User talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2024/01 (January)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are:, , and. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * @Asilvering, your contributions are truly remarkable and I hold a deep admiration for your work. Your efforts in reducing the backlog to what? zero? are commendable. Indeed, we have achieved this milestone together, which is more or less because of our collective effort. It’s an exhilarating feeling. Please continue with your outstanding work as always. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aww, thanks a lot, that's very kind of you. (But please, this is excessively modest - you did fifteen times more reviews than I did!) -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering C’mon, overall? You’re better, please :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Edo literature has been nominated for deletion
Category:Edo literature has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rostov, Yaroslavl Oblast
Hi, thank you for acting as closer for this discussion. I'm confused, however, with the result of the close, and I believe others will be too. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, the discussion should be labelled as "Moved", "Not moved", or "No consensus". I urge you to reword the closing using one of these descriptors. 162 etc. (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @162 etc. Hi there, it should be exactly clear now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Shambuka
Thanks for closing the RFC. However, the statement is being open to interpretation. Request further clarification. Also, is it is possible for another third party opinion on the same? Is there any other wikipedia mechanism to resolve the issue. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there, what seems to be the clarification needed? The suggestion I gave? If so, it’s just a mere suggestion after assessing the discussion. It is not compulsory to act per my suggestion and the conclusion is no consensus. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Since it is no consensus, can you please suggest any venue where the dispute can be resolved. IMO, this is a WP:NPOV issue. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Redtigerxyz Since there was a prior discussion which is the one I closed, then maybe you can take it to WP:DRN? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, let me be clear. Is it that you’re still concerned that, despite the discussion closed with no consensus, the sentence in that first paragraph should be changed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes Vanderwaalforces. The "no consensus" is interpreted as support towards interpolation (current disputed version). Attempts to implement your suggestion were reverted. Currently, there is an edit war. Sometimes "vocal and assertive" than "more reasonable and respectful" works. :( Started Dispute_resolution_noticeboard) as suggested.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. At least, I made a suggestion, so let DRN intervene at this point. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Chaman Chakko
Hi Vanderwaalforces Could you please review the article? Draft:Chaman Chakko I believe that I have provided or cited potential links to the article from a reliable source. Thankyou Mustafdesam (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mustafdesam Thanks for resubmitting the draft, it will be reviewed by a reviewer soon. Regards, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vanderwaalforces Thank you very much for the quick response.
 * Mustafdesam 05:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Edo literature
WaggersTALK  00:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Move requests
Hi, Vanderwaalforces. I am puzzled by the continued relisting of the move requests at Talk:Ranuccio I Farnese, Duke of Parma and Talk:Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia after noting the difference in the strength of the arguments. Considering that move discussions are supposed to last 7 days, and these have been going on for nearly a month, is it not the time to close them? Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Surtsicna Hi there. I stated why I didn't close Talk:Peter_Krešimir IV of Croatia and it was essentially the same rationale as at Talk:Ranuccio I Farnese, Duke of Parma. This is a prudent decision as it allows other users to contribute. I recently discovered that some RM often have scant participation because users are oblivious to them, hence, I have informed the pertinent WikiProjects. Regards, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting and voting in requested moves
Why are you participating in requested moves and relisting them? Like in Talk:Winnipeg Stadium? See WP:RMRELIST, do not supervote. Lightoil (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Lightoil Thank you so much for notifying me, much appreciated. It was not intentional and it should be the only one so far. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Close at Talk:1,1'-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene
Hello, thanks for closing the move discussion at 1,1'-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene. I'm considering taking the discussion up again at the chemistry WikiProject. For that reason I'd like to ask you to elaborate on why the oppose position presented a stronger argument. From my perspective (as a support !voter), the support position presents the stronger argument based on guidelines/policy (foregoing prime characters against MOS:CHEM guidelines (WP:OCHEMNAME), WP:TSC, parallels with WP:DIACRITICS, on top of professionalism, unhindered search and linking), but others were not swayed (i.e. no consensus). Thanks &#8213; Synpath 20:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I am acknowledging receipt and will give a reply in few hours. Regards, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Synpath Hello, it's now morning for me. Regarding your query, the discussion shows a clear lack of consensus for the proposed move. There are 5 oppose votes and 3 support votes, with one comment. Let me give some points from all !voters on this discussion.
