User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 46#Out-of-process close

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

{{-}}

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Qing dynasty on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Hey! I just edited a dead link! Sorry if I caused any harm! Valorrr (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:The link is already properly labeled and contains an archive link. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hey! Then what about the swimming, I do swimming myself and I provided the correct citations! Valorrr (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you kindly, and always glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Hawk%27s_Pro_Skater_2&diff=prev&oldid=1251513413 I see you reverted them back in October.] Thought you'd like to know that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Hawk%27s_Pro_Skater_2&diff=prev&oldid=1281069910 they returned with a different IP.]   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Sorted, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:I might be the most-reviewed closer and the most appealed-on-merits admin around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi SFR :) I noticed your block of LoOkAtMyVoIcE when I was looking at the CSD tag for their AfC submission User:LoOkAtMyVoIcE/sandbox. I'm not convinced they're a vandal, their contributions aren't great and communication is poor, but from what I can see they were acting in good faith. Their AfC submission was tagged as a hoax, but I'm actually not convinced it is. Our own article Family of Donald Trump indicates that his family tree does go back to someone of this name who lived in those years. Just wondered if I've missed anything with this. Sam Walton (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:There were a few things that led me to VOA rather than CIR in this case. First was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donald_Trump_is_John_Cena&diff=prev&oldid=1279871385 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/40215467 this]. There is also the hoax image taken from here which was also used as a hoax image [https://gw.geneanet.org/tdowling?lang=en&n=trump&p=johann+sebastian here]. Combined with the trollish communication in my judgement this was intentional disruption rather than a good faith user. That said, you're welcome to unblock if you believe that this was all in good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Samwalton9}}, this actually spurred me to take a closer look and I just blocked 5 socks. I'm fairly sure the one I have tagged as the master, {{noping|PapoPlayz}}, wasn't their first but just the first I could find. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, hadn't spotted the image was a hoax, and hadn't checked the filter log. Sounds fine to me - nice spot on the socks too! Sam Walton (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The one I tagged as the master has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/40089870 this] filter hit too. Weird to see the filter hits on old accounts that have been tagged as socks at some point. Maybe someone would recognize that behavior? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind expanding on your reasoning a bit? I think this needs a little bit more than a bare "no consensus". voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation as well. Cortador (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've expanded on my closure, although I think in this case it was fairly obvious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, but I don't think the expansion is helpful. You stated this: {{Xt|Arguments that the sourcing provided at the RFC was sufficient to discount those opposing inclusion were not sufficiently convincing to participants in this discussion, often on the grounds that it is a due weight issue rather than a WP:V issue, to establish a consensus to overturn.}}

::This is the exact reason why I started the closure review in the first place. Just saying "I don't want this" isn't an argument. Chetsford arrived at no consensus because they "felt" that the community didn't find the inclusion arguments convincing instead of actually assessing strength of said arguments. You should disregard how many participants state that arguments for an overturn are not "sufficiently convincing", and instead weigh what arguments they have in favour of that. Cortador (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at the closure review we have from uninvolved parties:

:::Reopen

:::#{{tq|There are enough WP:RS, both primary and secondary sources, that justify adding "Far-right" as a faction of the Republican party.}} rearguing the RFC

:::#{{tq|I could see this being NC, but given the closer's stated reliance on Toa's "evidence from past discussions" that, per @Aquillion, not only appears to be very weak/misrepresented but was part of a behavioral issue that got Toa TBANNED from this topic, I think a reassessment of consensus would be warranted.}} refers to a single editor's response and the weight it was given in the close

:::#{{tq|The side in favor of inclusion cited several reliable sources, including academic ones, showing that a faction of the Republican Party (the Freedom Caucus) is regularly described as far right, making its inclusion under faction ideologies due.}} rearguing the RFC

:::#{{tq|per TurboSuperA+}} rearguing the RFC

:::#{{tq|No justification was provided for why such an addition to the infobox requires even better sourcing that what was provided (several reliable organizations plus scholarly articles).}} per the close {{tq|they felt some level of overwhelming sourcing was necessary since it's unlikely to find sources that say X is not Y, but more likely to find sources that say X is Y.}} The close summarizes the discussion, and if the sourcing was not sufficient to sway participants then their responses are policy based under WP:VNOT. Further rebutted in this discussion by the person being referenced

:::#{{tq|per voorts above. I find it difficult to understand the closer's reasoning. The yes side provided the demanded academic sourcing but the oppose side simply said that wasn't enough without giving a policy reason why it wasn't enough.}} Rearguing the RFC, rebutted

