Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 27: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:22, 2 April 2022

< 2022 March 26

Deletion review archives: 2022 March

2022 March 28 >

27 March 2022

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the team

A WP:SNOW close after 50 minutes and only 7 !votes is simply a partisan attempt to impose the closer's views. It is sn outrageous abuse of WP:SNOW. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and endorse snow close a deletion review after less than 50 minutes and an admin approval is an outrageous use of WP:POINT. ~~Overturn and delete~~ neutral as the original article has been replaced with a completely irrelevant article meant to satisfy a single user’s partisan bludgeoning. This review is now moot. Dronebogus (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally favor a protest delete because it would a) deny recognition and b) get rid of the bowdlerized article, but that is obviously WP:POINT so I’m not doing it. Dronebogus (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! @Dronebogus asserts that my call for neutrality is partisan.

This is not complicated: I have sought to uphold neutrality; I have opposed partisanship. The partisanship of the editorial is what I oppose.

The editorial's author commented when replacing it[1] to acknowledge the need for more neutrality. In the published text, EpicPupper explicitly says that he apologize for violating our commitment to neutral coverage of the Wikimedia movement.

So, Dronebogus has completely misrepresented me, by inverting reality.

Such inversion of reality is a flagrant misrepresentation of the truth, and it should be sanctionable conduct. Inverting reality to smear another editor should be severely sanctionable. However, en.wp processes are so bizarre that instead I would probably face sanctions if I used any of the common terms for someone who inverts the truth.

So I will not attach any label to the person of Dronebogus. Instead I will label the action, by pointing to the article Big lie: a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique.

A Big lie has stood at the top of this discussion page for five days ... and nobody has responded to it until I, as the target of that Big Lie, complain now.

Is this community really reduced to the point where the Big lie is an acceptable technique in community discussions? Do I have to consider taking this to ANI myself, or will someone else take action? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, it's clear which direction the wind was blowing, based on the AfD and the ANI thread. No harm in trying to reduce drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an "outrageous use", and to express it as a "partisan attempt to impose [my] views" is pretty absurd given that all 7 !votes were opposition from editors that I would class as quite experienced, and whilst it doesn't change much, it wasn't just me who'd make this decision as evidenced by GN's affirmation. Yes, it was a bold move, and this thread will probably demonstrate to how bold it really was or wasn't.
Full disclosure: I was not involved prior to closing the discussion, and had been working on meta:Teyora's recent changes feed, which is how I discovered this discussion. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yay I’m experienced! Dronebogus (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed too quickly. Quick closes like that are rarely useful in reducing drama--people will just complain (as you (BHG) have). But also, it's a clear keep. The entire request misunderstands NPOV. Each person, and indeed each group of people, is allowed to express their own opinions on Wikipedia outside of article space. We do it all the time. So I've no problem with the process being overturned, but yes, it's a clear and obvious keep IMO. A longer listing isn't going to change that. The only reason to overturn it is to show that the process is in fact fair. But on the very specifics: I don't see how anyone with facts-in-hand could claim the Russians are in the right here. It feels a bit like someone saying "racism is bad". We don't tend to say that in Wiki-voice, but per WP:NAZI we do run things that way. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the MfD wasn’t to process but I think WP:IAR applies in this case. Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NOTBUR Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not as cool as a Wikilink, but my personal page has a quote. Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. --SmokeyJoe [2]. Not 100% on point, but yeah, when a long-term editor makes a request like this, it's generally better to let it ride for a while just so it's really really clear which way the wind is blowing. 7 to 1 in less than an hour isn't there. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW endorse. WP:SNOW says If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. There's no minimum !vote requirement. The MfD had the least chance of being successful of any MfD I can recall an experienced user filing, and that was obvious from the get-go. If I MfD someone's userpage on the basis "needs more reliable sources", that can be SNOW closed without a !vote cast. That the closer waited for seven !votes here is generous. This ANI thread, MfD, and DRV constitute a massive 1AM waste of editor-hours that could be better spent on more productive things like writing about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
void close (both the WP:BADNAC and GeneralNotability's post-endorsement) ~~and relist~~. Had I known about the MFD, I would have !voted to keep, but I still think it was a poor decision to close it early. All closing something like this early does is risk exactly what happened here. If you think it should have been deleted, then you were denied the opportunity to express your opinion. If you think it should have been kept, then you were denied the opportunity to have this run to completion and go on record as a blowout endorsement of the article. Instead, what both sides got was a drawn-out meta discussion about process, which doesn't serve anybody's interests. And anybody who disagrees with the sentiment expressed by this editorial is free to propose my user page for deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck my recommendation to relist, since at this point, that would obviously be more disruptive than just letting this be. But I stand by my assertion that the early close was inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge BHG to substantiate her accusations of partisanship with evidence that Ed and I even hold the partisan views she accuses us of. I believe Ed's view of the situation is accurate (thus my endorse), and I add that if we're supposed to be adhering to NPOV in the way BHG says we should, then we need to start deleting userboxes for editors' beliefs and opinions, too - those are similarly non-neutral. Finally, I note that BHG registered her objections on the Signpost article's talk page - that was the correct forum to engage in this discussion, not at XfD. We are at three-ish fora now (the talk page, XfD, ANI, and now DRV, though I guess you could call DRV an extension of the XfD), which frankly smacks of forum-shopping. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is the forum to evaluate the appropriateness of User:Ed6767’s close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, my point is that XfD was not the right forum in the first place. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:GeneralNotability, that's a find argument to put in the MfD. I don't want to argue against you but to just note that reasonable counter-arguments may exist. eg. Noting one !vote:
"* Keep. If "we" is the team, a defined group of editors, they can express their view in an editorial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)" [reply]