 * The oppose votes are based on the fact that prime symbols are not easily typed or recognised by some devices or screen readers, and may cause accessibility and readability issues for some users; they are not widely used or noticed by the readers or the professionals, and do not offer any real benefit or improvement over the apostrophes; they may create inconsistency and confusion with the body text of the articles, which will still use apostrophes, and may be reintroduced by subsequent edits; and just by the way, they are not supported by the opinions of veteran chemistry editors who have more expertise and experience in the field.
 * The support votes are based on the following reasons: Prime symbols are the correct and professional way to write chemical names, and are recommended by IUPAC and other authoritative sources; they are commonly used and understood in some contexts, such as molecular biology and directionality; and they do not affect the searchability or findability of the articles, as the search engine and the redirects will handle the apostrophes and the prime symbols as equivalent.
 * After my overall analysis of the discussion, I conclude that there is clearly no consensus for the proposed move, and that the status quo should be maintained. The majority of the users who participated in the discussion oppose the move, and their arguments are more convincing and relevant than the supporters'. The supporters' arguments are based on the typographical correctness and the professional appearance of the prime symbols, but they do not address the practical issues and the potential problems that the move may cause. The supporters also do not have the support of the chemistry editors and the academic chemist, who have more credibility on the topic. Hence, why I closed the discussion as not moved. You may want to consider other ways to resolve the issue, such as using WP:DISPLAYTITLE or going to WP:RMT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, redirecting your proposed titles to the current titles would not cause any harm. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also an academic chemist, but nomenclature minutia doesn't really need an expert. I'll mull this over. Thanks for your explanation. &#8213; Synpath 15:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sagrestia Nuova move request
Hi Vanderwaalforces, thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:Sagrestia_Nuova. I noticed you changed the original move request at. Could you please revert that change? I think it is better to leave the request as is. If needed you can explain in the closing comment that the consensus doesn't correspond to the original request, which you already did anyway. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Vpab15 Hi there. Yeah, that change will help the script TheTVExpert/rmCloser to process the request properly. As you said, I mentioned it at the close and also at the edit summary which should be sufficient. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the original requests should be unmodified. Otherwise the discussion doesn't make much sense. An editor wrote "Support 2nd, Rename 1st", which only makes sense if we show the original request. Could you please reconsider and restore it? Vpab15 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vpab15 Your concern is totally understandable. I have now restored it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Krešimir IV move request
Hi, Vanderwaalforces! Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that there is no consensus to move at Talk:Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia? I must say I am confused because in your 11 January relisting you wrote: "The 'supporters' of the move have provided reasonable arguments for why it should be moved, while the 'opposers' have not provided reasonable arguments for why it should not be moved." Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Surtsicna I have updated the closure with my statement, I initially added it when I was closing, rmCloser script didn't add it or something else happened. Either way, find my statement there, please. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You refer to a convention that counters policy and guideline. Can you please specify which convention that is? As far as I can tell, the only convention mentioned in the discussion is the guideline WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (WP:NCROY), which was cited by the supporters, not the opposers. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Surtsicna Anytime. The convention that I referred to is the one that SnowFire and Walrasiad mentioned in their opposing votes. They said that there was a long-held convention that "Foo of Country" is the default title for rulers, and that there needs to be a reason to change away from that. They also said that the new WP:NCROY naming guidelines that instruct to omit territorial designations are disputed and do not necessarily convey the consensus of the community.
 * This convention counters the policy and guideline that you and ModernDayTrilobite cited in your proposing/supporting arguments. You said that the policy at WP:AT and the guideline at NCROY are the relevant standards for article titles, and that they were changed after a two-month-long RfC that found a strong consensus for the change.
