Thank you for your kind offer. I have limited time to dedicate to content creation on Wikipedia, however, and if I DID have time to tackle fiction/entertainment topics, it would be dedicated to books I've read, shows I've watched, or games I've played. I've never played the Watch Dogs series, nor do I have time to, and so I wouldn't know the first thing about the content on which we would be working. My sincerest apologies, but I must decline. Perhaps a talk page stalker might emerge to volunteer? One can hope. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I understand your style of Wikipedia content creation. I mainly rely on video game journalism, secondary websites, or my experience from the games themselves. I have a few more people I could try, or I could just put up topic in the article for the franchise's talk page and see if anyone would want to lend a hand. I will take your idea into consideration too, but comparably to others, I'm new to Wikipedia, so my talk page isn't really active unless bots are considered talk page stalkers. Thank you for your kind words of respectfully declining. Maybe we'd run into each other later on Wikipedia. Sincerely, MKat your service.07:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compounding one bad decision by making yet another one (this time, explicitly against the guidance for closure at WP:DRV#Closing_reviews) is just ignoring consensus, plain and simple. DRV is clear that an admin should close it only after the seven day discussion period. There are limited options for closing earlier, but the fact that the nominating editor happened to be blocked as a sock is not one of them (and does not undermine the support they've received since the discussion started). As to your closure notes: Socks do not have standing to start DRVs.[citation needed] As mentioned, WP:DRV makes no mention of socks nor their ability to start a discussion. Having said that, the consensus is very clear ... You closed the discussion in less time than the AFD had, and far short of the SEVEN days DRV demands. These continued out of process closures are damaging the project and the respect it has. This is why you were reverted. —Locke Cole • t • c20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "socks don't have standing" do you not understand? If you want to start a new DRV on the same topic, you're welcome to do that, but one non-admin doesn't revert another's non-admin close. It's not like I'm just making the guidance up; go read WP:SOCKSTRIKE and see how it's been applied at DRV before. Again, happy for any admin to revert me... but I doubt any of the admins who frequent DRV will, which is why I made the closure in the first place. From a pragmatic stance, our eyes need to be on the article, because whatever happens, the content there will be kept standalone OR merged, as I noted, and so arguing over its immediate fate in the <24 hour aftermath of the event is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further Lock Cole, you reopened a discussion in which you've already expressed an opinion. That's never a good idea. You'll note that I've gnomed one redirect in the topic area, but not expressed any opinions on the topic... because I don't have any--at least not on how Wikipedia covers the deceased assassin. I mean, yes, terrible event, but I wrote the original version of WP:WI1E back in 2009, so I have 15 years of looking at how Wikipedia can best cover such things. When all is said and done, he will either have a separate article, like Hinckley as cited in BLP1E, or Squeaky Fromme, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremer, John Schrank, or Lee Harvey Oswald. WP:OSE isn't a Wikipedia thing, of course, but can you name anyone who's put a bullet in a United States presidential candidate who doesn't have a Wikipedia article? Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "socks don't have standing" do you not understand? Every single word of it, actually. I read WP:SOCKSTRIKE, and maybe you ought to give it a read: Under Removal, This should only be done when their comments are stand alone with no replies, or when there are one or two replies that clearly do not add anything of value to the discussion, which finishes with [i]f in doubt, don't do it. It's unclear if there's another subsection of WP:SOCKSTRIKE you're referencing above, but looking over it, it appears if anything you should have followed the advice under Striking in this instance, and made a note at the top in small text for the initial discussion. It's worth mentioning that the socks that were blocked were not used in this DRV discussion, so the sockmaster never abused them to give an impression of more support. You've taken disruptive behavior that could have been mitigated and instead cranked the dial to 11.
You note in another reply that I reopened a discussion I was involved in, and stated it's "never a good idea". Is it any worse of an idea than a former admin/arbiter not following the fairly explicit instructions at WP:DRV that admins be the ones closing these discussions? And in the same way, does WP:BRD only apply to other editors? You boldly closed the discussion, you were reverted, and rather than discussing the issue, you reverted again. To quote your sage advice from earlier, [t]hat's never a good idea.
I'm not going to address your AFD-esque arguments, as those reveal a bias in your conduct and also simultaneously are irrelevant to a DRV discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to post at WT:DRVorWP:AN if you'd like an admin to review my actions. I think I've given you as thorough an answer on both the procedure and underlying policy as I can, and possibly too much so as you've stated those reveal a bias in your conduct. I don't take your assumption of bad faith personally, as you're obviously very passionate about the topic, and it is certainly one where everyone will have strong feelings. But, at the end of the day, socks don't have standing. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, at the end of the day, socks don't have standing. Where is this written down as policy or guideline? I went over WP:SOCKSTRIKE with you above, and you've yet to quote something beyond saying it repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
