Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 1

1 May 2012

User:Cla68

User:Cla68 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are so many reasons why this MfD should not have been closed early. I'll try to enumerate them as briefly as I can:

1. User:Balloonman is not neutral with respect to this topic, he could reasonably be considered involved by looking at his extensive comments on the topic at Jimbo's talk page (which is the initial discussion that sparked this whole event) and ANI. He has an opinion on this topic and it is reasonable to ask whether he is expressing his opinion by shutting down the discussion.
2. The reason given for the early close was forum shopping, presumably because there is currently an RfC active on the topic of updating a guideline to clarify that advertisements on user pages are not permitted. The RfC is not specifically about Cla68's user page, even though Cla68's user page is what inspired it. The RfC is about updating the wording of a guideline (WP:UP) to match a policy, the MfD is about deciding whether the content on Cla68's user page is in violation of that policy (WP:SOAP). These are two different discussions, and there is no problem with having them simultaneously. The result of the RfC does not have a direct effect on Cla68's user page. The primary policy it is purported to violate is WP:SOAP, not WP:UP which is only a guideline.
3. Balloonman refers to the fact that previous discussions on the topic of Cla68's user page ad have resulted in no consensus. The ANI discussions were shut down with a suggestion to continue the conversation elsewhere. This is what we've done, but now this discussion has also been shut down early. How are we expected to ever find a consensus one way or the other if we can't have a discussion last more than a few days before being shut down?
4. Balloonman refers to the fact that there is clearly a lack of consensus in the current discussion at the MfD. Given the lack of consensus, why would the MfD be closed as "speedy keep" as opposed to "no consensus"? And why would the discussion be closed at all? What part of WP:SK encourages us to close discussions early if there is no consensus?

Closing down this discussion early without a thoughtful closing summary by an uninvolved admin is a slap in the face to the dozens of editors who took time out to contribute to it. It sends the message that their time was wasted and their input was not valued or considered by anyone. I respectfully ask that this discussion be quickly reopened, not closed until it has been open for a full 7 days, and closed by an uninvolved admin who provides a neutral summary of the discussion. If that is not possible, then I think the MfD should be relisted. ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Yes, we should smack Cla for the breaching experiment, but we don't need to re-open this particular iteration of this broader policy debate. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse While Scottywong makes valid points, I think reopening or relisting the DRV would be needless drama. The matter was clearly not going to result in a deletion, and Scottywong and others of his opinion, I think will have ample opportunity to express their opinions before all this is done. The forum isn't that important.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Pointy MfD for a pointy post on a user page - but there's not going to be a consensus to delete Cla's user page. (note: I opposed the MfD for whatever that disclosure is worth). — Ched :  ?  21:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reopen/Relist though there's no chance it will happen. The discussion probably would've been judged as no consensus at best based on numbers alone...though I don't see an argument based on policy to keep the advert. --Onorem♠Dil 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Stand by my decision I stand by my decision. This is a clear case of Forum Shopping. First, it goes to ANI where there is clearly not going to be a resolution and views support Cla's actions. Then a discussion gets opened at Jimbo's page, where again it is clear that no consensus existed to do anything. Then an RfC gets started. When the RfC got started, that should have been the culmination of activity. Let the broader community get involved---which is what an RfC is for. But RfC seems to be going in favor of modifying the COI policy and (dare I say) to possibility of paid editing. So three forums down. Let's try MfD. Again, another forum where we can have the debate and try to reach a conclusion that wasn't going to materialize on any of the previous pages. The fact that this is clearly going no where and is nothing but a feeder discussion from the previous three (or 4 if you include a second ANI report) is the sheer size of this MFD. 63K bytes in a matter of days---a clear plurality (if not majority) which argue to keep the page. The people who were commenting there are going to be the same one's coming here, and the DRV is going to be yet another battle ground over an issue which has no clear consensus. Let the RfC do it's job---and let's not let people start multiple forum shopping campaigns.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)