:::Endorse

:::#{{tq|Just because some sources exist is not sufficient reason.}} WP:VNOT

:::#{{tq|There was no clear overarching policy here - there was an editorial decision to be made (a la due weight) as to whether it should be in the infobox.}} WP:VNOT

:::#{{tq|I would have closed the same way, and I see the opposing view as untenable}} WP:CLOSE

:::#{{tq|Many arguments in that RfC are poor, with little or no reference to Wikipedia's policies, and this was not restricted to only one side of the argument.}} WP:CLOSE

:::#{{tq|as the arguments put forward by Springee, Nemov et al.}}

:::#{{tq| per Graeme Bartlett, berchanhimez, S Marshall, and Vanamonde93}}

:::#{{tq|The close is within the discretion of the closer and per S Marshall, and Vanamonde93.}}

:::#{{tq|This shouldn't even be a point of consideration. Their candidate won a majority of the votes in addition to the electoral college for the Presidency and hold a majority in both houses of Congress. While a small minority could be considered "far right", at this time, the party dominated by centrists and pragmatic right of center delegates.}} rearguing the RFC

:::#{{tq|I also think any reasonable person reading that close has to concede that it is at least a reasonable representation of the consensus.}} WP:CLOSE

:::If you see consensus there go ahead and open a close review of the close review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The reason why people were, as you put it here, "rearguing the RFC" is because the reason for the closure review is that Chetsford claimed that there we sufficient arguments on the exclude side to counter those on the include side and thus close the RfC with no consensus. Chetsford later claimed that the sources in favour of exclusion were some links provided by one editor, yet nobody, Chetsford included, has been able to show any of those sources. That is a failure to properly weight the arguments made in the initial RfC.

::::As per your own breakdown above, two editors have argued that verifiability doesn't mean inclusion, yet haven't been able to provide a reason why this should apply here where the demand of the exclude side was simply "more sources". The others brought no arguments to the table except that they agree with the closure (which is no argument). Lastly one editor stated that the GOP shouldn't be called "far right", missing what the RfC was about. Cortador (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree. I also did not "reargue the RfC" in my !vote. I pointed out that one side presented arguments based on policy and provided the sourcing that was asked of them, and the other side just repeatedly said "no" without explaining why adding this faction's ideology would be undue. The closer clearly gave weight to non-policy based arguments and many of the endorse !votes were basically "the two sides were evenly divided", which is basically endorsing the outcome of no consensus based on a vote count. Indeed, point 3 on the endorse side just makes an assertion that the close was correct with zero reasoning, 4 misses the point because notwithstanding poor arguments, strong ones were provided for inclusion, and point 8 was obviously not grounded in PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The broader community clearly does not agree with this assessment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't disagree; clearly several editors vocally don't want the information in the article. I just don't think their arguments are aligned with policy and it's absurd to demand more sources in a discussion and then not even bother evaluating them to explain why they're not sufficient. In any event, I'm not going to open a close review of a close review, but I obviously can't speak for Cortador. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Uninvolved editors at AN also disagree with your reading of consensus in the first discussion. It's pretty unlikely that the majority of those participating in the review {{tq|vocally don't want the information in the article}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::What the broader community or uninvolved editors want matters only if they can back it up with sound arguments. As a closer, it is your obligation to assess the strength of arguments made for or against the closure, not just count how many people want X or Y. Cortador (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Your disagreement doesn't make an argument less valid. If you believe my close is in error you're free to challenge it at AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::What argument? The issue here is a lack of policy-based arguments. Cortador (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Uninvolved participant in the close review here: IMO if your argument in a close review is "it's not a vote count, you need to assess the strength of the arguments" you're unlikely to succeed. RFCs are not votes but that doesn't mean that the level of support is irrelevant to consensus. For an argument to be strong, it needs to be convincing, and for it to be convincing it needs to actually convince people. If half of people disagree with you, that is not a consensus by the plain meaning of the word no matter how strong you think your arguments are.