I note that a superficial reading is that the "Wikipedia Signpost" speaks for "Wikipedia", and so hatnate amendments might be needed to ensure that authorship cannot be read as the entirely of Wikipedia, or WMF, and if not done, deletion might be appropriate.

In any case, the rapid close by a non-admin new editor is not a credible decision to go on the record. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VPM, too, and a suggestion for another signpost talkpage. The VPM discussion is listed on CENT too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. BADNAC. BAD SNOW. Decisions like this should not be made on the basis of the voices who rush in first. The applicability of WP:NPOV to the entirety of the project is a worthy question for discussion. While tolerance for variation is much greater outside mainspace, it is still the case that NPOV is a fundamental concept for the project. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Also firmly WP:SLAP User:Ed6767 for closing while WP:INVOLVED. As a matter of respect for deletion process, this is completely unacceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)~~ My apologies, on checking the date stamps more carefully, User:Ed6767 made related posts only after the MfD close, none were before. Not INVOLVED. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There was hardly enough time for anyone to challenge the "keep"s. For such a heated topic, the outcome of an MfD shouldn't be determined before any real discussion takes place. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a heated topic, at least not in this community, which has been doing a quite good job chronicling Russia's crimes against Ukraine without tipping over into partisan bias the other way. This is one editor's bizarre 1AM quest, across multiple venues, to enforce a policy that doesn't exist. The community is under no obligation to humor such antics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Tamzin. casualdejekyll 01:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:IAR and/or WP:NOTBURO. There is a zero percent chance of the MFD succeeding, so who closed it is irrelevant. (There is also a bit of mootness at play here too, with this op-ed now the subject of at least two other community discussions.) Calidum 01:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, neutral. On the one hand, Tamzin is probably right—this could very well be a waste of all our times and not really accomplish anything. On the other hand, BrownHairedGirl's nom statement was—in my view—highly aggressive and fundamentally flawed, which I think led to an immediate backlash and a snow keep. Looking at the comments section of the article itself reveals quite a few other viewpoints and rationales for deletion that weren't heard in this discussion, and maybe they should have been—at least, some weren't absurd on their face. This invasion is creating a lot of unprecedented discussion, and I worry about setting those precedents too hastily. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:SNOW closure was an accurate reflection of where the discussion was headed, much like this DRV. The application of NPOV outside of articlespace is something that MFD does not get to decide. ✗plicit 03:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse snow close Last time I checked we had policies against censorship... Ie we are not "neutral" on censorship of knowledge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The first sentence of WP:NPOV mentions encyclopedic content. That core content policy also mentions "article" and "articles" over 30 times. The policy never mentions talk pages or project space. This is in contrast to another really important policy, WP:BLP, which goes out of its way to say that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia, without exception. Clearly, this editorial cannot be in violation of NPOV because that policy does not apply to The Signpost, or any other civil, non-disruptive expressions of reasonable opinion outside of encyclopedia articles. The OP and some other editors object to the phrase "stand in solidarity" in the headline but Solidarity is described in our own article as an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes. Wikipedia, after all, is written and maintained by a community of volunteers through a model of open collaboration and our goal is free educational content for all of humanity, including the residents of Ukraine and Russia. The actual content of the editorial seems perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's goals, and the body of the editorial was calling for improved coverage of Russia, Ukraine and the current war. How can any Wikipedian object to that? Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:Hobit's comments. Could it have been left open longer? Probably. Was it snowing? Yes. - jc37 05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn From what I read, there doesn't seem to be a strong, unanimous consensus, which is required for SNOW to apply. Firestar464 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A delete nomination that is solely based on a clearly inapplicable Wikipedia policy (NPOV applies to article space) should indeed be speedily closed. MFD is not an appropriate venue to try to extend article space policy to other spaces. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Far too early to close under SNOW. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Agree with Stifle that it was too early to SNOW, especially for such an important discussion. I don't think the result will differ but I concur with SmokeyJoe's argument. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I think that there should be a better method for the community to seek a retraction from a Signpost piece than nominating for deletion. There is a trust between the community and the newspaper that is weakened by nominating pieces for deletion outright, and the uncivil and bludgeoning character of the discussion both in ANI, the MFD, and the VPM thread is preventing the community from identifying other issues that could be tackled and offering solutions (e.g. the editorial process, low participation in the creation of the Signpost, unclear relationship between SP and the community, etc.). The MFD is mostly moot now but I hope the community can actually have a constructive discussion that benefits the Signpost long-term at the VPM thread after this whole ordeal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We're not required to be non-partisan, in non-article space, while people - including serval fellow Wikimedians - are the subject of war crimes. Anyone wikilawyering to reopen this shameful nomination really needs to stop and reflect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of assuming that people who have the opposite view are "wikilawyering", maybe AGF and still make the same point? Firestar464 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse yes the close was a bit early, but that discussion clearly wasn't going to end in deletion and that's the point of SNOW. No good will come of relisting it, we'll get either another SNOW close as Keep in a day or so or a week of drama followed by a Keep closure. I haven't even seen any evidence that anyone other than the nominator even agrees with the nomination. Hut 8.5 12:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut 8.5. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Was the speedy close preemptive? Probably, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I think everyone here understands that there is exactly a 100% chance it will be kept if it were to be ran through the process again. All that needs to be done is to say "hey Ed maybe wait a smidgen longer next time" and for us to move on with our lives. Endwise (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. WP:SNOW says The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. I personally thing that there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement in BHG's argument, along with her supporters. I don't agree with her side, but the have a reasoned basis. but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. I highly disagree that having a 50 minute deletion discussion gave due process to the minority, at least a day should have been given. I don't think the outcome will change, but this wasn't a appropriate close. Sea Cow (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2022 (UTCj
Endorse, WP:NOTBURO. I'm really disappointed by the number of places this discussion has been spreading to. The original deletion rationale (NPOV) does not apply to the Signpost (only to mainspace), no other deletion rationale has been presented, no need to reopen this. —Kusma (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nomination was based on a misrepresentation of NPOV so blatant (it plainly applies to encyclopedic content only) the discussion was never going to end in deletion. Prolonging forgone discussions is exactly what SNOW is intended to prevent.

If the MfD had somehow succeeded, it would imply a fundamental change in the NPOV policy. If NPOV applied to editors' writings outside of article space, many widespread practices would come into question. For instance, BrownHairedGirl displays a userbox openly advocating for the use of gender-neutral language. An alternate interpretation where NPOV applies to all namespaces would imply these sorts of non-neutral userboxes could not be displayed. (This is a plainly undesirable outcome). Policy changes this dramatic must follow broader community discussion and cannot come about through an MfD alone.

So (1) the nomination had next to no chance of success and (2) if the nomination somehow succeeded anyway, it would merely be a local consensus that, by itself, could not overturn the current consensus regarding where NPOV applies. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Closing the discussion after only fifty minutes wasn't a particularly good idea: for one thing, it was almost guaranteed to cause further drama, which is exactly the thing we all want to avoid here. But there was indeed no chance whatsoever that the discussion would be closed as anything other than keep, and at this point I don't think it would be helpful to prolong the debate any further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and sanction BHG if she continues to forum shop. This is a textbook application of WP:SNOW, and BHG is appealing it here because she is displeased with the consensus that rapidly developed against her position (while throwing personal attacks at the closers of the MfD). That's not what DRV is for. BHG, drop this now before you end up blocked. You've registered your objections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of user conduct should not happen here. Let's avoid adding more fuel to this pointless fire. It's not constructive and goes nowhere.

