 to 2001 where they were coached by back-to-back-to-back Hall of Fame coaches (Bill Murray, David M. Nelson, Tubby Raymond) and during that time they compiled a remarkable record of 433-177-7, including national championships in 1946, 1963, 1971, 1972, 1979, and 2003. Certainly, that golden era of Delaware is highly notable and deserves season articles. And these are not sub-stubs that are being left unimproved. Rather, in the usual Wikipedia process, these articles are being improved. For example, 1979 Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football team was created in 2012 by User:Eagles247 (with a solid start at 9,641 characters) and has been steadily improved over the years with help from multiple editors including User:Jweiss11, User:UCO2009bluejay, User:Toll Booth Willie, User:Patriarca12, and others. Cbl62 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Amherst. Most of the 19th century season articles (e.g., 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1884, 1886) don't have depth or much in the way of sourcing. I'd support combining them into a single grouped article, covering the years 1877-1899. Pinging others who have created these articles for their input. @ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi: @MisterCake: @Jweiss11: Cbl62 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Northeastern. There are about 30 articles in this category. Most of them were created by User:Patriarca12 and User:SportsGuy789. You might want to leave them a note if you think these aren't notable. Cbl62 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Springfield. There are 20 articles in this category. The articles for the early years (1890-91, 1902-09, 1921-29) were created by User:Jweiss11. He is one of the best editors in the college football project, and you may want to talk to him about whether these could be combined into decade articles. I created the 1965 season article -- this was Springfield's first perfect season since 1893, a 9–0 record that generated SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Tufts. Tufts has some historically significant seasons (e.g., perfect seasons in 1927, 1934, 1979), but today it is a low-level Division III team. The 2016, 2018, 2022, 2023 and 2024 articles are for non-championship Division III teams and are sourced only to the Tufts web site. These are the sort of articles that I would favor deleting unless a strong showing of SIGCOV can be presented. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
• Penn State. Ranks No. 7 among the winningest programs in college football history. A mega-notable program where season articles are clearly warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merrimack. I haven't done any WP:BEFORE searches, but the articles currently don't have any SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. See 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Bryant. Bryant played in Div. II from 1999-2007 and in Div. I FCS from 2008-2024. (For ease of reference, the tiers of college football are: (1) Div. I FBS - 128 teams; (2) Div. I FCS - 129 teams; (3) Div.II - 162 teams, (4) Div. III - 450 teams, and (5) NAIA - 97 teams.) None of the 26 Bryant season articles include SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources, and I have doubts as to whether they pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Ithaca. Three of the articles (1979, 1988, 1991) were national championship seasons. Another (1965) was a perfect season. IMO those four are clearly notable. Your assertion that "the articles are pretty poor" is inaccurate. The 1991 article has been expanded to 10,000 bytes of information and 20 sources. The 1979 article has over 9,100 bytes and 21 sources. The 1965 article has 8,800 bytes and 20 sources. These articles could each be expanded to "good" articl status. Comparing them to Lugnuts' one-sentence, one-source sub-stubs would be ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Saint Anselm. Saint Anselm does not IMO warrant a full run of season articles. One exception is the 1936 team that went undefeated, gave up zero points on defense all season, and knocked highly-regarded Holy Cross out of contention for the 1937 Rose Bowl. And coverage like this UP piece is clearly SIGCOV Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Colby. This is a small-college team, and there is only one stand-alone season article: 1914 team created by User:Hirolovesswords. The article is well developed and has 14 reliable sources. And coverage like this, proclaiming the 1914 team the greatest in Colby history and published 25 years after the fact, looks decent. That said, I seriously doubt that a full run of Colby season articles would be justified. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Princeton. One of the most prominent programs in the first 80 years of the sport: 28 national championships between 1869 and 1950 and a Heisman Trophy winner in 1951. As with Yale (discussed above), the notability is lessened after the golden period of prominence. I don't have time to dig in on the post-1951 seasons, but I'd say that season articles are justified at least through 1951. Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rutgers. Rutgers is a member of the Big Ten Conference, the tippy-top tier of college football. And at the front end, they played in the historic first college football game: 1869 Princeton vs. Rutgers football game. There are entire books written on the history of Rutgers football: E.g., here, here, and here. I worked last year on improving the 1961 article, and that experienced helped to convince me in the depth of coverage available to improve Rutgers season articles. I've also done some expansion today on 1976, 1938, and 1917 teams. Cbl62 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stonehill. All three articles (2022, 2023, 2024) lack SIGCOV. I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search, but we really shouldn't have season articles on recent, lower-level (FCS) seasons that are devoid of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I will consider further action. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to go through and individually comment on the myriad programs (so many are clearly notable; proposing for deletion 99% of Penn State's seasons? Seriously? Every season in Yale / Harvard / Princeton history? They were the three greatest football teams of the 19th century!), but I'll comment on just one. I'm probably this site's "expert" on sports in Delaware, one of the smallest states. The Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens (which you've proposed everything to be removed) is a relatively minor team compared to the biggest such as Penn State, yet even they get so extensive and in-depth coverage, I am certain I could get almost every single one of their seasons to GA if I tried, and probably a large number to even FA. The vast majority of all of these have clear potential to be expanded and are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowiecki, your list of articles here is absurdly inclusive of scores examples for FBS programs and historical power programs. And the list also applies the same obtuseness that I mentioned on the AFD and feared would carry over to an RFC: an ability to discern a developed article from an analog of equal notability that just happens to still be a stub. As you admit, you don't know that much about American football. It would, therefore, probably be best if you focused instead on something with which you have have some familiarity of even expertise. Alternatively, you could perhaps, establish some good will by substantively improving at least one article about college football. But what you are doing here thus far is wasting a lot of other editors time and attention with ignorance and absurdity. As for what I said about the 1927 NYU Violets football team article and its notability, I was referring to many broad discussions that have taken place largely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football going back nearly two decades now. You're welcome to dig through those archives if so choose. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Jweiss11's comments. I generally agree with him and will sum up as follows: I don't think a mass RfC is necessary or appropriate. There are, as in any area of Wikipedia, some articles that fail notability standards or that need improvement. That said, it is not an epidemic or a "Lugnuts II" situation as you suggest. The normal AfD process is adequate to deal with articles that truly fail notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2025

Thank you for closing the RfC. I agree it was very clear that supporters did not meet the threshold to include “conspiracy theorist” in the first sentence. As this is one of the first RfC’s I’ve responded to, I’m trying to learn how consensus might can be evaluated, especially when the question is so narrowly scoped to a single sentence. My initial impression is that such a narrow question will ultimately come down to a vote because the question only has a binary answer. It seemed to me that an RfC on how Patel’s support for conspiracy theories should be treated in the introduction would be more conducive to finding a consensus.