 * I shouldn't be saying things that are very obvious from the discussion. I hope this clarifies the convention that I was talking about. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But the convention SnowFire and Walrasiad mention is the WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (WP:NCROY). They are referring to a former version of that convention, which was changed after an RfC resulted in a "strong consensus" to change it. SnowFire acknowledged this consensus. That a former, rejected version of a naming convention can counter the present, RfC-supported version of the convention does not make sense to me. Can you please explain it? Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was trying to type a reply to you but found out that it was majorly a repetition of what I already said. A closure is not meant to please everyone who participated, so I’d advise you to bring up another discussion if you deem necessary. I am sure no consensus was the best outcome here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well. Then move review is the next step. I will let you know when I finish setting it up. Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Surtsicna Great! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can find it at Move review/Log/2024 January. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Close at Talk:Sagrestia_Nuova
There were five editors here; only two supported the proposal you said had "consensus". How does that work? I can't help noticing that there an awful lot of complaints by experienced editors about other closes of yours on this page and in the archives. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Johnbod Perhaps, you appear to be getting it wrong and even confused. There is a clear consensus for moving Medici Chapel to Medici Chapels, as all the users (including you) who participated in the discussion agreed on this point, and it is consistent with the Italian article and the scope of the article. There is no clear consensus for moving Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) to Medici Chapel, as there was opposition and alternative suggestions from other users, and it is not consistent with the Italian article and the "Wikidata item". However, there is some consensus for removing the translation from the title, as most users preferred either Sagrestia Nuova or Medici Chapel (Michelangelo). The latter option may also avoid the confusion with the term "sacristy", as pointed out by Ham II.
 * So, what exactly are you talking about here?
 * Speaking of experience, a user's experience on Wikipedia is not tied to how long they've spent on the project but rather how active you are. I take full responsibility for any of my edits on Wikipedia and closures (that's why I am replying to you in the first place) and I'm confident in my decisions. kindly be guided :-) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What a remarkably patronizing reply! Very clearly, I am complaining about you mjoving the article to a name supported by only 2 out of 5 editors commenting. It is an obvious "no consensus" close - 2/5 is not "some consensus", it is indeed "no clear consensus", ie no consensus at all. Anybody closing RMs should know that "it is not consistent with the Italian article and the "Wikidata item"" are arguments with almost no weight at all. While closing discussions is useful work, I think you should consider seriously whether you have the experience and knowledge to close discussions that aren't open & shut. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod I was not sure which option you were concerned about, since you only said "There were five editors here; only two supported the proposal you said had "consensus". How does that work?" I don’t want to argue with you, but I want to let you know that I closed the discussion responsibly and with enough experience. I wouldn't have done it if I didn’t think I had the skills and knowledge to handle complex situations. Regards, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:!VOTE. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move notifications
Hey Vanderwaalforces, I was wondering if there is any shortcut or program I can use to notify the members of relevant WikiProjects when pages are put through requested move. I noticed you seem to use such a program. Thanks. Векочел (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I do use the usual rmCloser script. I don't just click on "Notify WikiProjects" that's appears along with some other buttons there below the RM section header. Hope this helps. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Close at Trump
Hey. I was wondering whether there is a consensus against mention of the Abraham Accords as a whole, or simply the proposed wording. Can you clarify that for me? Thanks! Cessaune  [ talk ]   17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cessaune Hi there, perhaps this message came in just when I went offline. Anyway, the original proposal was a particular wording "In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, normalizing the foreign relations of Israel with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain." and according to my close, the consensus was to omit the sentence about the Abraham Accords from the article entirely. This is because the oppose !voters intensified their arguments to exclude the Abraham Accords altogether. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So do you think there is a consensus against including any mention of the Accords, or just the proposed sentence? Sorry to repeatedly bother you. Cessaune   [ talk ]   14:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to not mention it at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to this thread. Future such clarifications would be better placed in the RfC. Thanks for seeking the clarification. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have several problems with this close.

First off, in general, you summarized the Support votes and the Oppose votes in their own paragraphs, then said that the Oppose votes "have provided more convincing and substantiated reasons for their position." It really looks like you just sided with the Oppose votes because they had more objections. Numerosity of objections matters much less than the strength of arguments.

Also, you included some decidedly odd statements in your summary of the Oppose rationales, which I could hardly find anywhere (They were also more about Biden than Trump, as they were a response to his perceived threat to the status quo in the region and They are also not a defining or unique feature of his presidency, as other presidents have also brokered peace deals in the region).

You mentioned that "the supporters have not sufficiently considered the size, weight, and NPOV issues that the proposal would entail," which is a blatant misreading of the discussion, as weight and NPOV issues were thoroughly discussed. And as to the size, only two editors raised objections to the size of the article, and the proposed addition represented a 0.069% expansion of the Presidency section, and a 0.036% expansion of the article. Do you really find the arguments to size so convincing? If so, the Donald Trump article need accept no new content, ever.