@Trainsandotherthings: your allegation of forumshoping is bogus. MFD is the correct place to nominate the page for deletion, and DRV is the correct place to challenge a closure of MFD.

The allegations of personal attacks at the closers of the MfD is also bogus. There was no personal attack.

I attach zero weight to your threat of a block, but even if a permaban was an absolute certainty, I would not have hesitated to challenge the abuse of our Community Newsletter for political partisanship. NPOV is the first of the Founding principles of the WMF, and I stand by it. It has been depressing to see how some editors are so enraged by the principle of neutrality that they have chosen to lash out at me.

Thankfully, the author of the editorial did not in any way join the raging anti-NPOV brigade. He was exceptionally open and civil, and completely rewrote the editorial with 48 hours of my complaint. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that raging anti-NPOV brigade is a personal attack? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are enraged at you systematically disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. People are "lashing out" at you because you are willfully being disruptive. Get off your goddamn high horse about the principle of neutrality. It's not about that, it's about you being disruptive to prove a point. The author gave in because you badgered him into submission and he wanted to end the ordeal and endless accusations from you. I will not be badgered into submission by you. You are wasting massive amounts of editor time and resources to continue your one person crusade. And I am not the only one to suggest you be sanctioned if you continue forum shopping, see Mackensen's comment below. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as snow close there is nothing in that editorial that violates any Wikipedia policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as speedy keep per WP:CSK#3. As WP:NPOV applies to encyclopedic content, and not talk/project pages, there was no accurate deletion rationale offered in the discussion. Since there is proper justification for a speedy keep, I see no reason to relist the discussion or overturn it into any other result. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - "delete" and "keep" aren't the only possible outcomes of an MfD. Even if the nom was not persuasive, consensus may nevertheless form for some outcome other than "keep" (a page can be deleted, merged, marked historical, renamed, redirected, draftified, userfied, or other things, for a reason other than the reason the nom raised). I would have !voted had it been open for more than an hour. This was too fast, and frankly, quick-closes cause these discussions to spread to other pages, as people look for somewhere to discuss the issue. Telling people to shut up is rarely helpful, as can be seen here: had the MfD not been closed, we wouldn't be having this discussion here. So what did we save by snow closing? Nothing. Quick-closes should be saved for obvious procedural defects; this wasn't procedurally flawed. Levivich 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this now seems moot since the editorial was retracted. Levivich 01:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is overturned, please close ~~VPT~~ VPM. We need one point of conversation on the issue, not multiple. Courtesy @A. C. Santacruz: as the editor who opened VPT discussion. Star Mississippi 18:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The village pump discussion is at WP:VPM, not WP:VPT. All the best, Miniapolis 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Miniapolis. Had the wrong tab open. @A. C. Santacruz absolutely nothing wrong with your thread, I believe it was created after the MfD closed. A centralized discussion (Not CENT, just the normal usage) will help us all the most is my .02. Star Mississippi 19:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. I'll gladly close the thread myself if consensus exists to do so, but I hope at some point the community can get together and come up with ways to improve the Signpost. I've already volunteered to help out, seeing how thin they're being stretched with only a pair or so of editors for various sections without many breaks, but I think there are plenty of ways a good, cordial conversation could improve the Signpost in other areas as well. I hoped the VPM thread would bring about some of those positive discussions but it seems they are unlikely to happen right after this messy situation. Hope y'all have a good week :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 'Twas a good close. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse SNOW close as speedy keep. It was a bit early, but I saw no objection to the editorial other than BHG's. WP:NOTCENSORED; this is a timesink. Miniapolis 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Rushing to close it wasn't a great idea. There was no emergency. No harm would have befallen anyone had the discussion been allowed to run its course, and closing that early is only likely to increase drama because the "losing" side will feel that their views weren't given time to air. That said, the nomination rationale was fundamentally flawed and there was not a snowball's chance of the discussion being closed with any outcome other than a resounding "keep". Discussions about the extent to which content policy applies to the project space belong at a venue like VPP, and reopening it now would only cause even more drama, ill feeling, and wasted words. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. A one-hour discussion by half a dozen people hardly counts as a fair examination of the issue. Let me be clear on my opinion. The Signpost may express opinions on Wikipedia issues and questions; it should not express opinions on main space subjects that should be dealt with in main space on article talk pages. In other words, The Signpost may report on topics and controversies in main space and current events, but it may not come down on one side or the other. That's an important point to discuss and decide here. We don't want people using the Wikipedia banner in The Signpost to promote their opinions, no matter how compelling those opinions are.Smallchief (talk)