I look forward to seeing the community’s response to your closure. In the meantime if you have any thoughts on the scope of this RfC, I’d appreciate hearing them. Dw31415 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you transparently did a WP:SUPERVOTE on that RFC.

• . GoodDay has suggested that this RfC run for a month - I respectfully disagree, because the newest arguments mirror those that were stated earlier in the RfC and the discussions mentioned above and bring little new insight, and even if they do, do not substantially change the outcome of the discussion. Thats not a good reason to end the RFC early. If new votes are still coming in, it does not matter if they repeat the same reasoning.
• I'm counting at least 5x as many opposes as supports. That's not a "non-consensus" and we need detailed calculus about how to rule out significant numbers of votes to suggest a non-consensus.
• I understand WP:NOTAVOTE, but you need good reasoning to do WP:DISCARD. Using your own arguments for why to include or not include the info seems more useful as a response to the RFC.

Please consider unclosing the RFC. I don't think this close would hold up on WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and I really think you should let this go on for a month.

Someone much more experienced should attempt to close it. For what its worth, even I don't think I have the experience for that. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of RfC that was almost certain to be appealed, but I can explain my way of thinking.

Re first point, WP:WHENCLOSE's point three specifically allows when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time. The essay further says this should be the case if the same widely held view is repeated, but the core of the dispute is such that all policy-based arguments have been proposed in the first couple of posts or so, and the rest are just repeating the first arguments. The RfC ran for almost three weeks, so by this time we got a representative picture of the relative support/oppose ratio and most people who wanted to comment there did. New comments did not raise new important arguments or datapoints.

Re second and third points: it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. I summarised both supporters' and opponents' arguments and found them both valid and strong. The numbers kind of matter, but I had to apply DISCARD pretty aggressively based on the credible AN report that something fishy was going on with the flood of IPs and new users - which credibility was confirmed by the fact that an admin approved continuing semi-protection for the talk page - which another admin seems to have imposed in the first place out of their own volition. There actually were two IPs trying to submit their opposition by going to the requests for page protection page and airing their grievances, which definitely isn't the place to do it.

When these votes were discarded, I had to discard a couple more based on the fact that they stated little more than their personal preference or just complaining about left-wing bias. I also discarded at least one support vote that argued that we should call him a conspiracy theorist because Democrats on the Judiciary Committee called him that way, but obviously this source is biased and... yeah, politicians calling each other names isn't a new thing. Ultimately, that 5:1 ratio is more like a 2:1 ratio, and given equal validity of the arguments, it is absolutely reasonable to call this a no consensus outcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the additional reasoning. And you definitely put a lot of work in, which is appreciated.

However, I still would like an admin's review of this and will start the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE procedure accordingly. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to hide, so if you believe that's the best course of action, go ahead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed a view that was not repeated and you may have missed it. I called into question that the sources that call Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist pass the WP:RS test. In fact, you expressly called them reliable:

There is a pretty substantial section describing his conspiracist views with quite ample sourcing, which demonstrates that third-party reliable observers dedicated quite a bit of attention to that aspect of his life.

— Szmenderowiecki, RfC: Whether to call Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence

Yes there is ample sourcing, but it is not WP:RS as far as I can tell. Would you mind including this opinion in your closed statement? Peptidylprolyl (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument basically says that any label in reliable sources must be substantiated for it to count. We don't require that from otherwise reliable sources, and neither do we require sources to be absolutely neutral. We do have that requirement for Wikipedia content. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument says that the source is not a reliable source. I was not able to verify the criteria for reliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source. I am not suggesting WP:OR, just the application of what is in WP:RS. I am not trying to debate it here, I'm just asking you to include it if possible, in order to represent my viewpoint, which I consider unique and important. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some sources that are borderline, like HuffPost or, to a lesser extent, Mother Jones (biased but reliable), most of the sources used are generally reliable, as repeatedly discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard (see WP:RSP for a compilation of discussions). The majority of editors who were discussing the sources' reliability found that they indeed were reliable, and that assertion is reasonable.

What you did is extrapolated from the AP article that asserted he's a conspiracy theorist without further explanation, which you believed was not sufficient, and then said that any source on that pattern would not be reliable to support that statement. The whole point of a reliable source is that we trust that their review processes are good enough that whatever they write doesn't need any additional confirmation; that they vouch that whatever they write is substantially true and that promise is not hollow. For contentious topics, we probably need several such sources, and we have them. Finally, Patel could have always sued for libel, which was easier to win before he was appointed to the government. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked some of the sources, I could not verify that they are WP:RS according to the definition there. I could contest your arguments, but it's not the place in my opinion, unless you insist. I'm asking you to represent this viewpoint in your closing statement. Can you please do that? Peptidylprolyl (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your view, among the comments that were discussing the sources' reliability and which were not discounted, was a minority. As what I'm doing as a closer is representing the discussion's consensus, and this particular position was not among the consensus, even if we just take the oppose votes, I don't believe that your position merits representation in the closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I counted three more votes expressing my opinion, what's your threshold? Peptidylprolyl (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found two: 82.117.29.169 in the pre-RfC stage and 47.201.226.178, who was mostly arguing that RSs were merely speculating if he was nominated as FBI director simply because he supported conspiracy theories, which is beside the point. In any case, many more oppose votes conceded that the reliable sources are there but opposed that label in the first sentence. Not to mention that this argument IMHO relies on a misunderstanding about what we require from reliable sources. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that I misunderstand? I am reading the article, I do not find evidence that the conspiracy theorist label is deserved, and yet it is reliable? WP:RS describes exactly this situation as unreliable.

Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Peptidylprolyl (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peptidylprolyl, what has been said is that your opinion that the Associated Press and USA Today was not reliable was in the minority. Go to WP:RSPS and review the rating for both the Associated Press and USA Today. (Personally, I don't think you should continue to reply here as it seems clear that Szmenderowiecki isn't going to update the closing for good reason.)

Also, thank you for clarifying your no consensus here, Szmenderowiecki. I was a bit confused until I read this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you have misread WP:RS, it is not as coarse as you suggest. The granularity of the definition allows an assessment on a per-author and per-article basis. I'm claiming that those particular sources, meaning those articles, which call Patel a conspiracy theorist, are unreliable according to WP:RS.

I did not claim that USA Today or AP are unreliable. WP:RSPS does not apply.

I do realize that my request to mention my opinion will not be fulfilled, and that is fine. I do feel obliged to reply when my opinion is misrepresented, hence why I responded to you, and why I asked Szmenderowiecki to explain why he says that I misunderstood. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still advise you to consider walking away from this. Still, I am willing to reply once more, but that is likely the limit.

