Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician): Difference between revisions

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a present disagreement among editors on whether Mike Johnson's affiliation to the Christian right should be mentioned within the lead.

• Supporters of inclusion state it is WP: DUE and in line with what reliable sources state, meets the criteria of WP: NPOV, and a notable aspect of his political career.
• Opponents state that it is not high-level information, not an important part of his character, and a clear violation of WP: NPOV.

Should it be mentioned? KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (note: RFC submitter) per reliable sources. It's entirely in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, as shown by the FA-tier articles on Yassar Arafat, Steve Biko, and Carlos Castillo Armas, among others. KlayCax (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reliable sources:

  Newsweek:

  "Johnson is a member of the Christian right who opposes abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results, served on Trump's impeachment defense team. He also is against sending funds to Ukraine, which is a matter of contention in the House."

  Bloomberg:

  "Folksy hero of the Christian right"

  Sky News:

  "A lawyer by trade, he was first elected to the House in 2016. He is an evangelical Christian from Louisiana, a member of the Christian right block of conservatives."

  I:

  "Mike Johnson supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election and comes from the party's Christian right faction, supporting a nationwide ban on abortion and pushing to overturn same-sex marriage"

  Vox:

  "Johnson’s surprising ascendance is also a win for the Christian right. While Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy all supported conservative policies and viewed the religious right as an essential part of the GOP coalition, Johnson is of that movement"

  Diario AS:

  "As a member of the Christian right faction, Johnson supports ‘traditional’ values. In practice, this means he supports a nation-wide abortion ban and is an opponent of LGBT rights. He has argued that same-sex marriage would lead to bestiality and described himself as supportive of “discrimination” against gay people."

