User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 20

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can you please immediately protect this page? Thanks. (Roundish ⋆t) 14:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! (Roundish ⋆t) 15:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it was twinkle lying, so I protected for a couple more weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the RFC at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Topic_1:_What_principal_reference?_(MOS:GENDERID_1st_paragraph)

The question posed was Should Wikipedia articles always principally refer to deceased trans and nonbinary persons by their most recently preferred name of choice, as reported in reliable sources? Should not an affirmative response to the question be a "no change" answer, since people are always addressed by their most recently expressed name regardless of the gender identity question, per

The RFC included a proposed change to the text, which those supporting supported. Even if that was already common practice, the change outlines it in the MOS, which is good because all the policies and guidelines should be descriptive, rather than proscriptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed you had blocked user:Rosalinemartinez. The edit(s) they had made on Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence, were restored by user:Elma.engraving5884 on 31 May 2023. User:Elma.engraving5884 has only two edits, so it is probably far to early to determine if this is a sock of Rosalinemartinez. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a duck and opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosalinemartinez to make sure my papers are in order. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I was not trying to attack RtD with that remark, they genuinely are having medical issues and stated they’re on a gajillion different drugs. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Let their nurse handle the medical questions. Stay off their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Irrespective of the outcome, I wanted to thank you for the recent close of topic 1 on the MOS:GENDERID RFC.

I realize that RFC was/is daunting. On the one hand, I feel somewhat proud of the setup: There was an RFCBEFORE at VPI that got fairly messy fairly quickly—you might not believe it, but a good amount of thought went into trying to figure out (1) what the various issues there and across various page-specific debates were, (2) how those issues could be split up to facilitate discussion of different aspects of the problem, and (3) what options would adequately represent the various proposals that had been offered.

On the other hand, splitting up the issues as I did also made it harder on any closer, and, for that, I feel somewhat guilty. I tried to craft the

x2; you're a beast. Thanks again! --Jerome Frank Disciple 17:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

x3! Wow, I really didn't think anyone would willing subject themselves to tackling that entire thing solo; you're an absolute madman, and I'm in awe. Thanks so much again; have a great one,--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

One more closing statement coming, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to impose a burden on you (well, more than I have?), and frankly I can't honestly say that this would definitely payoff for you in the future because I actually prefer (1) working on relatively quiet articles (hence the examples on my user page) and (2) participating in, not creating, RFCs, ... but if you have any suggestions/criticisms related to how I set up the RFC, I'd be more than happy to hear them. As I said above, a lot of thought went into the setup (mostly in view of "these are the fault lines; I expect we can get a consensus on one of two of the fault lines, but it's worth splitting them up") ... but just because there was thought doesn't mean the thought was smart!--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My first impression is that for something that large, that's about as good as it could have been. Topic 2a could likely have been held off, pending the result of the main question, but it didn't get nearly the traction the other topics did so it wasn't that big a deal. It is difficult to work on a policy RFC at times because you have to balance enough choices to cover the wide variety of views, but a few enough where it could be possible to find a consensus. Hopefully, the closes narrowed the window a bit so it will become easier to either develop consensus wording, or hold a narrower RFC targeting the area where there is broad consensus so it will be possible to find consensus on specific wording. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I actually didn't start topic 2a; it was actually a reaction to an oversight I made in the topic 2 option 3 implication. But I appreciate both the kind words, the work, and the closing comments! I'm cautiously optimistic that we can work out a proposal for topic 2, though, of course, as I learned this round ... it's actually quite difficult to predict how these things will go—even when you're relying on recent RFCs.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Hunter Biden "laptop" article problem isn't about consensus. It's about sourcing. There isn't any. The people who claim there are sources are being disingenuous. They're cherry picking sources and then they're claiming articles say things they don't. They're not making real arguments because they don't have any, and they can't point to a single article that actually says what they say other articles say. Yet, they're "winning" because they somehow got unsourced statements into the article and it's hard to get rid of them. You don't have to (and shouldn't) enforce a specific point of view, but, as an admin, wouldn't it be great if you would help the page follow Wikipedia policy?

Instead, you closed a discussion where one set of editors (including me) were making reasonable, arguments, with sources, and another set of editors were repeating arguments that were previously refuted.

If I'm wrong and it's ok for "consensus" to override clear Wikipedia policy on required, reliable sources in order to include something, please point me to where it says that. Or the policy where it's ok to ignore reliable sources that disagree with what you'd like the article to say. I certainly haven't found anything like that.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus determines how policies apply to content. Part of RFCs, and consensus building in general, is weighing arguments based on policy. That the content you object to has been through two RFCs and innumerable noticeboard discussions with a huge amount of editor eyes on it shows that your reading of policy is not in line with how the community reads those policies. Repeating the same arguments over and over again for months in the face of those RFCs and noticeboard discussions is not constructive.