Per RSPS on USA Today: "There is consensus that staff-written articles on USA Today are generally reliable." Per RSPS on AP: "The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable." Your claim that the four staff writers have published two articles that are marginally reliable or worse was in the minority at the RfC in question. (As an aside, articles and sources are usually challenged at the noticeboard, but talk pages of a subject are fine.)

We have two reliable sources that are publishers: USA Today and AP. This appears to me to meet, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process (...)"

Finally, the AP article you have claimed does not elaborate on the conspiracy theories actually does elaborate:

Collapsing out of politeness.
This is about twenty lines of text, maybe more.
Getting behind Trump was the only way to root out “government gangsters,” Patel said, at once referring to the title of his recently published memoir and the entrenched and shadowy cabal of “deep state” operatives he believes are threatening the country. + He hopes to curb the power of the Justice Department’s Civil Division and jettison a Pentagon office that produces classified assessments of long-term trends and risks, arguing it is just a tool of the “deep state.” (Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States)      After a day’s testimony, Patel addressed a throng of reporters outside the courthouse, arguing Trump was the victim of an “unconstitutional circus.” (Probable reference to the DOJ conspiracy theory regarding the NY prosecution.)      Patel was interviewed as part of an investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and said the former president “pre-emptively authorized” 10,000 to 20,000 troops to deploy days before the attack. But a Colorado court later found that Patel was “not a credible witness” on the topic. (Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 troops on Jan. 6)      ”We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel said, referring to the 2020 presidential election in which Biden, the Democratic challenger, defeated Trump. + In Patel’s telling, Trump is facing off in a do-or-die battle with Democrats and bureaucrats who helped steal the election, an assertion that has been rejected by federal and local officials, dozens of courts, top former campaign staffers and even Trump’s own attorney general. (Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election)      He’s also a pitchman for a variety of goods marketed to Trump supporters. One dietary supplement he’s promoting claims to be a COVID vaccine “detoxification system” made by a company whose co-founder was a defendant in a class-action lawsuit filed by people who say they were overcharged for Keto diet pills. + “Order this homerun kit to rid your body of the harms of the vax,” Patel said in a recent Truth Social post promoting the supplements. (COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy)      Patel said in a 2022 podcast appearance that Truth Social was trying to incorporate QAnon, a set of conspiracy theories borne out of the idea that the government is run by a cabal of child predators, “into our overall messaging scheme to capture audiences.” + “He should get credit for all the things he has accomplished,” Patel said of the anonymous figurehead of the QAnon movement. (QAnon + Deep state conspiracy theory)

I hope this response satisfies you. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it, like I did. Here's my issues with your analysis, one point per paragraph:

1. On the first paragraph, the only fact I can gather is that Patel spoke of "government gangsters". The rest is interpretation by the authors of the article. Wanting to get rid of an office because you believe it is not serving the U.S. interests does not make you a conspiracy theorist; this may or may not have been what Patel meant.

2. On him addressing reporters outside the courthouse to call it an "unconstitutional circus", so have many other legal scholars. It furthermore appears to be so to the casual observer.

3. That a Colorado court found him to be not a credible witness for some case means nothing with regards to him being a conspiracy theorist, as courts operate within legal frameworks and to the prudence of judges.

4. The statement on coming after journalists can be read as politicking. It's a very popular sentiment as of now. Again however, it is not a conspiracy. Saying that he'll come after those who rigged elections is not election denying, as the set of such people may be empty (a vacuous truth), and even if it is not empty, as one would anticipate that some fraud, however minuscule, typically exists in large-scale processes, it still is not election denying, but more politicking.

5. On the dietary supplement, snake oil is not a conspiracy theory.

6. Patel saying that Truth Social will do something is not a conspiracy theory, isn't he just commentating as an observer? As far as I can tell from the article, he's not affiliated with Truth Social. That the pseudonymous author(s) should get credit for their accomplishments is a statement that carries little weight without further elaboration, such as, what accomplishments? I suspect that he's talking about the effect it had on politics, hence political commentary.

You promised one last response. I promise not to respond to it. I hope that you can see my point of view. The AP article does not answer the question of what makes Patel a conspiracy theorist at all in my eyes.

Furthermore, I'd advise you to delete this text as it is copyrighted. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my last response to your claims. You disagree with my reply above? Very well. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also discard those who argued that it should be kept with the sole reason given was that it has RS (because that alone, even if true, isn't sufficient for the first sentence), and those who only voted based on the speculation that he was hired only or mainly for his conspiracy theories? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is not the best argument - far from it - but because it was not totally irrelevant I did not discard it altogether, simply assigned less weight. I assigned similar low weight to people writing something akin to Oppose. Per WP:BLP because alone that similarly was of little help - it doesn't say you can't write "conspiracy theorist", you just have to be very careful and make sure you have many, many sources noting that aspect. However, those pointing to MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE and applying the guideline to the RfC question did not have their votes discarded, whether they opposed or supported. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you able to count up the entire votes with each vote's weight in mind, and then compare which one had more? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a rough estimate, I'm not sitting with an Excel spreadsheet and there are no definite quantity thresholds that determine when you have to call consensus or when it's still no consensus (such guidelines are notably absent from the policy page about what is consensus). One possible (and probably often used) way of saying when you crossed the threshold is formulated at the requests for adminship page - there generally is consensus if >75%, there may be consensus if 65%<x<75% - but then again it's not directly applicable to requests for comment. If it doesn't look like one side has won decisively, it's no consensus. Basically it's a "you know it when you see it" situation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and good day. In the closure discussion I said