You also mentioned that Supporters failed to "demonstrate their relevance and importance to Trump's personal biography." Where did you get this criteria from, exactly? This is a biographical article on a former US president, and we tend to include material about events from presidential administrations in Presidents' articles.

You mentioned that Oppose voters "have addressed the points raised by the supporters more effectively" - this was one of your most egregious errors. Just from a quick scan of the discussion, for votes that were ANSWERED in some way, 2 were Supports and 8 were Opposes; for votes that went largely UNANSWERED, 8 were Supports and 1 was an Oppose. How on earth do you look at that discussion, and think that the Oppose voters are being more responsive and receptive to discussion?

Lastly, of all the editors who provided reasoned arguments and engaged in discussion, 13 supported the proposal, and 9 opposed. While RFCs are not a vote, that reminder is not carte blanche to decide consensus against the majority. This is mostly done when the majority argument is in opposition with a Policy or Guideline - which wasn't the case in this RFC.

Could you answer to any, or ideally all, of these issues? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Photogenic, your next step would be to request a close review at AN. Howver in view of the long sad history of this proposed article content, which has failed to gain consensus repeatedly after lengthy and rather detiled scrutiny, I'd suggest you drop this issue and move on to the many more significant content issues and initiatives waiting to be addressed on that page. This was a very thourough and thoughtful close of the RfC, with lots of straw man and specious insistence over its monthlong course. AN close reviews, while permitted, tend to become dysfunctional rehashes and IDHT bludgeons of the same discussion already concluded with the article talk close. In the absense of any clear procedural error or egregious misapplication of policy -- which you have not demonstrated -- such reviews are rarely a constructive application of community resources. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * AN is always an option. You do raise some valid points, and based on Vanderwaal's argument, in my mind this probably should've been closed as no consensus. Cessaune   [ talk ]   23:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But no consensus means the content is not to be published in the article. So what's the point of deploying even more editor resources on discussion? SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It matters for a variety of reasons. One of which is it better informs future discussions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree somewhat with SPECIFICO as to closure review. I think we embrace process or we don't; we don't pick and choose the parts we like. If closure review is dysfunctional, that's a community problem that has zero chance of getting fixed if editors avoid it (and a small chance if they don't). If it's a waste of time, no editor is forced to waste theirs. Although it's hard to find, SPECIFICO correctly said it's up to you. I was a bit surprised to see the closer inject their own analysis of the political situation in one or two places; I could be wrong, but I don't think that's part of proper consensus assessment. (I was confused by the closer's technique of attributing once to a group of editors, then following with a long paragraph in his or her own voice.) &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  01:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)If PS plans to open a review, we need to remove the consensus item promptly, so it would help to know that s/he does. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression going to the closer's Talk page was the first step of a close review. I certainly don't intend to accept the close as-is. But I don't see the urgency regarding the consensus item list - there's no deadline, after all. I hadn't even noticed it had (apparently) been added. Though if someone did so prematurely, so be it, for now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression going to the closer's Talk page was the first step of a close review. You're correct, per Closing discussions. My comment about the consensus item is a process nit; I'm a process perfectionist and I'm not comfortable with a consensus item for a non-existent consensus, even for a short time. If you're certain you're challenging, it's not a consensus. Not a really big deal, admittedly. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh for christ sake LET. IT. GO. This vapid, nonsensical topic has been bubbling up for 2 years now and has never, ever at any time seen a consensus to retain. Yet another challenge or appeal in yet another forum is honestly quite Trumpian itself, in the way that the man keeps appealing every ruling and every tiny sanction that goes against him. Drop the stick, for everyone's well-being. Zaathras (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming that reverting to the status quo is equal to an outright consensus against inclusion, people shouldn't deliver faulty summations of arguments (not suggesting that this one is inherently faulty) and be allowed to get away with it because 'the outcome will be the same anyway'. That makes no sense... Even though the close might've reached the right outcome, it needs to reach the right outcome the right way. There is a process, an order, and we can't just avoid that.