To be clear, consensus isn't overriding policy, you just disagree with the consensus of how the policy has been interpreted by the community (over and over again) in this case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your thoughtful closes. Always edifying to read your thoughts on where consensus lies in disputes. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ixtal. As always, I appreciate your kind words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

How do you add pages on Wikipeadia? --KevinVieau (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:YFA covers the process in detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 10:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 04:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § Complementary preferences. I pinged you for feedback on the proposed guideline update re. complementary preferences; I suppose it slipped through the cracks during this extensive discussion. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Actualcpscm, not sure what happened, but I don't see your ping in my alerts. Looks pretty in-depth, so I'll try and give it a thorough read tomorrow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

A new IP and new registered user are adding back your removal of sock edits/"caste shenanigans". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Account blocked, evasion reverted, protected 3 months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I certainly understand the points people made. I try to see the good in people, even rude IP editors. Perhaps some admin wants to address the conflict between those two policies, or at least add a cross-reference. Also, WP:NOTFORUM is not quite so explicit that it is unquestionable that the IP editor's comments would violate it — they did make some valid points, so clarification there, if indeed that's the intent, would not hurt. RoyLeban (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

First off, that IP is just another in a long series of right wing trolls that complain on protected talk pages about Wikipedia not parroting right wing talking points or relying on wildly unreliable sources. Or maybe you think that saying there was an FBI spy planted in the Trump campaign is reasonable? Or maybe James O'Keefe of Project Veritas isn't far right. It's clear that the IP was saying the laptop article is WAY beyond the pale because it doesn't go far enough in saying the Biden's are criminals. Absurdities & stupidities that abound in the article (and talk), after all that has been made public on the topic isn't referring to any real balance issue, it's a complaint that the article doesn't include "damning evidence" found in unreliable sources. Most of their talk page messages on American political articles are reverted as NOTAFORUM.

Second, the link between

WP:SOAP

.

Let's look at the IP's post.

The articles in this page are beyond the pale. WAY beyond the pale. Absurdities & stupidities that abound in the article (and talk), after all that has been made public on the topic, are simply indefensible. It is unlikely that only these article's words and talk pages here, but the incredible contorted reasoning spelled out, as well as other pages, only serve to blemish any attempts of Wiki objectivity. A clear violation of Wiki's mission. If there is anyone who has the power, they need to rein it in. Otherwise, Wiki's brand will languish and atrophy. It is not an "IF", only a when.

Is there anything in that message that is not venting [their] feelings about [the article]? It even mentions other articles using contorted reasoning. Does it mention how to improve the article? Specific issues? Any sources provided or changes proposed? No. It's just venting that the article doesn't look how they want it to. It is unquestionable that the message violates the talk page guidelines and as

WP:TPG says, Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 11:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

With the RFC you recently closed, do you consider your no consensus for name inclusion for the entire article, or just in regards to the lead as the RFC was written. I know there were early concerns on BLPN about how the RFC was originally written, and the fact it started before his name was widely available and then continued after charges were filed, made it a fluid situation. There also was the problem of a second discussion starting about overall inclusion prior to this one being closed, although most participants in their found their way to the first RFC. Anyways, just asking before I start removing name from article. Thanks. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In general, those opposed made no mention of the lead, and the arguments that they put forth apply to the article as a whole, rather than the lead, and most of the support also did not mention the lead. I read the opposition as relating to the use of the name in general (per

WP:RFCBEFORE should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 18:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you blocked this IP user and I also see that you blocked another IP which was the same user. However IMO, I think that IP should also be blocked for about 3 months rather than just a week. Because it's likely as soon as that block expires he'll be back to adding poor sources for actor's DOBs. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's the first editing from that IP, so I'm hesitant to lay a heavy block. They might have been using someone else's WiFi or something similar. If it starts up again I'll block for longer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! As you are the closing editor (and if I may flatter you, an admin I've seen just about everywhere I go whose work I respect greatly) I thought it would be pertinent to ask you before opening another BLPCRIME can of worms on that talk page - do you feel the new development of Penny's indictment warrants a new discussion, or possibly even reversal of the closure? Like I've said repeatedly, I think his name ought to be included (and I think the indictment changes a lot of the arguments made), but I also recognize this is a huge set of discussions that has continued to grow and metastasize onto user talks and noticeboards.... Even if the discussion really SHOULD be revived, it might be best to let the page chill out for a bit before poking the dragon again. PriusGod (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

PriusGod, with 45 or so percent invoking BLPCRIME I don't believe another discussion immediately would change anything, or be particularly constructive. BLPCRIME applies to those without a conviction, so the recent developments don't change it's applicability. If you take into account some of the support argued that since he wasn't charged BLPCRIME didn't apply, now those arguments are undercut and we're left with a stronger lean towards opposition.