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#c-Dw31415-20250301142900-Participants (Kash Patel RfC) you were unwilling to modify the closure statement based on your lack of engagement with the criticism there. If that’s unfair, please let me know. Dw31415 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC closure review request at Talk:Kash_Patel#RfC:_Whether_to_call_Kash_Patel_a_conspiracy_theorist_in_the_first_sentence. Thank you. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will start looking for your requests tomorrow. David notMD (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, there is no rush. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1285481226. What edit war were you talking about? I reverted obvious vandalism, plus other editors reverted vandalism. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justjourney Well, it did look like that from the first glance. I agree with you. Maybe raise the issue again at WP:RFPP since the autoconfirmed padlock doesn't seem to work? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an IP user already reported the page, as well as three other pages. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 23:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's good. Sorry for meddling into affairs without understanding them first. Will be better. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow afternoon, I will start in on what you have posted - first on the comments about references, or lack thereof, and then on to larger comments. After the time I put in back in late 2024 into 2025 I had thought I was close to having brought everything up to GA level, but obviously I had gotten too close the article - or else just worn out - and so was surprised/daunted by the need to get back into the trenches. David notMD (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you have time. Don't promise me anything, just ping me once you decide to start Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any idea it would be great if you could comment at Talk:Electronic cigarette#What info should be in what articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help you because I don't follow the topic of vaping. I just answered two edit requests that seemed pretty straightforward. Thanks for the invitation though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have rephrased the paragraph as per your request. Would you please edit the article? Talk:Helyeh Doutaghi Edd90 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your past help reviewing requests at Talk:United Talent Agency. I see my most recent open requests keep getting archived quickly, if there's a way to fix this or if you are interested in reviewing my others suggestions for improving the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your nomination of Le Touquet at GAN is currently flagged as inactive because you haven't edited in a while. Are you still available to respond once someone decides to review the article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can respond indeed. I am somewhat busy IRL but I'll find an hour or two if needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Le Touquet is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COI on Open Britain. I'm notifying you as you previously dealt with a draft that relates to the COI editor's concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maurice Duplessis series has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Moxy🍁 03:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand in Special:Diff/1324930217/1324932675, editing in "which would suggest an unfair advantage against other female athletes." you want to describe the controversy. However, words to this affect are not covered in the body AFAIK, so this comes off to me both as a problem as far as MOS:LEAD is concerned but also as far a WP:NOR is concerned as it comes across as interpretation. I'm not adverse to have something along those lines, but it needs to be in the body and cited. TarnishedPath^talk 09:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath It is fair to say that an average reader who knows something about sport will assume that women's results in athletics are generally worse than men's, and that's not for the lack of trying. Which is why we don't see many mixed-sex competitions in Olympic sports. But we are a general encyclopedia writing for everyone, whenever possible, and I suspect much of the traffic to the page is due to her prominence in culture war issues. I'll bet that a substantial portion of visitors to the page didn't know about her until August 2024, or even care about boxing at all.

Just listing increased testosterone, deviations from typical female development or being transgender/intersex does not explain why she was subjected to sex verification testing, or why is her fighting other women on the ring suddenly a big deal.

IMHO it is already covered in the body with the IBA's statement that alleged, based on whatever confidential testing they did, that Khelif "was found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors" that merited disqualification. The verifythis.com source also says:

Following Khelif’s quick victory over Italian boxer Angela Carini on Thursday, Aug. 1, a fervor broke out online as people across social media insinuated that Khelif is a transgender woman. Many of those people further claimed that Khelif had an unfair advantage and she shouldn't be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

I am open to some similarly short wording but we can't deny the fact that she was disqualified and latter harassed in the court of public opinion because basically some people thought she was cheating or the body itself gave her cheat tools, and we should make this clear for the reader (not that she was cheating - we have no evidence she did) Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 10:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given what is already written and cited in the article and the following from the requirements of MOS:LEAD and WP:NOR I'm going to suggest that:

Khelif was disqualified from IBA's 2023 Women's World Championships just before the gold-medal fight, after she allegedly failed unspecified gender eligibility tests; the International Olympic Committee (IOC) dismissed the disqualification as "sudden and arbitrary". After Khelif defeated Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, false claims that she was male circulated online, sparking controversy. Khelif was born female and has always competed at women-only events, including at those organised by IOC. No medical evidence has been published to indicate she is transgender, nor that she has XY chromosomes, disorders of sex development or elevated levels of testosterone, which would suggest an unfair advantage against other female athletes.

be adjusted to

Khelif was disqualified from IBA's 2023 Women's World Championships just before the gold-medal fight, after she allegedly failed unspecified gender eligibility tests. In 2024, when defending the decision, the IBA alleged that Khelif was "found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors". The International Olympic Committee (IOC) dismissed the disqualification as "sudden and arbitrary". After Khelif defeated Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, false claims that she was male circulated online, sparking controversy. Khelif was born female and has always competed at women-only events, including at those organised by IOC. No medical evidence has been published to indicate she is transgender, nor that she has XY chromosomes, disorders of sex development or elevated levels of testosterone.

You good with that? TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It's verbose and it doesn't really cover the whole culture war controversy which it is ultimately about. If we need to change the body then change the body. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 10:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to change the body. Since your edit at Special:Diff/1324941456 it's cited and near enough is in the body. It doesn't read well to me though. I'll try and think of better wording. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all ears Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 11:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No promise that my brain is going to work that fast. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick bravo for your recent work on Judiciary of Poland! I admit that I only browsed quickly and I'm not volunteering to double-check it, but at least based on my very rapid browse, it looks like an improvement in a complex and nuanced topic, where few Wikipedians dare to tread. Boud (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT change other people's talk pages, as you did at User talk:EEng. You created several archives and removed a very large amount of discussions against a user's wishes. This is not appropriate, per WP:OWNTALK, and I've reverted you and deleted the archives that you've created. Do not edit other users' talk pages in the future, especially in violation of a user's wishes, unless it is specifically your comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly invoked WP:IAR because their page was basically inaccessible, which is in itself a violation of the spirit of TPG. Talk pages are supposed to be accessible, and if the user believes otherwise, they shouldn't be editing. "Customary protections" At this stage it doesn't matter if OWNTALK prohibits editing their user talk space

EEng, Hey man im josh Nobody owns user pages, and this applies to user talk pages as well. "Customarily" (per Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations) you have autonomy to use userspace pages as you wish, but it should never come at a cost to other editors. Cf. Wikipedia:Vandalism#Illegitimate_page_lengthening - where deliberately lengthening pages to crash browsers or increasing load time is considered vandalism. Note that what EEng is doing is not vandalism, but his demeanour has the effect of crashing browsers and increasing load time beyond what most would consider appropriate. There is no legitimate reason for keeping 1Mb wikitext weight talk page, whatever the customs of Wikipedia may be. He can do that in his userspace subpages all he wants, so long as they are Wikipedia-related, and tell everyone else to fuck off, but user talk page, where people are posting their concerns, must be accessible without needing advanced hardware.

You can drag me to ANI all you want. If you stand behind the revert it's fine, but I disagree and perpetuating this state is directly harmful. We can discuss this. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started a DRV discussion, please direct all comments there. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 19:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have this timeline right?

• 18:16, 24 December 2025: You remove more than 800k worth of material from User talk:EEng. [1]
• 19:23, 24 December 2025: User:Hey man im josh reverts your removal after warning you not to do that (see beginning of this thread). [2]
• 19:37, 24 December 2025: About 15 minutes later you remove the material again, ignoring the warning given to you above. [3]

What made you decide that edit warring to remove the material was somehow proper? What made you decide to ignore the warning above telling you not to do this? What made you decide to ignore the advice at WP:BRD, an essay you've been informed about before (see this)? Was your thought process that maybe if you reverted people enough you'd have your way and all would be fine? Whether you find the length of EEng's talk page to be objectionable or not, it does not give you leave to try to force your preferred version of their talk page. This stops. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One revert ain't edit warring, once the discussion started rolling I backed off, I really want outside opinion. The bright-line rule is 3, 1 is far below it.