 * However, reverting to the status quo isn't the same as consensus against inclusion. The consensus list illustrates this perfectly. Outcomes of no consensus aren't placed on the consensus list, while outcomes that generate any sort of major consensus do. A defined consensus to not do something can be pointed to as a reason to not rehash an old argument; an outcome of no consensus (as opposed to a lack of consensus) is not a valid reason to oppose doing that thing. So a reclose (which in my mind, would not end in status quo ante bellum) will make a fundamental difference. After all, 13-9 is lightyears away from anything that could even remotely be described as decisive. Cessaune   [ talk ]   05:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well said. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed except for your last sentence. 13-9 can be decisive with a correct consensus assessment, and the list undoubtedly includes consensuses with numerical margins at least that narrow. It's 59% and I've previously said we have a few at ~55%. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I certainly read this particular discussion as consensus to include. But, it's within the margin of error, and you don't always get the perfect close. Such is the way of Wikipedia. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Decisive the opposite direction. Like, a !vote of 60% for item 1 is very, very hard to read as a consensus against including including item 1, regardless of strength of argument. Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're speaking generally (and if I understand you), I differ again. If the 40% has stronger policy-based arguments, they should prevail. In a perfect world, they would; but too many closers fear the pushback that almost always comes if they close against the numerical majority (this closer at least tried to do it the right way, and they are to be commended for that). This is what "not a democratic vote" is all about. Moreover, the process is broken because policy is broken, as I recently elaborated here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but such a thing is rare, and normally ends in no consensus, because proportion is relevant. I've never seen a close (of this size, a discussion of five people is a different story) that has nearly 60% consensus go the other way. In this case, I don't think the oppose arguments were more sophisticated to that degree. And in this case, I don't think that the closer's interpretation of the argument shows that there is enough here to outright decide against the proposal. Cessaune   [ talk ]   20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, then you weren't speaking generally. Thanks for clarifying. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I supported the inclusion of the Accords. But they're not going to be included & so it's best to move on. Turn the page. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When you get a bad close, you ask why. I'd like to see how Vanderwaalforces answers to this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @PhotogenicScientist Hi there, you’ve raised valid concerns and there’s nothing wrong with that. You have used all manner of rash languages, assumed bad faith (by saying I supported a side) and have also called this a “bad close”. Straight up, do you want me to revert my close? (PS: I want a yes or no answer) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe your close was an inaccurate summation of the discussion. I'd ask that you either amend it, or vacate it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the best thing to do is to amend it to "no consensus". I didn't find your decision rationale (the last paragraph of the close) to be all that convincing on why a consensus against the proposal existed. The count was about even, and both sides had policy/guideline-based positions from experienced and respected editors. Amending to no consensus will create no practical changes here. Nothing will be added, or subtracted from, the article that differs from what exists now. It will only be more technically correct and will be a better reflection of what this whole issue has been for the years it's been discussed -- one big no consensus. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 07:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @PhotogenicScientist That sounds fair enough.
 * @Iamreallygoodatcheckers Yeah, that is exactly what I am going to do, I am currently working on re-analysing the consensus and will end up amending the close. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd find that extremely disappointing, given the failure of the years-long ongoing bludgeon to meet the ONUS for inclusion and in consideration of your recognition of the question-begging and vacuous support presented by most of those favoring inclusion. I hope you do not feel bullied by this small minority of editors who do not accept your efforts.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And you, SPECIFICO, have been part of the years-long ongoing effort to keep mention of the Accords out of this article. So of course you want to see this close stick. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "I hope you do not feel bullied", she says, while attempting to bully. SPECIFICO, nobody is acting out of process here except maybe you and one or two others. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vanderwaalforces if you still intend to amend your close, please do so. It's been nearly 4 days, and the RFC discussion grows staler by the day. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Vanderwaalforces, please do not under any circumstances amend your close, You made a decision as you saw it, please to not let yourself be browbeaten by a member of the losing side. There are avenues to pursue close challenges, let them pursue those. Zaathras (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You too, Zaathras, have been arguing against the inclusion of the Accords for years. So of course you want to see this close stick. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference between us is that I have not harangued and threatened to file motions to overturn a decision that I disagreed with, as I have a respect for the process. Maybe you should reflect on that. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Woah. Pinging you so that I can make sure that you see this, regardless of if you respond.
 * While I don't necessarily agree with Photogenic's tone at all times, your tone is on an entirely different level.
 * You have failed to engage with any of the arguments put forth, instead opting to refer to the editor and avoiding referring to anything but the editor. The above statement is a perfect example of this. Literally everything (and I stand by this statement) you have said in this thread is a perfect example of this.