::::::::::::"Not a vote count" is more for anti-WP:CANVASSING and brigading purposes than to say that a discussion that was objectively very close should actually be closed as a consensus for one side. Loki (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm also uninvolved, and I close a lot of discussions, and my view has never been "well, these editors made a compelling argument, but about an equal number of people have said no without providing a good reason, so I guess that's no consensus". What's the point of having policies and guidelines if a group of editors can just filibuster something without a real reason? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Keeping in mind that I did not close the first discussion, nor do I have an opinion on the discussion or closure, the review discussion had a majority of uninvolved editors citing WP:VNOT, agreeing with the reading of consensus, or agreeing that it was a reasonable close. A 40 percent minority is not sufficient to overcome arguments that are based in policy even if you don't find them convincing or explained to your satisfaction. It's not up to the closer to decide which policy we should follow, only if the arguments are rooted in policy and not adequately rebutted. {{tq|If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.}} ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It is absolutely up to the closer to discard arguments that aren’t relevant. Editors simply stating "No" is an irrelevant argument. Cortador (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::That wasn't an issue in the close review. Again, if you believe the close was in error please take open a review at WP:AN to see if the community agrees. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::How does this help avoid canvassing? This does the opposite: instead of at least having to bother to make an actual case, anyone canvassed can just say "I support X" and apparently, that qualifies as a sound argument then. Cortador (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The point is that the closer can ignore obviously canvassed participants, not that they can ignore legitimate participants if they as an individual happen to think their argument was bad when the actual discussion didn't think so. Loki (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Closers can (and indeed are instructed to) discard arguments that aren't based on PAGs, even if it's Jimbo himself making the arguments. Otherwise, consensus just becomes a vote count and has zero meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I would respectfully suggest to any RfC participants here that the time they are spending relitigating this would be more constructively spent in considering more nuanced options on the talk page and, if needed, forming a new RfC. The one we spent too long at AN over was closed explicitly allowing for further discussion, and even a revision of that closure to "rough consensus" (not what I support, but the most favorable possible outcome) does not obviate the need for further discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Why bother with a constructive discussion if whatever work I put into searching for sources and assessing what the academic consensus on a question is if it's cancelled out by someone else just typing "No"? Cortador (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That's a straw man: the RfC closer did not weight comments equally, and several people (myself included) who endorsed the closure also did not weigh comments equally. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Chetsford did precisely that. They stated in their closing statement that the include side fulfilled the demands of the exclude side, but then continued to say "No", and thus there was supposedly no consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish did not provide any reasoning for their closure initially, and only upon request did so, stating that they felt the overturned side wasn't convinced instead of assessing whether they had actually any arguments for their endorsement. Cortador (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Look Cortador, sometimes you just lose an argument. I mean I understand where you're coming from but you have to keep some perspective. There will be other content disputes. Let it go. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::This isn't a content dispute, it's a policy dispute. This is an issue with editors (and at least two admins among them) arguing that RfCs and reviews are, in fact, decided by vote count, and that policy-based arguments can be overwritten by some arbitrary number of editors themselves aren’t required to bring forward arguments. Is this the standard you want for this site? Cortador (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Again, that you don't think that those endorsing the closure {{tq|had any actual arguemnts}} doesn't matter. Someone saying {{tq|I would have closed the same way, and I see the opposing view as untenable}} is agreeing with the reasoning in the closure and the elaboration offered at AN and is a policy based argument for purposes of closing. You're not the one who has to be convinced, uninvolved editors are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::A closure isn't correct until proven otherwise, or until a majority votes for it to be overturned. It's correct if it was done in accordance to Wikipedia's guidelines, and both Chetsford and your closure failed to clear that threshold. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Here you go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Poop (PSF).png

File:Black Hole Week- Black Hole GIFs (SVS14132 - BHW Supermassive Black Hole Simulation).gif

Should probably revoke TP access too. wizzito | say hello! 14:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like a proxy according to IPQualityScore. Might want to watch out for more IPs. wizzito | say hello! 14:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'll keep my eyes open. Let me know if you notice them before I do. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe Carter Vail should know his fans are going this far... silly vandalism is one thing, using proxies to harass people like you're a wannabe Nate Speed is another. wizzito | say hello! 14:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Seeing this come up on my watch list was...worrying! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::You should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3AScottishFinnishRadish see] all the stuff that you don't [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchTitle=User%3AScottishFinnishRadish see]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's impressive. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Came by to thank you for dealing with the garbage noted in the section above. Thanks! JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