And also, if you want to escalate this with edit warring accusations, don't complain later about accusations of incivility. I don't want escalation, I want discussion - and I want proper access to the other's talk page which the rules say I'm generally entitled to in the course of normal Wikipedia discussions. DRV is going on so I'm listening. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 22:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR isn't a permission slip to edit war until you get to 4 reversions. What you were doing was blatant edit warring. You were warned about the edit, were reverted, and chose to ignore the warning and reversion as well as WP:BRD and went ahead and reverted anyway. To be blunt, you were grossly out of line. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR is unequivocally clear on this; "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter". You chose to not discuss the issue with EEng before removing the content from their talk page, and when reverted and warned, chose to not attempt discussion with User:Hey man im josh despite knowing there was disagreement with your removal. There's no wiggle room on this. You were completely out of line. If you think warnings about your inappropriate behavior constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL, you are welcome to take the issue to WP:AN/I. I stand by the warnings, and even more so now since you're clearly not perceiving wrong doing on your part. NOBODY is agreeing with your actions or responses, either here, WP:AN/I, or WP:DRV. Nobody. It's time to take a step back, put down the stick, and walk away. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR isn't a permission slip to edit war until you get to 4 reversions. I dispute the whole characterization of this as an edit war, because they clearly haven't addressed my arguments. Had they made a note to the effect of "wrong application of IAR" - OK, we can discuss even if I disagree. They just recited the very TPG which I said should have been exempt in this case, and I posted quite a long explanation why. So we are speaking of miscommunication, not edit warring.

WP:BRD, as is quick to remind you, is not obligatory. User page policy is (subject to common-sense limitations). Edit warring policy is. Also, when I get a thank you from one admin and the other warns, I get conflicting signals. I'm told at ANI that nobody can do shit about it but the closer understands my point. There is one vote which basically agrees with me but says "it's not the way to do it" but doesn't say what is. So your assertion that NOBODY is agreeing with your actions or responses, either here, WP:AN/I, or WP:DRV is false, and hearing it from an administrator, makes me feel intimidated. They may not agree with the way I approached it, OK. But they don't fundamentally disagree.

You chose to not discuss the issue with EEng before removing the content from their talk page, and when reverted and warned, chose to not attempt discussion with User:Hey man im josh despite knowing there was disagreement with your removal. You are missing the real issue. EEng, as I demonstrated at DRV, clearly thinks that the page size is not an issue even though he promised to do something about it when specifically told it is a problem. And anyway how am I supposed to contact EEng if my browser freezes as I am typing anything on his talk page? (You will say - but you did post the DRV notice! I did. It's because copy-pasting a string of text only freezes your browser for 5 seconds once, and not every time you press a key.)

Hey man I'm josh ignored my explanation for the bold edit, or maybe didn't but didn't make this clear. You say that we should have discussed the details. The question "is your browser struggling", however, is a yes-or-no question, it's not "maybe", it's not "I don't know", it's not "let's change 'browser' to 'application for browsing the Web', how about that? No, it should be 'the Internet'", where we can haggle over the details of what you write. Either you believe it is a problem or you believe it isn't a problem. Either the browser is crashing/freezing or it doesn't. Clearly, you and a couple others value user talk page autonomy (and the violation of procedure - again IMHO justified) more than my browser crashing or being unable to raise my concerns on their talk page, which is why I got this straight to DRV.

Let others review my arguments. I'm not imposing my will on anyone, and you are free to disagree. I'm signalling an issue, which apparently you don't believe is an issue. You are within your rights to think so. It doesn't mean I have to agree with you under threat of administrative sanctions. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 23:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not seeing that what you were doing was edit warring, then I fear no further explanation from me is going to make that clear. I will say this; there is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that what you were engaging in was edit warring. That's based on nearly 20 years on this project, an order of magnitude more edits than you, and being an administrator now for five years and having to deal with edit warriors on a number of occasions (I am not bringing up my admin status as placing me in a position over you, but to speak of experience). I am being direct in my comments to you, not trying to intimidate. I am doing so to bring home the severity of what you did. Sadly, it's still not getting through and is apparently beyond my capability to convey to you how serious it is. As to the size of EEng's page, I am not missing the real issue at all. I have not commented on that because it's immaterial to the disruptive nature of your edits in trying to force your preferred version of that talk page. Whether you are right about their page or not has no bearing on the reality that your edits were disruptive. Whether or not it is an issue has no bearing on the disruptive nature of your edits. I am not valuing or devaluing talk page autonomy. It has nothing to do with the nature of your edits being edit warring. I say the following as a fellow editor, and not in any way trying to intimidate you; you're not going to convince anyone that what you were doing was right. It's not happening now, and attempts to justify your actions are only going to make it worse. I strongly encourage you to step back, drop the stick, and reconsider how to go about doing this. Talking with EEng is a mandatory first step, even if you think prior attempts fell on deaf ears and a new attempt will yield nothing. You've got to try. If you can't get resolution that way (which doesn't necessarily equate to you getting what you think is right), then follow the established protocol at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my editing, or the whole editing pattern, was a net negative, which is what matters for any further discussion. Severe disruption means that I'm taking away a lot of resources that would have otherwise been spent on (hopefully) improving the encyclopedia. So how much did the dispute over the revert consume? Five minutes? In a disagreement? We are supposed to disagree if we feel what the other does or thinks isn't right and not just suck it up. We are supposed to talk about this - and this is a core feature of Wikipedia.

But - and you missed this question - how am I supposed to talk if I literally physically can't do it on his user talk page? Use Notepad just because a user thinks that his page is a precious artifact with cool jokes (some of which are clearly OT and would violate TPG for using TP as social media - I never deleted or intended to delete any material from public accessiblity)? Use Notepad because EEng thinks that browsers keeping crashing or freezing while trying to load the sheer volume of the talk page is cool?

No, the user doesn't get to decide that he can deny or impede others from using their talk page for talking about Wikipedia stuff (unless as enforcement action due to harassment), just like you don't get to say you can exempt an article from NPOV. To quote you, There's no wiggle room on this. You think that my fix was self-help, intrusive and disruptive, I think it was a net positive and I had a right to do it myself. Here we just fundamentally disagree. And yes, I disagree that edit warring within the plain meaning of this word was there. There clearly was miscommunication, and that's it.