 * Photogenic's actions are relatively policy-based. They have followed the guidance present at Closing discussions. You implicitly claim that Photogenic isn't using the proper channels—There are avenues to pursue close challenges—this is the first avenue.
 * Your actions, at least to me, seem to go against policy, namely WP:ASPERSIONS: you have opted to implicitly and explicitly assert (without quotes, diffs, or even reasoning, mind you) that Photogenic is engaging in browbeating, haranguing, threatening, etc. Is it true? Maybe. Guess we'll never know, because you merely asserted that it was without providing any evidence. What is true is that referring to the editor and making no attempt to refer to the argument is exactly what you have done, and it's something that shouldn't be done, ever. It is antithetical to the entire point of Wikipedia. Not one time do you refer to the multitude of arguments put forth by Photogenic. And, realistically, this doesn't even have to be an issue! Like, you don't necessarily even need to do that! But when you directly accuse an editor of such things without even engaging with their points or actually providing evidence to back up your claims, I believe you have overstepped a sacred boundary.
 * What's worse, I don't think that you aren't even making a good-faith attempt to characterize the issue correctly. This vapid, nonsensical topic—both sides of the argument are valid, and simply dismissing a single side as "nonsensical" and "vapid" (the side you disagree with!) without evidence is simply... no. I think that everyone can agree that tying Trump to the Abraham Accords cannot simply be dismissed as nonsensical, and it takes deeper digging than this evidence-less statement to make such a matter-of-fact point.
 * Your statements have really pissed me off. If you aren't actually going to touch the arguments made, IMO your statements, at best, barely rise above the level of 'irrelevant' and should be treated as such. Cessaune   [ talk ]   04:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 👍 &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cessaune, you seem to be having a bit of a temper tantrum because you lost an argument on the internet, so, I'll leave you to it. For future reference, pinging me produces no result, as it is disabled. Zaathras (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "you lost" Friendly reminder that this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We're not here to win or lose - we're here to improve an encyclopedia. And Cessaune's comment is very, painfully obviously not about the content under discussion at Talk:Donald Trump. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what you are referring to when you say you lost. I opposed and still oppose the proposed change.
 * Seriously though, I'm confused. Can you point me to what you are talking about? Thanks in advance. Cessaune   [ talk ]   22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This was one of the worst decisions, if not the worst decision, in an RfC closure I've come across in my nearly twenty years here in Wikipedia. It's a closure based on (a) the retroactive assessment of the Abraham Accords success, an unpardonable sin in editing. Going by such a non-existent guideline, we would omit from most related biographies mentions of the 1938 Munich Accords, which failed spectacularly and with much worse consequences; (b) the asserted irrelevance to the Trump presidency, an argument trivially rebutted by the practice followed in Wikipedia as well as in all respected encyclopaedias of including in state leaders biographies significant events that occurred in their watch, irrespective of the degree of their direct personal involvement in them. Examples abound.
 * I feel very disappointed by the outcome. Whether an inclusion of the Accords means a "boost" to Trump, even if unintended, as some contributors implied, should not be a concern for Wikipedia's editors. I hope this is not a sign of some trend. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the arguments presented by Oppose !voters are invalid? Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity for the community, what are your intentions in regards to amending this close? <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 23:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vanderwaalforces Continuing to edit mainspace while not answering these questions on your Talk page isn't a good look. If you're not going to re-examine your close as you said you were going to do, that discussion needs attention yet. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Photo, none of us can demand that our colleagues respond as we might wish. Even if that were the case, there are other places to have such issues adjudicated by uninvolved parties.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just trying to give them every opportunity to respond via their Talk page before taking this close review to the next step. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, go ahead to a close review as I have changed my mind and don't intend to amend this close again. I understand now that changing the outcome of this close still won't make a difference with the satisfaction of the !voters. I will archive this thread by the end of today. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. Please do not archive this thread in the near future - it will serve as a resource for the discussion at WP:AN. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, you can still link to archived threads. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * GoodDay is correct. If we've moved on from this discussion, archival is actually a good thing; it prevents pointless continuation here. Even outright removal would not be a problem, since you could permalink to an old revision. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And any close review would relate to the close itself, not to this thread.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)