I also want to thank you for editing in support of a consensus that goes against how you believe the article should be written. That's good editing, and a great thing to see in a contentious situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:BLPDELETE

. Then there is the issue of other articles which name accused but not convicted persons (I and another editor have begun making a list).

TL;DR: I do think this issue needs to be revisited, but globally, either with the aim of changing policy to match actual long-standing practice, or removing articles which don't adhere to your interpretation of it. And yes I know this has been discussed numerous times, but reinventing the wheel is what brand-new editors are for, amirite? Regards, Xan747 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The name in headline has come up for other articles at

WP:BLPN

. Generally, there is a higher bar for that, e.g. concerns of identifying an anonymous minor victim of a crime through their link to a suspect.

As far as

WP:BLPCRIME. There is some nuance to it, which is why individual invocations of the policy are discussed on talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 15:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

My takeaways here are that there are long-standing conventions not codified in policy, different editors have different conventions, and that policy or convention can be and is trumped by local consensus. And that I should tailor my goals and participation accordingly instead of tilting at windmills.

My actual position is that I'm not at all concerned with the accused's name being mentioned on-wiki, including in the article itself. Any reliable news agency will have policy in place protecting themselves from defamation lawsuits, and so long as we follow their lead on what they say and how they say it, we should be covered. In my mind, this moots the public figures test. That doesn't mean I think that's the only hurdle inclusion should have to clear.

Happy to talk more if you want, otherwise I've said my piece. Thank you for your time and consideration. Xan747 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

public figures

is a real concern.

You'll find a lot of different local consensus situations dealing with a lot of policies. In BLPCRIME editors must seriously consider not including material is doing a lot of heavy lifting. An RFC was, in this case, that serious consideration. In other cases, after serious consideration there was a different consensus. That's just how Wikipedia works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand there are other considerations than defamation suits, but it was an argument against inclusion in the RfC and it is a concern raised in policy (in one place very strongly, but now I can't find it). I'm willing to consider that I've put too much emphasis on the argument.

Richard Jewell was never charged, but was variously described in media as a person of interest, or suspect. I recall the ensuing media circus all too well, and agree Wikipedia should tread lightly in such situations. As @PriusGod already pointed out, by the time the RfC closed, our ex-marine had been indicted by a grand jury, so the situations aren't comparable. Yet your stated standard above is that he must be convicted before he can be named per BLPCRIME. It sounds like the only thing that might sway you is overwhelming local consensus. Is that about accurate? Xan747 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue with applying BLPCRIME here, really, is that even if Penny was found not guilty, he should still be named in the article. He is not disputing that he was the person involved here. If a "not guilty" verdict means he should be included, and a "guilty" verdict does as well, then why leave out his name now? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion, but as an interested party I thought I would stop in. And Elli -- my answer to your question is that right now, we are telling an incomplete story and perhaps giving an impression that is not there (that of guilt). He was accused and later exonerated (or convicted) is a simple recitation of facts that can't really be misconstrued. "He has been charged by a grand jury" might tend to make people think that there is culpability before it is established. That said, this is certainly a thorny one (this article and elsewhere) and as I like to say, reasonable minds can differ on the best policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not my standard, it was the standard argued in the RFC. As I said, there was no consensus to include, and being a

WP:BLP issue it doesn't fall back to the status quo, it defaults to not including. Contentious material in a BLP needs a positive consensus to include. I explained my views on how I weighed some of the arguments, but even if I had not adjusted any weights and read it as a straight vote it would have been no consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not my standard, it was the standard argued in the RFC.

Ahhh, light goes on. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Thank you for your patience, and the crash course in how things really work. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem. RFC closures are a formal summary of the discussion with an uninvolved party assessing the consensus. A closer can weigh arguments differently depending on they're policy basis and overall strength, but it's still summarizing the discussion, rather than casting a

WP:SUPERVOTE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hiya! Recently you closed a big three part RFC about MOS:GENDERID as "somewhere between options 2 and 3". However, in this followup RFC almost all of the oppose votes are trying to relitigate the previous RFC, and often through claiming the close of the previous RFC was "no consensus".