{{ygm}}

It's all a bit meh tbh. At some point things just get repeated. I was expecting something more sophisticated. Oh well. Polygnotus (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Got it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for nuking that IP's unblock requests. Just wanted to ask if I'm wasting my time blanking it at creation. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:You don't need to bother blanking. I think we've just been deleting the pages outright. Or, at least I have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Alright. Thank you so much, by the way. You're a very good administrator and a pleasure to talk to. I have a theory that every Wikipedian develops a "blank or CSD" response similar to the fight or flight response, that activates when one sees vandalism. More research is needed as to what WikiFauna are more prone to a given response. (Just joking ;] ) (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 19:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Glad to help, and I appreciate the kind words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you please also block {{iplinks|77.249.126.144}}, who is clearly the same person as {{u|Glenn24534}}? The IP has been editing in this niche topic area for almost two months. Janhrach (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Sorted, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Appreciated, but I'm not going to get involved in the content issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Still, thank You very much for Your work. 95.86.51.136 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::De nada. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is it okay for a non-admin to randomly come along and unilaterally close a contentious discussion against the majority, but not to revert them for being out of process? Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Because you were involved in the discussion. There is no requirement that a closer be an admin unless the discussion involves a result that only an administrator can implement. Follow the procedure at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Also, please note {{tq|Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.}} Discuss with the closer and if unsatisfied take it to WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that while you were technically in the right, the spirit of the close seems so blatantly wrong. This wasn’t a 50% +1 situation; this is some random user coming along and deciding to call it for the side they liked best even though a supermajority voted in favor. I would only trust an admin to make that call with a good explanation. Dronebogus (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If you'd like to challenge the close please follow the correct process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::: (watching) This was not a random user, it was someone who agreed with the opposers for Mozart, - looks "involved" to me. I tried to talk to him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Erik Satie on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,

Hope you're doing well. It seems you have unblocked this account, but it is obviously the sock of WP:HEVAL (WP:DUCK). It edits the "exact" same topic area. It is active on the same set of Wikipedias (English, Kurdish, and German). (The LTA is from Austria.) It started its Wikipedia journey by creating extensive drafts on their sandbox page, which is the "exact" same behavior previous socks of the long-term abuser have been showing. Please I urge you to reblock this account. It even went so far to edit pages in the same way as other socks:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rauf_Orbay&diff=prev&oldid=1282767712][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rauf_Orbay&diff=prev&oldid=1172077848][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rauf_Orbay&diff=prev&oldid=1172086477] Unblocking this account would be letting 4 years of long-term abuse pass. Thank you for your time considering this notice. Aintabli (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the info, I've reblocked. Originally I was looking at a different master and wasn't familiar with this LTA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, thank you for the quick response and taking the time to sort out the issue. Best, Aintabli (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Glad to help. Thanks for the helpful link to the LTA page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It was obvious that this user was a sock. At first I thought it was Tishreen07's sock but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedir_Khan_Beg&diff=1282281423&oldid=1282267483] here he undid his edit. Anyway, independent of the subject, I don't know anything about KurdîmHeval but I see that they do a lot of sock farming like Tishreen07. If the socks come back, we will let you know. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=The Kip ^(contribs) 05:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)}}

{{User QAIbox

| image = Coltsfoot, Tegernsee.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Today: Carmen turns 150, as the main page and my story tell you. I chose a 1962 concert of the Habanera, - enjoy! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You added headers involved / uninvolved to a AN discussion. I am - thank goodness - unfamiliar with the place but was pinged, because I tried to talk to the closer, in 2023 (no response) and now (no response, but now he has not edited at all, not ignored just me). I intentionally stayed away from the RfC, thinking that every oppose was countered or meaningless (like the one that was a user's 6th edit). Am I uninvolved? Should I list that? Is it only for admins? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:You're uninvolved in the topic of the RFC. If you believe your prior involvement in infobox discussions is significant, much as you think for the closer, you can place your comments in the involved section out of an abundance of caution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Understand better now that it is not a list of users, but to sort comments. I have no intention to make another one. It's about time that infoboxes are edited per WP:BRD instead of wasting time in RfCs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Fine, all mute, case reopened and closed again, lets see for how long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Two RD stories to say bye to March --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{main|User talk:Drmies#Requested move, end of March 2025 to start of April}}

It is, by my computer's clock, past 00:00 AEDT on 2025-04-01.

So it would be appreciated if you (and any of your lurkers) could today add a little happiness to Drmies's day with some Support of your choosing.

Of course, as we all know, a good rationale is a key thing in these sorts of discussions.

It does not have to involve furniture, despite the obvious Round Table that Drmies just built entirely unprompted, or even dead people (in the Lincoln Cemetery or otherwise).

