Talk:Gun show loophole

::::{{re|Aquillion}} Thanks for the link. Yes, a version of the lead section that I thought was really good ended up being implemented. That was in December 2024, sixteen months ago, and there have been few or no objections to the article since that time. I understand what you're saying about the sock accounts having participated in that discussion, along with me and several other editors, but your objection, it seems to me, is a procedural one. So, I'm going to go ahead and put the lead back the way it was. Again, no one's objected to it this way, and in my opinion it's way better than what was there before, so from my perspective we've taken a tainted path but arrived at a good destination, so to speak. But if you want to open an RFC about it, I would see your line of reasoning. — [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]] ^{([[User talk:Mudwater|Talk]])} 16:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

::::{{re|Aquillion}} Thanks for the link. Yes, a version of the lead section that I thought was really good ended up being implemented. That was in December 2024, sixteen months ago, and there have been few or no objections to the article since that time. I understand what you're saying about the sock accounts having participated in that discussion, along with me and several other editors, but your objection, it seems to me, is a procedural one. So, I'm going to go ahead and put the lead back the way it was. Again, no one's objected to it this way, and in my opinion it's way better than what was there before, so from my perspective we've taken a tainted path but arrived at a good destination, so to speak. But if you want to open an RFC about it, I would see your line of reasoning. — [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]] ^{([[User talk:Mudwater|Talk]])} 16:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Mudwater}} To be clear, my objection is not only procedural; I feel that your proposed version is clumsy, awkward wording that obscures the topic more than it explains. I'm strenuously opposed to it and do not believe it has, or has ever had, consensus. Many other people objected to it in the RFC as well. Per [[WP:STABLE]], the fact that it was the stable version carries no weight unless you can argue that it has consensus, which it clearly never did. Given that it represents a radical departure from all other proposals and all prior versions, I won't accept it as a starting place and will revert it if you attempt to revert-war it back in on this basis without first demonstrating an ''actual'' consensus for it; we can discuss other tweaks or alternative versions, and try to reach a more reasonable compromise version based on the other proposals, but the idea that you could privilege your version based on the sockpuppet's misconduct is not acceptable, ''especially'' given its self-evident low quality and clumsy, awkward wording, and I therefore won't accept any version based on it until / unless a clear consensus is produced. I wouldn't normally be so aggressive in opposing a version, but I want to be crystal-clear that the sockpuppet's edits (and edits based on their participation) are gone as if they didn't occur; the version you are adding is therefore treated as your own [[WP:BOLD]] edit, and your treatment of it as the the starting point is not acceptable. Even beyond that, just a quick nose-count in ''this'' discussion shows enough opposition that it cannot be considered to enjoy consensus (again, it never did.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Mudwater}} To be clear, my objection is not only procedural; I feel that your proposed version is clumsy, awkward wording that obscures the topic more than it explains. I'm strenuously opposed to it and do not believe it has, or has ever had, consensus. Many other people objected to it in the RFC as well. Per [[WP:STABLE]], the fact that it was the stable version carries no weight unless you can argue that it has consensus, which it clearly never did. Given that it represents a radical departure from all other proposals and all prior versions, I won't accept it as a starting place and will revert it if you attempt to revert-war it back in on this basis without first demonstrating an ''actual'' consensus for it; we can discuss other tweaks or alternative versions, and try to reach a more reasonable compromise version based on the other proposals, but the idea that you could privilege your version based on the sockpuppet's misconduct is not acceptable, ''especially'' given its self-evident low quality and clumsy, awkward wording, and I therefore won't accept any version based on it until / unless a clear consensus is produced. I wouldn't normally be so aggressive in opposing a version, but I want to be crystal-clear that the sockpuppet's edits (and edits based on their participation) are gone as if they didn't occur; the version you are adding is therefore treated as your own [[WP:BOLD]] edit, and your treatment of it as the the starting point is not acceptable. Even beyond that, just a quick nose-count in ''this'' discussion shows enough opposition that it cannot be considered to enjoy consensus (again, it never did.) Even if you didn't intend it, your argument amounts to "you didn't catch them in time, therefore the outcome they cheated in remains the default!" which isn't a reasonable one to make. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

====RSN Notice====

====RSN Notice====