• Oppose Setting aside the o WP:RFCBEFORE issue with this RFC... this content is barely mentioned in the rest of the article. but he's most notably a House Speaker and a member of the Republican party. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. The lead should follow the body. If this is to be mentioned it needs to be fleshed out more in the article before being included in the lead. Nemov (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now: There are a lot of "get to know him" pieces flying off the presses right now. I would like to wait a month and revisit sources from before, during, and after his speaker candidacy to test whether this is a consistent label in RSs. I think there's good reason to expect that "Christian right" or something close to that will be in the lead at some point, but the media environment surrounding him is too hot and lacks the critical depth that I would prefer to see. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Summoned by bot) per MOS:BLPLEAD which states the lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. It is clear that there is already material in the article explicitly covering that he is affiliated to the Christian Right at the top of the "Political positions" section which flows into the various stances he would implicitly take as part of his affiliation with the Christian Right in the various sub-sections in that section. There are also WP:RS which state this and it would therefore be WP:DUE to state it in the lede in line with MOS:BLPLEAD. Where about in the lede is a different question that has not been asked in this RfC and I don't think MOS:FIRSTBIO is the relevant policy to quote as that deals with the opening sentence/paragraph and it is clear that the lede is 4 paragraphs long. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This was originally included in the first paragraph which is why WP:FIRSTBIO was cited. Nemov (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose i want to highlight the central justification here:
  Supporters of inclusion state it is WP: DUE and in line with what reliable sources state, meets the criteria of WP: NPOV, and a notable aspect of his political career
  every sentence we publish in the article about a living person should meet these criteria. if it fails to meet these critera, it should not be in the article, period.
  not all of the material in an article should go in the lead. not all of the material in an article can go in the lead. to justify including something in the lead, there must be a better reason than it simply meeting the bare minimum standards of being in line with what reliable sources state.isadora of ibiza (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It truly depends JUST how defining it is of his career. SecretName101 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Johnson's own views as quoted by Politico, where he said: "I am a Christian, a husband, a father, a life-long conservative, constitutional law attorney and a small business owner in that order" starship.paint (RUN) 08:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The amount of sources provided are enough to include a label like this. If it was something more controversial like far-right I'd require a lot more sources but this seems sufficient and relevant to his career. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support he literally said he was a Christian conservative, Christian is Christian and conservative is right-wing per starship.paint. plenty of sources outright calling him a part of the Christian right per nominator. JM2023 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I'm not seeing where there has been prior discussion about this issue that would warrant an RfC to send out the bots and notify the whole project. We generally don't open RfCs after an hour of discussion between exactly two people, especially on a subject that...let's be honest...most of us just figured out exists at all.
  Second, why is this the least bit controversial? "Conservative Christian" isn't an epithet. It's not like one of these articles where we're debating labeling someone a terrorist. Johnson doesn't seem to have any qualms about the characterization, quite the contrary, seems to wear it as a badge of honor. Half the article is about how conservative Christianity has been his North Star in basically every facet of his life. GMG^talk 10:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The original objection was this edit[1] which introduced "Christian right faction" to the 2nd sentence of the lead without explanation. Instead of discussing it to find a solution the editor rushed into creating a RFC. Nemov (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably would have been best to discuss first, I was summoned to an RfC yesterday by the bot where the person starting the RfC was proposing some pretty uncontroversial reorganisation, of two sections in which there was duplication. They hadn't even been bold and attempted the edits at that point, so there was obviously no contention to be had. I was a little annoyed and told them that they should just do it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Europeans are horrified by these beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StardustToStardust (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support major part of this politician's outward reputation that can be seen as significant by many — Karnataka ^talk 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as malformed this RFC is too vague to establish a consensus for anything. Certainly the article should not ignore his religious faith or his political ideology. But it also shouldn't look at a few liberal outlets pejoratively calling him a "Christian nationalist" and claim that is a neutral statement. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Summoned by bot) Given the politics of his day, and the circumstances that led to him becoming Speaker of the House, it's at least as relevant that he is a part of the Christian right as it is that he is part of the Republican Party. Carleas (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose without seeing some proposed wording. The problem is that by itself it is too vague, both in terms of what it means to be a "member" and also what we mean by "Christian right". Of the sources helpfully supplied by User:KlayCax, I News makes it clear that it's the Christian right faction of the Republican Party, while Newsweek is vaguer about it. Bloomberg and Vox talk about how the Christian right likes and supports Johnson without necessarily implying that he is a member (whatever that means). So what we have now is good ("Johnson is a member of the Christian right faction of the Republican Party" under political positions) - anything beyond that probably shouldn't be in WP voice. Membership of a party faction is somewhat well defined - membership of a cultural movement is less so. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, @StAnselm:?

Ideologically a member of the Christian right faction of the Republican Party, Johnson is in his fourth term representing Louisiana's 4th congressional district, and has served since 2017.

Does that work with you? KlayCax (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for coming up with something more concrete. No, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Possibly the third. StAnselm (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very much describes him and has major references of support. ContentEditman (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Many U.S. politicians are (or at least profess to be) Christians. In most cases, that fact is not important enough to be in the lead. In this instance, however, Johnson himself has stated it to be paramount: "I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘… People are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview." "‘Go pick up a Bible’: Speaker Mike Johnson defends anti-LGBTQ+ views" This self-summary is also consistent with his overall bio, in that his career before election to Congress is far more religiously oriented than that of most politicians. JamesMLane t c 14:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not as defining as being the speaker of the house, while it also violates NPOV. Not all pertinent material needs to be in the lead, and in this case it doesn't meet other criteria. Let'srun (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- extensively covered by sources, (in Europe it's probably the most commented on aspect of his election), he seems to wear it as a badge of honor and it gives a unifying context to many of his beliefs and positions. Probably not in the opening para, but in second or third, whichever it fits best thematically. Pincrete (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Extensive, sustained coverage in high-quality sources; this is plainly a defining aspect of his notability. People argue above that it is less defining than his being speaker, but internationally it is a major aspect of why his election as speaker is notable. Many high-quality recent sources mention it in their initial one-sentence summary of him, showing its centrality to the topic. The arguments that it would be NPOV to omit it are particularly baffling; NPOV is about reflecting the sources, which in this case emphasize it, not about portraying subjects the way editors personally believe is best. In this case it would be POV to omit it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose: His affiliation is not close to the main reason he is notable and not a significant part of the article. In my opinion it also violates NPOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move to a partially disambiguated title. There is some interest in a "speaker"-related disambiguator, so further discussion on that front may prove productive, and editors are free to start another RM at any time (not that I would necessarily recommend doing so). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) → Mike Johnson (politician) – The previous discussion concluded with a consensus to move this page. However, opinions were split on where this page should be moved. While the closing editor moved the page to Mike Johnson (politician), this was undone upon review by outside parties. The diversity of proposals in the last discussion is why it failed to provide a conclusive consensus. Because of that, this proposal is binary. Discussion about any further move(s) may occur later, but for this discussion please only choose one of the following:

• Option A: Do not move and keep page as Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)
• Option B: Move page to Mike Johnson (politician)

Thank you, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B per what I wrote above. He's a US federal politician from Lousiana, not a Louisiana state politician; the current title makes that ambiguous. Not only that, he's the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, which makes him the most powerful person both in the US House and in the US Congress overall. Now look at pageviews: there are only two "Mike Johnson (______ politician)" pages. Pageviews; This Mike Johnson on most days gets at least 100x the pageviews than the other one, and on many days the other one doesn't even get any pageviews at all. clearly this one is the primary politician.

Just to make it clear, this is a binary proposal, but the result is NOT set in stone - the title can be changed again. So if you think there is a better option that is not here, you could just wait and propose it once this proposal is closed, and choose which of the two options here you think are better, because it's still better to have a subpar improvement than no improvement at all. JM (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's a US federal politician from Lousiana, not a Louisiana state politician... Irrelevant, given this is standard disambiguation for all American politicians, state or federal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B: The subject is the most notable Mike Johnson to hold political office, and may eventually become the most notable Mike Johnson (perhaps eventually by such a margin to warrant no disambiguation in the page name). For now, Option B satisfies the need to reflect this elevated notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: Given that it's likely for a reader to be seeking this over other politicians, while considering the commonality of the name, seems like a good case for a PDAB primary topic. —siroχo 17:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A: The guy was barely known before he became Speaker, and it's too soon to determine how long he'll last in that job. The 'option B' votes, in my opinion, suffer from WP:RECENTISM. I'd rather have "(speaker)" as the disambiguator but that isn't one of the choices here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He's usually been getting 100x or more the pageviews than the other Mike Johnson politician for at least 7 years, increasing with time. How is that recentism, and how is him maybe not lasting as Speaker relevant, in light of that? JM (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, per WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That page appears to support option B, especially when considering this section showing various partially disambiguated article titles and their justifications being extremely high pageview ratios, which is also the case with Mike Johnson. JM (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PDAB doesn't state that high pageview ratios automatically justify a move to the PDAB title. In this case, I don't see the higher threshold being met, given the existence of Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician), Michael Johnson (Australian politician), Michael Johnson (Alaska politician), Michael Johnson (Wisconsin politician), Michael Johnson (Missouri politician), and Michael T. Johnson. 162 etc. (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Michael Johnson is not the same as Mike Johnson. And this one's real name is James Johnson, not Michael Johnson. But just to prove a point, I put in all those names, and most of them usually have 0 pageviews a day, while this Mike Johnson often has over 100, for multiple years. JM (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A. Not the only politician named named as such, and not the only notable politician named as such. Einsof (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment adding that in the previous RM, by my count, 60 editors expressed support for any move whether they opposed the proposed move or not; while 26 editors expressed opposition without necessarily specifying whether they opposed any move; that was 70% agreement to move it somewhere else. JM (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B. I don't see why an Option C for (speaker) wasn't proposed, and I would encourage Pbritti to amend this request quickly to allow for it. Discussion fatigue is a thing...
  As for why I think Option B, for me it makes the most sense for the page following the original RM that I closed (which was partially overturned). It's a decent compromise. PDABs are exceptional, but they are known to happen occasionally. In this case, we have to compare Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician) to this page since that is the only other Mike Johnson who is a politician. Oklahoma is at 201-229 views (7 on average daily); Louisiana is at 43,985-45,173 views (1,457 daily average). That's a pageview ratio of about 175! For perspective, compare People (magazine) and People (Australian magazine) which is less than half that ratio.
  These are both contemporary American Republican politicians. One is a Speaker of the House of Representatives; the other was an Oklahoma State Senator. WP:RECENTISM is not going to apply here.
  That's where I'm at, and there's a strong case to be made that this page meets the standards set by WP:PDAB. If the consensus didn't have to be explicit (which was my mistake for not knowing), then this page would already be (politician). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason option C was not proposed was made clear in the proposal (and in my comment). If this isn't binary, if there are three options, then there will be a consensus to move somewhere without a consensus to move to somewhere specific and the whole thing will get overturned again. Which is exactly what happened last time. And it would be a WAY bigger waste of time than simply proposing multiple binary choices in successive RMs. JM (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Pppery above. Yes, by doing this way we may be more likely to get a move to a specific location, but it gives a huge advantage to supporters of (politician). The only reason the last RM was overturned was because too much of the discussion focused on whether Mike Johnson should have any disambiguation and not enough was discussion explicitly on the merits of having a PDAB or the like.
  I also don't think you are giving enough credit to people who support (speaker) over both other options. There's no clear path to get to there from (politician), but there is a much clearer path if this proposal gets voted down. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a clear path, all that has to be done is that an RM has to be proposed to change (politician) to (speaker). As for "giving a huge advantage to supporters of (politician)", well, as I said, it's a binary choice or else it probably won't pass. with 2 proposed destinations, they pull each other down. The reason it makes more sense that (politician) was chosen here is because you yourself closed the last discussion with the result of a general consensus in favour of (politician), and the fact that this page was previously PDABed with (politician). JM (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So we had a good discussion above where it was concurred that (speaker) is valid and used in cases like this, and yet it isn't an option? So now the only choice is option A which I don't like, and option B which I don't like. Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which one do you like better? After we are done with this RM anyone can propose another RM between (politician) and (speaker) so that we don't keep splitting the vote despite having a consensus to move.