You could address anything, from taking an axe to axe, through belting out AFC approval on The Onion Belt and finally (after 12 years!) letting us know that we had been speaking an African Urban Youth Language all along, to the plenisocculence of the tumble-dryer of life.

Only 100 Supports to go! ☺

Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I've managed to avoid April fools on Wikipedia so far. Is there anything I should or shouldn't be doing tomorrow when the fun and games start? Knitsey (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• You absolutely should not take part in the discussion directly above this one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support Uncle G (Supporting Drmies since April 2009) 14:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I saw that and Drmies talk page. I shall not be taking part. I promise. Probably. Knitsey (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

seems to be snowing, and no additional evidence really presented.

just notifying an admin with significant experience in this topic area. personally don’t think a move discussion is warranted Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've been mostly keeping out of that topic area since my election to the Arbitration Committee, so you'll have to find another admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Liz seems to have commented its not snowing on the RFC, and Tamzin also agrees its probably fine. thanks for the comment. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee at {{nospam|arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}} at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:You'll never catch me, copper! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]#Questionable block, I am not sure about the block for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Keekekekeke&target=Keekekekeke&offset=&limit=500 Keekekekeke]. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_in_Colombia&diff=prev&oldid=1282429210 last edit] before April Fools seems to have been positive, and edits before then a misunderstanding of expanding redirects. CMD (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think rolling in off a block for bad April fools noms after responding to a warning with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keekekekeke&diff=prev&oldid=1283354327 no] with another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1283581182 disruptive nom] after making a bunch of disruptive RfDs, and after having their first edit outside of userspace be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xaosflux&diff=prev&oldid=1281538310 giving an anti-vandal barnstar] to an admin with no recent anti-vandalism work and no interaction with the editor points pretty strongly to NOTHERE, and requires a demonstration of competence and willingness to not edit disruptively before being allowed to edit further.

:Also, while taking another look at this and putting together my reply I decided there was enough evidence to run a check, and they're now CU blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, SFR for the follow up and longer block. User:Chipmunkdavis, no questions directed to me for possible misbehavior? Is this how you assume good faith of a 20-year editor with zero history of disruption? If I'm not trusted on English Wikipedia I'm happy to lay down my tools. Thanks loads... BusterD (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think there was any concern about your block there, since it stopped immediate disruption for the duration of April Fools. I think the objection for my block was that I went straight to indef. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's clear my view of what constitutes vandalism (which seems to work fine 364 days a year) isn't applicable on April 1. That's not a BusterD problem. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I am somewhat confused. To my memory given it has changed now, the block notice said ScottishFinnishRadish indeffed for NOTHERE. It didn't mention the behaviour or mis of so of BusterD. Thanks for the longer explanation, glad my caution was unwarranted. CMD (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Didn't mean to take it out on either of you, but my 31 hour block of Keekekekeke preceded SFR's indef, and I was the sysop called out in the linked thread. I misunderstood CMD was unhappy with my block of K. It's clear I'm taking this too seriously and I appreciate both of your indulgence in the matter. IMHO this April 1st stuff is going to come to a head at some point. BusterD (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I can tell you that it certainly made working AIV less pleasant yesterday. That and the new Skrillex album, F*CK U SKRILLEX YOU THINK UR ANDY WARHOL BUT UR NOT!! <3 causing edit filter hits all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi BusterD, to clarify, I was unaware you had blocked Keekekeke, and I was pointing to the AN/I thread not for your block but due to its providing an example that the community was unsure of such blocks. An unfortunate coincidence, my apologies. CMD (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::My apologies to both of you. Perhaps I shouldn't watch UConn Huskies women's basketball and swing a mop simultaneously. I'll be sure to log out Friday eve. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I must confess to both of you, this year the 4/1 disruption made me extremely angry, not just annoyed. I'm currently working off-wiki on a draft about the disinformation economy. Knowing the forces arrayed right now against our foundation and the Internet Archive, these days I don't take kindly to deliberate disruption of any kind. It's starting to feel like Fort Apache, The Bronx around here. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I get it. Can't say I've ever found it great either, but then again I've never done it much in real life, so maybe I'm the odd one. CMD (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I was actually getting ready to file a SPI, but I thought it was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matan ibn Uthman rather than PaullyMatthews. MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:There's a lot of crossover between their socks, and I've seen the WP:BEANS in both. Paully had more recent socks to check, so I went down that route. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:As always, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Mir Jumla's invasion of Assam on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.