Endorse - CSK#3 necessitates a (potentially) viable grounds for deletion. NPOV does not apply. Now, had someone suggested an alternate viable grounds in this DRV then I'd actually back overturning, because closing it within an hour was, probably, unneeded. However, that no-one has been able to provide a policy-backed reason in the meantime suggests that the pacey close was warranted. Now, there are non-policy grounds to argue for deletion (or amendment) of the page, both reasonable and unreasonable, but our deletion venues are not the forum for those. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow speedy renomination By definition, Signpost articles cannot violate NPOV so I think this specific nomination was closed properly. However, after reading through a lot of the debate on the article talk page and talking to the nominator I think that there are very real issues at play here and that the early closure prevented these issues from being debated out. While I personally oppose deletion here, I think those that that support deletion are entitled to be heard. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that’s a pretty terrible idea since we’re already basically debating deletion AGAIN. Allowing a third rapid-fire nomination (likely from BHG, again) is patently ridiculous. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither endorse nor overturn: It's been made very clear now that the early close, likely to reduce time waste, has caused more drama and time to be wasted by contributors, so it's hard to endorse it. On the other hand, overturning it will only result in more time wasted by editors, and it's clear that discussion has become less about that one specific page and more about the overall idea of whether or not editorials like those should be allowed in Wikipedia/Project space. To me, the best way to advance here would be to keep the original MfD closed, close this and any other side conversation on the topic and focus either on the VPM thread or create an RfC on the topic. Isabelle ^🔔 23:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close keep editorial Since 2005 The Signpost has been the Wikipedia community newspaper. There is nothing controversial about editorials in a newspaper, and there is nothing controversial about this editorial in particular. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it IS obviously extraordinarily controversial, but I get what you mean— it’s not exactly an “edgy” statement it’s making. Dronebogus (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is this discussion still relevant? There's already a disclaimer hatnote and everything just seems fine to warrant keeping. Or "Endorse", as it's termed here. Gerald WL 01:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy close per WP:SKCRIT #3 ("No accurate deletion rationale has been provided"), which the closer didn't explicitly link but is quite close to the closer's expressed sentiment for closing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing a discussion after 50 minutes and 7 !votes is just plain rude. It's a slap in the face for the nominator, and should be overturned on WP:CIVIL grounds if nothing else.—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closing after 50 minutes prevents many of those who may wish to have a say on this issue from doing so. It locks editors living in unfavorable timezones out of the discussion, thereby reinforcing known systemic biases that make Wikipedia an insular echo-chamber on many issues. It's also simply rude. Letcord (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Levivich who expressed my feelings on this more elegantly than I could've. Controversial SNOW closes are harmful as they will still waste editor time, but spread across other venues and discussing the validity of the close in addition to the original issue. Discouraging such closes is therefore important, even if the discussion will eventually end up at the same outcome. The purpose of SNOW is for clear, obvious cases -- not ones where there is a meaningful amount of controversy. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we overturn this what are all of you expecting? The article be deleted as default, starting probably ANOTHER deletion review, or that we go through the deletion process formally AGAIN? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second one. I don't know why you put "again" in all caps, since the first deletion process lasted an hour. So yeah, I want it to "go through the deletion process formally again," this time for more than an hour. Also I want to speak up for the principle of not closing XfDs in an hour unless there is some obvious procedural defect, and not because the !voters in the first hour all !voted the same way. We need to recognize that one hour is not enough of a sample size. Levivich 18:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: DRV is about process. Discussions at XfD are, "Should this page be deleted?". Discussions at DRV are, "Was the XfD closed in accordance with our published processes?" In practice, DRV discussions sometimes stray into XfD territory, conflating the two types of discussions. That has certainly happened here, and I feel the pain of whoever gets the unenviable job of closing this DRV because they will need to tease those apart.
So, to answer your specific question, if this were to result in "overturn", what I would expect to happen is that the MfD close be backed out, and the discussion relisted for another week. And this is exactly why controversial discussions should never be closed early. The intent is to reduce drama. But in practice, it has exactly the opposite effect: we get a week of drama here at DRV, followed by another week of drama back at XfD. And if this gets closed as "endorse", we will have still had a week of drama here, so nothing gained. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, less than a hour and 7 !votes is far too little input for a snow close. Also, I note that the nominator of the MfD argued not only about NPOV but also WP:NOTSOAPBOX - that policy is a bit ambiguous on whether it would apply to the Signpost article in question but I am not really seeing any discussion on it. I think this warrants a relist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states, This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages.. I see no ambiguity considering the project namespace isn't mentioned anywhere there, and the rest is incredibly specific. Bsoyka (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does however continue with Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. which implies that Wikipedia: space is not blanket exempted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that while this opinion may be controversial, it's not disruptive. Bsoyka (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion though, not an uncontestable fact. The reason why we have deletion discussions and deletion reviews instead of settling everything through speedy deletion/close is because in a lot of cases, whether a given policy warrants deletion is something that people disagree on or requires evaluation and research. In my mind this MfD is not nearly clear enough yet to make a summary decision and thus I can't endorse the speedy closure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time. It's clear that closing this discussion early did not prevent time wastage, and instead lead to more chaos spreading everywhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a valid speedy keep though, as there was no valid deletion rationale provided. —Kusma (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That editor time is being wasted is not the fault of the closers, but the fault of the filer who is attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on Wikipedia. Reopening this would give that individual more attention towards her one-woman crusade. We should not allow that to happen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake, @Trainsandotherthings. That is inverting reality.