Also, I'm not repeating these actions, and according to BRD we are firmly in the D phase, which is... good? Alleged disruption stopped, before anyone started threatening me with sanctions or anything. I understood out of my own accord we need outside opinion - I requested it. If anything, I'm the opposite of the edit warrior. I just disagree, and I have a right to do so if I explain why, am acting in good faith, and not doing super crazy shit. Doesn't mean anyone has to agree with what I'm doing. I am fully aware of that. That's why I reached for outside advice - as we are supposed to do. And I'm fully prepared to accept whatever that outcome is.

My intent has never been to be disruptive, my intent was to make sure that you could actually use that page. And I believe I have a right to ignore EEng's opinion in this particular case because it was making my editing harder for a clearly frivolous reason, even if I have no reason to disrespect any other opinions he may hold. And I'm not saying EEng has to agree with me. In fact, by reverting my edits, he clearly has. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 00:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how am I supposed to talk if I literally physically can't do it on his user talk page?

Start a discussion on your talk page and ping him. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERTALKSTOP

If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project.

His request not to archive his talk page should not be impeding ordinary communication. If you have a good reason to ignore this guideline, please tell me. I don't see a legitimate use case when it shouldn't apply.

It's his duty to clean up the page so that others can use it, not mine or anyone else's.

Also, pings are not the same as direct TP posts, otherwise why would we need bigass notices at ANI, AN, AE, ArbCom, you name it, that you actually have to post a message, not just ping from the dramaboard? Pings don't always work. You miss pings if you view the TP while logged out. You don't miss TP posts even if logged out. You also generally expect questions about a user being posted on that user's talkpage, rather than on the page of the person who asks the question. I don't have as many people on the watchlist as he does. Also, more people land of his page than mine - which means that a TP post on his page is more likely to be answered by a drive-by editor than a TP post on my page with a ping.

So it's not the same. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 00:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback}} allows you to notify an editor on their talk page while having the actual discussion on your own talk page. I once used the template to start a discussion with an IP editor whose talk page was semi-protected (since they literally could not respond on their own talk page). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SuperPianoMan9167, maybe Szmenderowiecki has a point about pings not being a fully reliable way of getting someone's attention. For example, here I pinged him with a request that he tell us whether he really can't read a page history, or was just lying, but he didn't respond. EEng 02:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how about you, but where I am it was 2am when I stopped posting. Humans need to sleep, they need to eat and cook everything - I don't have a housemaid - so yes, I couldn't get the ping. It's not because I ignored you. That said, I'm glad that you recognise that pings are not terribly great ways to notify editors for important stuff.

The rest at DRV. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 10:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: (noting your comment at the DRV, I think it's more appropriate to respond here, as it is tangential to the DRV) As SuperPianoMan9167 said, if an editor is having problems loading EEng's talk page, they can ping EEng to their own talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "according to BRD we are firmly in the D phase". No, you're a step past that. You took a bold step (inadvisedly and without attempting communication) of attempting to archive EEng's talk page. That's "B". You were reverted. That's "R". The next step by you was revert, which would be another "R". So, if you were in compliance with BRD, it would be BRR, not BRD. Sorry. I'm giving you outside advice. I wasn't involved in this and remain uninvolved. I came to this from WP:AN/I. As I noted, try as I might I've been unable to convey to you that what you were doing was clearly wrong. So let me try this way; if you try this "right" way of doing things in the future, I think it highly likely that an administrator (not saying me) would block you for the behavior. Nobody wants that (and I mean that). You've done the behavior, been warned about it, insist you did nothing wrong, and have been pointed to the appropriate guidelines and essays. Whether you think you are wrong or right at this point is irrelevant. If you do it again, you stand a high chance of being blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I note your concern. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 10:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it looks like you are running into the collectivist vs. anarchist culture clash that a lot of editors don't seem to understand. While it appears that Wikipedia is a collectivist enterprise, it's actually rooted in an anarchist philosophical approach. This isn't immediately obvious to most people and that's why you are rubbing people the wrong way. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be the case. I thought, however, that we've gone a long way since 2007, at least from what I could gather from reading others' opinions, including those who have been around way longer than I am. Maybe my impression is wrong. I think of IAR as a remnant of that original philosophy. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 02:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again: you are treating this as a community (or collectivist) issue. But the use of a user talk page is viewed as an individualist endeavor. You're running into this conflict because you aren't looking at the larger picture. Not everything here is collectivist, and not everything is individualist. The philosophical origin of user pages is probably something that goes back to Unix. The irony of course, is that while there is a certain kind of anarchist aesthetic in the decentralized approach, you do see authoritarian tendencies arise from some of the major tech players. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone chooses to stick with the mentality of 1990s and early 2000s, I can't force them to change their mind - definitely not from behind a keyboard. If they see a (IMHO justified) violation of user control as a more important issue than lack of accessibility and passively impeding discussion, they are free to hold this opinion but then it's not a "me" problem, it's a systemic problem.

They can believe that no violation of user control is justifiable due to these "philosophical roots". IMHO there is absolutely no reason to uphold or revere "philosophical roots" if their premise are flawed or these roots have to lead to unjust outcomes. A conservative may say that the ethos coming from these roots is be there for a reason and should not be meddled with because that's how it's supposed to be, but I'm no conservative. I may very well be in the minority - so be it. Again, even though we do say in the rules that we can change someone's demeanour through discussion, arguing with strangers on the Internet hardly ever brings that effect voluntarily (if it did, social media's business model would be threatened by a much lower volume of posts and associated user data, metadata and ad revenue). Usually there is an element of coercion in this. Be it threat of ANI or administrators swarming your talk page. And I don't have that leverage, nor would I be allowed to use it even if I had it. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 12:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not to say that I don't appreciate your tip - I very much do because I wasn't looking at the situation from this particular perspective. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 12:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's something I've been thinking a lot of since around 2012 or so. In other words, how do you reconcile philosophical anarchism with community, or to put it another way, how do you live up to the ideals of direct democracy online and in real life? In my own personal experience, I believe the answer has to do with self-empowerment, as trite as that sounds. If we aren't aware, informed, knowledgeable, or engaged, we can't really make good decisions. The powers that be know this, which is why so much of the dominant culture concerns disempowering, disinforming, and disincentivizing humanity in general. Granted, there are many other factors involved, such as cultures and traditions that favor autocracy, authoritarianism, and centralized control as part of their value system. But if given an informed choice, it is believed that people would choose to govern themselves, not in the false sense that the wealthy elite offer us, as in some kind of tax-free, network state utopia run by tech bros, no, but in the sense that given the knowledge and the tools, people will eventually realize that making the right choice and living in harmony with the world is better than not. But you're always going to have people trying to control others, and that's why your choice created such a backlash. People aren't here on this site to be controlled or even to control others (or at least they shouldn't be, and no, I'm not going to go there). Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't there to bully EEng and it's not personal. I don't think I ever interacted with them, or maybe just once in passing. That was the first time I consciously wanted to post something at EEng's TP.

