User talk:2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB

PBS
As (I believe) the editor who started the discussion at Talk:PBS, you should not be the one closing it. In addition, I do not see any consensus there. Some editors have not followed the recommended conventions for RfC, but as I analyze the comments, I see 3 editors supporting the proposal, 3 opposed, and 1 with an alternative proposal entirely. That is not a consensus.  General Ization Talk  23:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Being the editor that launched the RfC in question, I refer you to: WP:RFCEND, specifically #5, which plainly states that, upon consensus being reached, even an involved editor is allowed to close the discussion, contrary to your statement. So, in accordance with Wikipedia's own policy, I am disregarding your first point.
 * Now, the thing is, the Wikipedia page for WP:CON itself does not specify what exactly "consensus" is, but does refer to the article for Consensus, which does define it as the majority agreeing on something.
 * As as far as comments, I see 5 editors (interstatefive, Fad Ariff, Huggums, SMcCandlish, & HAL 333), in one way or another, stating support for the proposed change to the current wording, 4 editors (oknezevad, SMcCandlish, Huggums, & ScottishFinnshRadish) stating no context, thereby no support, for the current wording (which was the discussion point for the RfC) that implied PBS wasn't a TV network, & 1 editor (StellarNerd) not even voting but simply stating an opinion on the current wording.
 * So, in this case, it would seem the majority (the 5 editors) does indeed support the proposed change to the current wording, thereby achieving consensus (at least according to Wikipedia's own page for "consensus").
 * So, if anything, I would advise you to take your complaint to Wikipedia's noticeboard & see what they have to say there. And, until a decision is rendered there, as the editor that launched the RfC in question, I am reverting your change (and marking it as vandalism) to the talk page & making the appropriate changes to the article.
 * And, consider this your notice/a warning that any further reverting done to the talk page (thereby removing the appropriate closing of the RfC), or even the article itself after I've made the appropriate changes, will be reported as vandalism to the Wikipedia noticeboard. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where the existence of a consensus is questioned by another editor or editors, your responsibility is to defend your assertion that one exists on the Talk page, not to ram through your proposed change. There is no deadline, and your behavior seems disruptive and somewhat suspicious.  General Ization  Talk  00:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, resorting immediately to threats against other editors that you will report them for "vandalism" if they revert you again is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and only reinforces the notion that your edits are disruptive.  General Ization Talk  00:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note also that your removal of my comment explaining my reversion from the article's Talk page was itself a violation.  General Ization Talk  01:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if I have to resort to filing a complaint against you for vandalism & disruption on the noticeboard, I am going to ask that, if a decision is found against you, your account be banned from editing on both the page for PBS & its talk page, not to mention making allegations based on rules & regulations that don't exist. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * File away. In the meantime, let's discuss this on the article's Talk page, not both here and there at the same time.  General Ization  Talk  01:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)