It seems pretty clear to me that this is not consistent with the actual close. Would it be possible for you to reword the close of the previous RFC to clarify your intent? Or at least chime in on the new RFC? Loki (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can make it much clearer than it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3. It was plain after reading the discussion that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. Where the lack of consensus emerges is when dealing with where exactly the line for inclusion should be drawn. There was no consensus on the specific wording, which was the RFC question, but as I noted, that wasn't the consensus of the discussion. Just from a raw numbers point of view it was about 49% supporting option 3, and 22% supporting option 2. The result weighed much closer to 3, which I had hoped to communicate with the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. I don't really have the authority to do anything in the new RFC, but if there is something specifically I should clarify, let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion in that case would be to bold the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3 like you bolded there is no consensus to change the current wording of MOS:GENDERID at the top. Right now it's buried in the middle of a long closing statement that I'm not confident everyone is reading fully. Loki (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the steel is too cold now to bother with bolding that line. Changing the bolding now, a week later, isn't going to change how people want to read the close. To be honest, it likely wouldn't have changed how people read it if it were bolded from the start. The bolding doesn't actually matter, the few hundred words I spent explaining the actual consensus do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, because I suppose I have a deeper concern.

I think that your close is very reasonable a priori, but I think in practice it leads to some serious issues. In a situation where ~50% of people like Option 3, ~25% of people like Option 2, and ~25% of people like one of various options weaker than Option 2, asking for wording to be settled on in a future RFC necessarily makes it very hard to actually get a consensus on that wording, assuming that the people who voted for weaker options maintain their objection. Wordings exactly where the consensus lies (around 2.5) are likely to fail as 50/50s. Even something closer to Option 2 might have serious issues achieving consensus: there were several Option 3 voters who opposed Option 2 as worse than nothing.

I'm tempted to open a close review for this reason except that, again, the original close was clearly a reasonable reading of the consensus. The issues with it are that it's asking people to do something impossible in the future, not that it was a bad reading of where the consensus was in practice.

TL;DR the wording of your close has put us in a frustrating situation that I feel could have been avoided. I'm not entirely sure what kvetching to you is supposed to accomplish but I also feel like I oughta at least say something so situations like this can be avoided in the future. Loki (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking back at my notes, I have 38 of 83 primarily supporting option 3, and 18 primarily supporting option 2. Of the option 3 supporters, six explicitly supported option 2, and many others had comments about exceptions. Of the option 2 supporters there was about an even split between also supporting option 3 or specifically calling out a high bar and supporting no change or opposing three. Option 2 also had other support from a number of option 4 supporters as secondary. I just didn't see a way to call that as consensus for option three with 53% raw support. Perhaps Barkeep49's close would have been better, and I wouldn't have supported a challenge against it as it is in the realm of reasonable, but that's not how I read consensus. I also think that close would have been a lot more likely to get challenged.

I try not to consider exactly how an RFC will be implemented because that can definitely color a reading of consensus. No consensus is always a possible outcome, and sometimes that's just where the die falls. I did my best to clarify where the actual consensus was, but I don't think it was within normal closing discretion to work out exactly how to handle the new wording, and I don't think there was enough there to change the wording of the MOS to option 3.

I don't mind the kvetching, and I'm always interested to see how people view my closes. I'm also always interested in avoiding shitty situations in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No consensus is always a possible outcome, and sometimes that's just where the die falls. is true. I have sometimes taken a lot of flack for closing something as no consensus. But my criticism of your close has been the fact that there is a consensus in this discussion. We both agree on that. However in the end your close has the same impact as if there had been no consensus and thus subverts and ignores what the participants of the discussion told us. Further, I don't think you actually live by I try not to consider exactly how an RFC will be implemented. Otherwise your close would not have had an entire paragraph with suggestions about what to do. Clearly you did (as you should) consider how the RfC would be implemented. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify that a bit. I try not to consider how it will be implemented when reading consensus. After I've made that step, from time to time I'll offer a bit of advice on where I think it should go next. What I wouldn't do is look at an RFC that I was closing and say "it will be a difficult next step to establish consensus wording if this is closed as no consensus, so I'll close it as consensus for some wording to avoid that."