  I understand that this introduces a problem where Option B, whether (politician) or (speaker), gets the advantage in that hypothetical subsequent RM, but it's either do that or not get it moved at all. Since most people agree that it should be moved, I don't think people should oppose the whole RM, because it's just going to result in no move at all, which is a result most of us are against. JM (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the main issue with the last RfC is that it was so disorganized that it naturally became no consensus. Having more options is not a negative, but it must be in such a way that it does not make the discussion a trainwreck. I understand the premise of "incremental change, we can change it again later", but my view is why don't we just include it now? To quote above, discussion fatigue is a thing and this is now the third (counting the move review) discussion on this. Curbon7 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I selected a binary between no move and (politician) because those are two consensus-driven names this article has had. As there is precedent for both and there remains substantial opposition to the current name, I presented the two primary names. Naturally, any RM is going to favor some proposals over others. As there is no deadline (well, besides maybe Johnson going the way of McCarthy), this is a suitable middle ground. As of right now, I want no parenthetical disambiguation, but there was apparently consensus against this in the last RM. I'm willing to endure an iterative process if it produces a consensus decision, even if the ultimate name isn't what I want. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A. Otherwise it's clear incomplete disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Common name and gives clear indication on who it is right away. No real reason to change IMO. ContentEditman (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A The alternative is not an improvement IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Regretfully, per my arguments above. Though the status quo is not great, I think Option B is worse. Curbon7 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C: Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House), that's how he is best known, much better than hailing from Louisiana. Option B is not a good option, given that there are lots of other Mike Johnsons who are politicians. Isabela ciao (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Isabela ciao: As I said above, the most appropriate version of that disambiguation would be (speaker). It's what we use for a Speaker of the House of Commons (Thomas Charlton). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your proposal would certainly be better than either Options A or B as proposed above, but I think just "speaker" as the disambiguating term would not be sufficient, because without the context provided by the words "of the house", the word "speaker" would most commonly be interpreted as a person who speaks. Isabela ciao (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was actually thinking the opposite when MJL mentioned it above, I think (speaker) should be the political office and others should be (public speaker), (motivational speaker) or whatever. But that is another discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With Option A taking a clear lead here, I suggest waiting for this RM to close and then proposing both Isabela ciao's and MJL's disambiguators. Considering general support for a move, I think that a three-option vote including both those proposals and a no-move could yield a clear consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You could consider waiting 6-12 months before starting another RM. Or, you know, say "Well, that's that then." There's been quite a lot of Mike Johnson RM-discussion lately. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  yet a consensus clearly wanted the article moved somewhere (60 in favour and 26 opposed in the first RM). If we just don't have RMs, most editors are not getting what they want, because the article just won't be moved. although I understand that "fatigue" is an issue. JM (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Move somewhere is not enough, you need a move here consensus. I'm doubtful you'll get one as things are atm, even if you keep making new RM:s, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know that moving somewhere is not enough, I'm just saying that not moving it at all is unwanted by most participants, so further RMs, like this one, could result in a move. But as far as I can tell, I doubt a consensus will be reached to move somewhere specific. People favour one option over others and don't compromise, and so it probably won't be moved. I for one preferred no disambiguation and compromised for (politician) here. Oh well. JM (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We are specifically trying to avoid splitting the vote with Option Cs... JM (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The way the question is posed, there is really only one option to choose from: Option B.

  Option A is a default if Option B is not accepted.

  I think the best approach would be to close this survey, since there is a clear consensus against Option B (and open up a new survey with a menu for the following options for the disambiguating terms: A) Speaker, B) Speake of the House, C) Speaker of the US House of Representatives, D) no disambiguating term (i.e. he'll be the default Mike Johnson), or E) leave as is (Louisiana politician).

  If there is no consensus for one of the choice, I would then go into a second round with only the two most popular choices

  Isabela ciao (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's basically what we're already doing, and this is the second round. The first RM had everyone advocating for different titles, which you listed above. The most popular one was (politician), and it was closed as such, and the page was moved to "Mike Johnson (politician)". Then the RM was overturned in a move review, because although the consensus was to change (60 in favour, 26 opposed) and the most popular option was (politician), it wasn't a consensus in favour of (politician). In this RM, the goal was to coalesce around (politician) as the most popular destination from the first RM, and the way to do that was by putting it up against the current title as the only proposed destination, like most RMs. Instead, we've ended up with the same mess as before, where people just !vote for whatever and there is no consensus to move to somewhere specific. At this point this article is just going to have to stay where it is. JM (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If the community is so indecisive, perhaps @Jimbo should just step in and make a ruling. Isabela ciao (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I've read, if the community really can't make a decision by consensus, it goes to ArbCom. Before early this year, Arbcom decisions could be appealed to Jimbo, but that rule was changed, and I don't think he has that role anymore. And also that Jimbo reads many discussions but rarely intervenes. I for one don't know if we should have an unelected judge who can just step in when consensus does not occur, and it would run contrary to the norm of Wikipedia functioning by consensus. Although Wikipedia welcomes his input like it does for any editor, I'm sure he's a rather busy person with other things to do. JM (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No consensus is a very common phenomenon in WP-discussions. It means nothing changes and people can do other stuff instead (it's a big website), possibly but not necessarily revisiting at a later time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]