Jumpytoo did a great job at pointing at the query which showed clearly excessively sized user talk pages - so this should be dealt with. They are not as much of a problem as EEng's because their HTML size is about half of EEng's (i.e. there isn't an image in every second discussion), but they are still uncomfortable to edit or to browse. I'm just not sure if the proper course of action is spamming requests to archive or ping them from a talk page guideline discussion.

Since there is no rule that directly requires you to make the talk page to be of a reasonable size, they are generally free to go "lol no", and ANI would probably dismiss any complaint as a lame crusade. And they may be technically right because I also don't have anything to say to these users. The only names I recognise from the first page are xaosflux and Tryptofish.

I don't think this should be happening though. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think he does it because he doesn’t want people contacting him. I can’t think of any other reason. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate the help. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your advice & closed down the RFC-in-question. Though it had nothing to do with footnotes. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Should such RFC (in future) occur at Village Pump? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. I also believe that disputes over including links to other Wikipedia articles are generally lame, but that's my humble opinion.

Re PS: Absolutely, I've argued this at Talk:Kaja Kallas, treatment of subjects born in territories widely recognised as of disputed ownership is something that nothing less than a sitewide discussion should solve. This discussion should probably be also advertised on WP:CENT, because it will impact tens of thousands of articles. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright to open the RFC (I just aborted) at Village Pump, later? Presuming you're an administrator, I think your monitoring of it, would be needed. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I do agree with the Kallas RFC. It shouldn't be limited to one bio. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Expect a reply shortly. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 22:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, I'm not an admin.

If you ask me, I have problem with opening the RfC later if advertised sitewide so that absolutely EVERYONE sees it and has the opportunity to do it. Your RfC was conflating two questions - one about links; the other how to treat entities that no longer exist; and there's the third question of disputed control of territories, which in this case is state continuity in the infobox.

If you want my proposals for RfC questions, here's my draft, you can modify it all you want:

1. MOS:GEOLINK details existing guidance about linking geographical entities coming one after the other. Should we change the guideline?
   • No
   • Yes, link only the settlement
   • Yes, link all entities from settlement to country
   • Yes, link some but not all entities but also not according to current guidance (specify)
2. If a person was born/died in an (sub)national entity that no longer exists (e.g. Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Republic of China (1912–1949), Voivodeships of Poland (1975–1998), List of raions of Ukraine (1966–2020)), how should we state their place of birth/death? For sake of this question, let's say that inclusion of such territory in that entity is not disputed. (Examples given for two hypothetical people born in 1900, one in the village of Kantorowice, now part of Kraków, and the other in the village of Zastów, just outside Kraków on the opposite side of the stream (see map)
   • Describe only the entities as they existed at the time (Kantorowice/Zastów, gmina Mogiła, Kraków County, Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, Austria-Hungary)
   • describe only the current state (Kantorowice, now part of Kraków, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Poland; Zastów, gmina Kocmyrzów-Luborzyca, Kraków County, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Poland)
   • describe both the state at the time and the current state (e.g. Kantorowice, gmina Mogiła, Kraków County, Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, Austria-Hungary (now part of Kraków, Poland))
   • other (specify)
   1. Suppose that question 2 is answered in a way that will require mentioning at least some non-existent entities. Should we include non-existent non-federative subnational entities?
      • Yes (Kantorowice, gmina Mogiła, Kraków County, Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, Austria-Hungary)
      • Yes for large highest-level non-federative entities, no for others (e.g. Proskurov, Podolia Governorate, Russian Empire; without indication for lower-tier volost or uyezd)
      • Yes for whatever high-level unit is commonly used in the nation to indicate relatively less known settlements only (e.g. oblasts in Ukraine and Belarus; departments or provinces of France (depending on period), counties in England, provinces in Italy and (maybe) Spain etc.; e.g. Solferino, province of Mantua, Italy)
      • No (Kantorowice, Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, Austria-Hungary)
      • Other
   2. Would your result to the question above differ for current entities?
      • No
      • Yes, indicate how
   3. How should we refer to existing entities that have since changed their names?
      • Only by the original name at the time of birth (e.g. Leningrad, Proskuriv, Constantinople)
      • Only by the current name (e.g. Saint Petersburg, Khmelnytskyi, Istanbul)
      • Use both (Leningrad, ... (now Saint-Petersburg))
   4. If an entity only existed under a certain name for a relatively short period of time (e.g. 3 years in 200 year history), should we ignore such rename? (examples for Katowice, Łódź, Naberezhnye Chelny and Saint Petersburg)
      • Yes, ignore.
      • No (use Stalinogród for 1953-1956, Litzmannstadt for 1940-1945, Brezhnev for 1982-1988, Petrograd for 1914-1924, respectively)
   5. If an entity does not have an established anglicised name, and was widely known under a variation of the name other than today's official/mostly used name but the majority population used that variation, which should we write? (examples for Kyiv, Lviv, Olesno (see 1921 Upper Silesia plebiscite), Petropavl, Tbilisi)
      • Write under the then-predominant variant (Kiev, Lwów/Lemberg (?), Rosenberg, Petropavlovsk, Tiflis)
      • Write under the predominant variant of the majority ethnic group of the area (Kyiv/Kiev (?), Lwów, Olesno, Petropavlovsk, Tbilisi)
      • Write under then-official variant (Kiev for Tsarist times, Kyiv/Kiev (?) for Soviet times, Lwów, Rosenberg, Petropavlovsk, Tbilisi)
      • Write under the current variant (Kyiv, Lviv, Olesno, Petropavl, Tbilisi)
      • Establish individual guidelines for each city, around the lines of Talk:Gdańsk/Vote (straw poll from 2005)
3. Suppose that a person is born/died in an area whose status is disputed (for example, the annexation is not (generally) internationally recognised, independence is not (generally) recognised, the area was under occupation) Historical and current examples would include Nazi occupation of Europe, Kosovo, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Kashmir, Israel, Palestine, Golan Heights, Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, Western Sahara/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somaliland, Falkland Islands, Taiwan, Cyprus etc.

This December 2025 RfC reached consensus that people born in the Baltic states during Nazi/Soviet rule (1940-1991) should mention the entity de facto controlling these territories, e.g. Tallinn, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union, notwithstanding the Baltic states' assertions about state continuity and general de jure non-recognition of the Soviet presence by many other sovereign states.

If you submit combinations of different answers for different conflicts, explain why such reasoning should apply to one conflict but not the other

1. How should we treat subjects born in such disputed territories in infoboxes?

• State the de facto controlling entity at the time of birth/death
• State the entity which de jure should control the territory, according to the majority of United Nations member states
• State the entity which the majority of United Nations member states de jure should control the territory, and whose controlling entity's presence and activities in the area they de facto also refuse to recognise (i.e. more than a diplomatic protest)
• If possible, state the area in such a way that avoids touching any aspect of the dispute

1. Whatever the answer to the question above, should we add footnotes informing readers about these territorial/recognition disputes?

