Editing Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard (section)

===Non-participants===
*'''Endorse'''. I reviewed the close at [[Wikipedia:Discussions_for_discussion#Input_on_merge_close|discussions for discussion]], found it fine, as did one other reviewer, and find this close reasonable and correct now. [[User:Iseult|<span style="color: #35b794">'''I'''seult</span>]]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>[[Special:Contribs/Iseult|'' Δx '']]</sup>[[User talk:Iseult|talk to me]]</span> 23:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' I understand that the explanation of the close might not have been ideal, but it all looks like it's above board and I don't have any concerns.
:<s>@[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], you clearly feel very strongly about the subject, so please take care not to inadvertently [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] the discussion - I'm absolutely '''not''' saying you are going to do this, I can just see a few indications that this is a (hopefully unlikely) possibility.</s> [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 09:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''.  While discussions are not a vote, it's not meant to be just about convincing the closer. If nobody is paying any attention to your arguments, that means that you've failed to convince editors with them; it's not the closer's job to rebut them. Nor would it be appropriate for a closer to pluck out an argument few respondents really embraced and say "well ''I'' don't think anyone answered this" and declare it as a consensus - again, discussions are not a vote, but they're also not a ''debate''; you don't get a consensus by having stronger arguments in a vacuum, but by ''convincing the community'' (not the closer!) with those arguments. Closers can disregard arguments that are plainly not grounded in policy, but (as in this case) where the numerical majority is behind a clearly reasonable policy-based argument, a closer can't just go "well this other argument is stronger" or "well I don't feel anyone answered this argument" as OP implicitly requests. It's the ''community'' that decides that, and they clearly made their decision here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]], you just said: "consensus is not a vote, but if the majority is for it, then that's consensus." That's exactly what [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] warns against. But honestly, I no longer care about the outcome. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 15:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::No, as I said, there are ''some'' things a closer needs to examine, such that it's not a vote. Arguments that are not grounded in policy at all have to get disregarded, say. But that doesn't extend to just choosing the argument the closer prefers. The simple fact is that everyone in an RFC is going to feel they have stronger arguments (if they didn't, it wouldn't reach the part of requiring an RFC in the first place), so if that alone was enough then no RFC outcome would ever be accepted. Weighing the strength of arguments is the job of the ''community''; the closer's job is to evaluate what the community decided, not to override that decision when it is obvious. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm not asking the closer to pick my argument because I like it. If the community truly weighed it and found it unpersuasive, that should be reflected somewhere. It wasn't. That's not "evaluating what the community decided" — that's ignoring what was actually said. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::All I saw was one line summarizing the keep side's position — no breakdown of why my [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] analysis was wrong. PAGEDECIDE says decisions should be based on reader understanding, not because a majority voted a certain way. I'm interested in aviation. I knew nothing about Jiménez before the crash. Readers interested in him can still find the crash covered in his biography. One event, two audiences. That's what PAGEDECIDE is for.
:::::Anyway, I've said everything I can. I'm done. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 16:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Not an easy close, but I can't see anything technically wrong with it. Aquillion also makes some very good points. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)