It's shitty that there had to be another RFC, and it's even shittier that some of those responding are relitigating the consensus of a discussion with over 80 editors involved because they didn't like the outcome. I still didn't see a consensus to implement language into a guideline when it had ~53% support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, my weighted consensus had just over majority support for Option 3 (not enough to change consensus on its own) and about the same level of support as you for Option 2, which combined meant there was enough consensus to change the MOS. Also there didn't have to be another RfC. Sometimes there does have to be another RfC, sometimes not. In this case it was a matter of discretion. Your close was with-in discretion certainly. But that discretion doesn't make it the only reasonable close. Instead you used your discretion to close it in a way that required another RfC. The way I would had drafted the close (which I will note may have have changed because of what my close would have meant for the subquestion) may have required an rfc, or it may not have depending on whether consensus could be reached without it. What has happened at the RfC was entirely foreseeable - and I wrote why it was likely - and this is why I have been so critical about what I see is a not great use of discrestion on a topic that is clearly of large importance to the community. Given all this, I would suggest you have an obligation to help the current RfC not ignore or subvert the consensus that had been previously reached which goes beyond hatting a section. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned above that I thought your interpretation was reasonable as well. The venn diagram of our readings seems to be pretty close to a circle, with a sliver on the outsides for closing phrasing and whether consensus can be called in favor of the wording of option 3 or not. I'm not saying it would be wrong if it were closed another way, I'm saying that I couldn't find that consensus in my reading. If everyone read consensus exactly the same we wouldn't need closers or close review.

As far as helping with the RFC, I don't think the person who closed the last RFC stepping in and waving some sort of authority around would be helpful. There's still plenty of time for me to make a statement and engage with the RFC, and seeing where it's going will be very helpful to providing input and arguments to help the closer of this RFC better weigh the responses. I would also hope that whoever ends up closing it looks at the background and weighs the force of consensus from the earlier RFC against the response that the new RFC gets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: both your and SFR's closes are reasonable reads of the consensus to me. However, would your close, which would have likely seen a more immediate change to GENDERID, not have been open to a much higher risk of a successful close challenge and likely have us in the same situation we currently find ourselves in anyway? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree there would have been an increased chance of an actual challenge, though I think the most likely outcome would have been people getting to work on the footnote or other clarifying language (just as they did here). I am very confident my close would not have been able to be successfully challenged precisely because it would have fallen with in discretion and SFR and I clearly see the same consensus which leads me to believe others would as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I see it as a risk analysis. Your close would have put more risk on yourself, and the close being successfully challenged (in whole or in part). SFR's close has a lower risk of challenge, but a higher risk of any subsequent discussion/RfC being derailed or reaching a no-consensus outcome. I dunno which is better, and I don't think I'd fault either of you for coming to the conclusions that you did. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to distract or take attention away from Loki, but I just read through that RfC, and I have to say, that is the longest f'ing thread I've seen in a while, and extremely complex. Kudos just for the attempt hfs. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was about 1.4 tomats. Not the longest I've closed, but it was up there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There's PR activity going on with

This is almost certainly a sock/meat farm for promotion. That said, it's a pretty tangled web. Let me see what I can do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The Doom Patrol, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

More evidence: [1][2], came after I gave COI notice to the former. Abdul.Aboobacker has also blown up his cover by saying the rivals PR team is been attacking this wiki page. They believe they are being attacked by their rival PR team working for other contestants in Bigg Boss. Anyway, I have started AFD. I'm not sure a CU could be beneficial since they are a PR team, could be meatpuppets (any insights Roy Smith?).--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I have that AfD watched, so I'll try and stay on top of any shenanigans. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Drat, I was too busy thinking of witty edit summaries to look at the wider context and just get the pointless RfC shut down. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As soon as I saw it pop up I was pretty sure a few moments of looking would reveal disruptive editing, and lo-and-behold, that's what I found. Then they were nice enough to create a few user pages for me on some other language wikipedias featuring Trump's picture before they were globally blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Trump fanboys turn up in the strangest places, you know..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the user you banned is back with two different accounts. Please take an appropriate action. It is clear cut vandalism. -- Pulimaiyi (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, apologies for messing up the 2 edits. I just go to the last revision before the vandalism took place and copy all the wikitext from there and past it in the edit window, but it seems like the content gets pasted twice if I do it on mobile mode. Anyway, it is fixed and as for the vandalism I hope you will take a strict action. -- Pulimaiyi (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged the socks. Take a look at

WP:TWINKLE, it makes reverting vandalism a bit easier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 14:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. for discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close challenge, Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name Inclusion LoomCreek (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hey SFR, this whole "closing contentious RfCs" thing sounds like a hoot! How can I get in on the action?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. Read literal novels worth of text
  2. Take detailed notes
  3. Digest the entirety of the discussion
  4. Summarize the discussion
  5. Go to AN

  It's a real good time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh, that simple eh? Unfortunately I just opened a bottle of wine, so I'll have to wait until hell freezes over next week to get in on the fun.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to play some Diablo 4 with the wife after a long week of work, now I have to defend a 12 support 10 oppose no consensus RFC closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)