   • Yes, always
   • Only if such dispute is clearly relevant to the person's biography
   • No, never

So yeah, it's a tough question we are broaching.

Note. The problem with Lviv is that in the 19th and early 20th century, the city had a Polish plurality or majority, a lot of Jews and a about 1/6 of Ukrainians, whereas the countryside around Lviv was majority Ukrainian. Both Poles and Ukrainians claimed the city for themselves and they even had a bit of a war over it, so the tensions are pretty high. Similarly Kyiv itself in late Russian Empire was quite heavily Russified even if the countryside was Ukrainian. Berdychiv is a tough case - a city in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that used to have majority Jewish population but the countryside was Ukrainian, and the territory later belonged to the Russian Empire/Soviet Union (actually quite known for its Jewish character in Eastern Europe, just like old Odesa) - in other words, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Yiddish are all implicated. Then there's the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh where Armenians either fled the Azeris or were expelled, so any change will also be seen as a judgment about Azerbaijan's actions in 2020 and 2023. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 10:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tha's way too complicated. If you're interested? peek at my sandbox, where I'm ironing out my potential next steps. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just listed all issues that could be mentioned in the context of infobox places of birth. Your RfC is basically only about question 1, but you also mixed another topic as well, so I thought you were interested in more.

Anyway, anyone can use the draft if they want to. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 15:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "then part of" bit, as it would go against the 2025 Dec RFC result. I think two options would do - "[City], xSSR, Soviet Uion or [City], xSSR, [Soviet Union]. I'll include the current version - [City], [xSSR], [Soviet Union], though it apparently goes against MOS:GEOLINK. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I appreciate is when an RfC question deals with one issue at a time only - which is the real reason why the removal was actually good. I otherwise have no position on the matter because, as I said earlier, devoting big amounts of community resources to regulate largely cosmetic changes like wikilinks is not exactly what I support because of clearly diminishing returns (compare WP:Don't edit war over the colour of templates). But who am I to stop you? Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One possible (if not likely) outcome is that consensus would be to apply different treatments for each of these questions to different countries, depending on their degree of disputedness, or because the circumstances are of a different type. Instead of asking editors to pick which treatment is universally best, one way to handle that would be to build consensus on a list of acceptable treatments and then build consensus on which bucket each dispute should go in. Trying to do one discussion for the entire world of disputes would require a lot of research to see how each conflict is currently handled and whether there is a de facto consensus in articles or a rule from a WikiProject or article talk page discussion. A lot of people will probably say "follow the sources for each dispute", and that become a whole other bundle of research. It's difficult to assemble enough expertise for 50 different conflicts in one conversation; having discussions for individual disputes or logical groups (as we are doing for the Baltics) is a lot more manageable. Consistency across disputes would in that case just require each discussion to be aware of how other disputes have been handled so far. If case-by-case decisions follow a general rule, writing that down and going back and amending it as complications arise would also help ensure consistency. I would also hope that in many cases there'd be no need for a big formal discussion, if the decided-on treatments generally strike readers as fair and neutral descriptions of reality. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that "a whole bunch of research", as in the discussion about the renaming of the article to Gaza genocide (Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate), is exactly what we need, but other than that I don't insist on any particular treatment. If this means that each group of disputes is handled separately, so be it.

It's that I wish there was some sort of common or universal MOS-level guidance centralised at MOS:INFOBOX other than the vague "follow the sources", which doesn't really answer the question of what exactly we should write for the uninitiated. I would prefer that advice to follow some sort of logical pattern that would at least have a veneer of reasonableness and not just vibes-based community decision.

My way of thinking was to make sure that there would be a sort of general pattern that we would have to establish and weed out voices that are clearly concerned about their pet nationalist issue but indifferent about just about any other so long as Wikipedia's guidelines follow their preferred treatment of the conflict they care about. Doing it conflict-by-conflict risks creating a patchwork of mutually inconsistent decisions for no good reason, and also risks big turnout from single-purpose accounts/meatpuppets/socks trying to improperly influence the discussion. Another risk of such step-by-step decisionmaking is that prior discussions will influence future discussions in a way that wouldn't have happened if all the topics were discussed together. When it's a big general question, bad influence may still be there but different interests may cancel out each other's efforts, and I also think the question will not attract as much attention because it will not explicitly be about the given ECP topic (and I don't have to remind an admin why they are contentious and how much shit is happening there).

Other questions, on the other hand, can be resolved without reference to any conflict or contentious topic and I think would be valuable guidance for any outsider. Of course, if such discussion is in fact needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 19:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely see the attractiveness of coming up with universal rules. If we were all a bit more orderly and cooperative and thorough, that might even be the optimal approach.

It's possible to get order-dependent outcomes whether we do case-by-case or all-at-once. I think the way to get unstuck from that is to be willing to reconsider earlier decisions. If case-by-case decisions end up conflicting, then it's probably time for a larger discussion - but by that point we'd have a lot of case-specific research already done and could discuss more intelligently. Conflicts would probably arise in the greyest areas, meaning more clear-cut cases could move on to implementation and enjoy some stability.

I think the risk from an all-at-once approach is that we would make the wrong decision for some cases due to ignorance, and we'd need to be willing to reconsider those. And that might in turn make us reconsider how to handle cases we were well-informed about, and that's OK. Such ignorance is why many editors object to all-at-once decisions, because they anticipate the resulting answer will be wrong for some situations. (Though "reasonable exceptions should be made" is also a general style guide rule, for example, which is one way to overcome that objection. But that leaves the door open to disputes - hopefully smaller in scope than the original question - over what exceptions should be made.)

Going case-by-case, having MOS:INFOBOX document the outcome in specific cases would give editors a lot more to go on, which I agree is helpful. It would give an immediate answer for cases that have already been researched and for which there is consensus. It would also help keep future decisions consistent, because they would be conducted in the light of previous decisions. I would expect strong arguments in those discussions would include "this is a lot like case X and should be decided similarly" or "this is different than case Y because Z and so we should do B instead of A". I would expect that to diminish any undue influence from sockpuppets and meatpuppets, though to some degree new editors showing up because they have become outraged about a thing on Wikipedia can represent a legitimate response to a real problem. -- Beland (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Getting consensus for any kind of topic, can sometimes be difficult. Implimentation of a consensus can sometimes be just as difficult. An example of a successfull implementation of a consensus? would be the how to link the Republic of Ireland in bio infoboxes. The successful result "[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]" :) GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]