I sought deletion of this editorial because it flouted NPOV. The political partisanship of the nominated page is the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Is it really acceptable for an editor to use this page to make such a blatantly false allegation? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your endless complaints, accusations, and wikilawyering fall on deaf ears. You've got what you wanted; you should be happy. It's an entirely true allegation. And your POINTy MfD filing was terrible, had no deletion rationale, and was therefore rightly SNOW closed. Get over it. Or will you be taking this DRV to AN if it gets closed against you as well? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Special:Diff/1079988210 may be of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: There wasn't a valid reason given for deletion, regardless of how many people commented or how long the discussion was open. WP:NPOV applies only to encyclopedic content; those are literally the second and third words in the policy's prose. These facts lead me to agree that there is no chance the original discussion could have resulted in deletion, and the comment linked above by RoySmith reinforces my !vote even further. Bsoyka (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot given Special:Diff/1079987889. I maintain that the original closure was improper, but there's no point debating it now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no valid deletion rationale, and nom was clearly pointy: SNOW keep was appropriate. Signpost is not an article nor is it even reader-facing, and it is "a newspaper" which can have an editorial stance no matter whatever context it is published. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse, but with explanation. First, on the other hand, the SNOW close was a mistake, and a serious mistake, even though it was snowing, because SNOW should be used with caution in controversial XFDs, and is mainly meant for uncontroversial MFDs. Second, however, the real problem is that MFD is the wrong vehicle for disagreeing with the Signpost. Attempting to delete a Signpost editorial that has already been seen is like putting a putting a photograph of Russian officials into a memory hole. We don't do this in a mostly free society. Perhaps there should be a mechanism, or a different mechanism, either for pre-publication review of Signpost editorials, or for post-publication withdrawal of Signpost editorials. If the community disagrees with an editorial, it should be struck out, not deleted. So the close should be Weakly Endorsed because the MFD was the wrong vehicle to disagree with the editorial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "pre-publication review of Signpost editorials". It sounds like you're talking about Prior restraint, which is a frightening idea, antithetical to the basic principles of this project.
The idea that the community can impose post-publication censorship on a Signpost editorial they disagree with is almost as bad. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:RoySmith - I will try to explain. I know very little about the editorial process or editorial control of the Signpost. However, by pre-publication review, I was (clumsily) wondering whether some reform of the editorial review process could be considered. I don't know what that editorial process is, so cannot be more specific. I will point out that prior restraint of journalism is restraint by a governmental authority outside the organization of the publisher. If a newspaper is owned by a conglomerate, and the chairperson of the conglomerate reviews an editorial, that isn't prior restraint. It reduces the independence of the newspaper to being a house organ, but it isn't prior restraint. I don't know to what extent the Signpost is meant to be independent of the rest of the English Wikipedia community, and to what extent it is meant to be subject to any sort of control. That is what I meant by pre-publication review, a possible change in the editorial process. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith - As to post-publication review, I meant that a process for withdrawing or repudiating an editorial would be less absurd than the idea of deleting it, dropping it into a memory hole, which really would be censorship. If this MFD wasn't post-publication censorship, then we have strange definitions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. This entire affair has been an object lesson in making mountains out of molehills, and it is impossible that this would get deleted through MFD. Perhaps a bit hasty, but it's been done and I don't see the result going any other way. --Jayron 32 12:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Agree with others that the nomination was defective and that that close was warranted on that record, and at the very least within reason, (which is how DRV works, it is definitely not, 'I want to participate in the deletion discussion, so reopen so we can drag this out'). If there was a "rush" or "haste", it seems a few are looking in the wrong place: deletion process rightly encourages discussion before rushing off to deletion, and it encourages other things before deletion noming and as we have seen, here, taking the time to talk-it-out is much more efficacious, effective, and less drama. Indeed, it is only civil, when at least five editors have worked together on publishing something that one NOT rush off immediately to make a defective, aggressive, and internally contradictory MfD nomination. So, if this DRV is suppose to send some other message in addition to the righteous endorse, it should be, 'don't rush off to file an MfD like that, the whole project will be better for the righteous forbearance' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This entire affair has been a lamentable waste of everyone's time, and if BHG shops this to yet another venue I would support some kind of editing restriction. Good heavens. None of this was of any possible benefit to anyone. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh The idea that The Signpost is equivalent to a talk page does not bear out in practice (it's somewhat akin to the reasonable expectation that those with more experience or power can be held to higher standards). If the Signpost spewed forth an article containing foul language and illustrations of generally considered objectionable content, most people would be concerned and seek some kind of redress. Do that on your talk page and there's far more leeway. So this is not simply a non-encyclopedic content issue, which was the basis of the close. The discussion should have run longer, the close was premature... but, at this point, there's no alternative, it's not as if there was any possibility for a consensus to delete to have emerged .... as I said, meh. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse simply to get it over with. We could all have been doing better things than discussing this and while it is important for Wikipedia to remain neutral, The Signpost is not Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I doubt there's a lot of people outside WP that know The Signpost exists, let alone know what it's saying. Gazamp (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from DRV nominator'. If the original MFD had not been closed, it would have become moot three days ago when the political partisanship was replaced by an excellent, thoroughly neutral editorial. If the MFD had still been open on Tuesday, I would have withdrawn the nomination then.
However, the decision of two editors to shut down the discussion removed that option from me. The premature closure turned it into a DRV issue, which is still open. The result is a 7-day procedural debate on a matter where the substance was resolved much sooner ... and the blame for that rests entirely with those who abused WP:SNOW.
I note that several editors have demanded sanctions against me, and I want to state clearly that I am entirely unmoved by their threats. I remain firmly of the view that since NPOV is the first of the Founding principles of the WMF, it was utterly outrageous for the en.wp community newsletter to take a partisan stance on international relations, and thereby create the impression that the editors who write Wikipedia do not uphold the principle of neutrality. The community newsletter serves the Wikipedia community and is hosted on the Wikipedia servers, so it should uphold community values, especially the core value of NPOV.
Thankfully, the ANI discussion prompted the Signpost team to respond with great maturity: they reviewed their decisions, and replaced the partisan piece with an excellent neutral piece. I am very happy with the outcome, esp with the fact that Signpost has made a clear commitment to neutrality. The team made a mistake, but they acknowledged it, remedied it and learned from it. We are all humans, and we all make errors, but acknowledging and fixing errors is the absolute best that I hope for in any leadership anywhere, so I commend them unreservedly.
I think that it is very unlikely that the current Signpost team will make any such error again. However, in the unlikely event that this happened again, and the editors of our community newsletter again chose to abuse the publication as a vehicle for a partisan political statement on a major political issue, I would not hesitate to again rapidly use the community's channels to seek a prompt remedy. The relevant channels are those I used this time: ANI to sanction the editors, and XFD to delete the political soapbox.
I hear loud and clear the anger of some editors that I stand for NPOV across the whole of this project, and I hear their demands that I be restrained or punished for my stand. So I want to be absolutely clear that I believe that those who oppose my calls for NPOV across the whole of this project are opposing the fundamental principles of the whole Wikipedia movement, and that I will pay no heed to any such demands for restraint.
Instead, I want to say to those would denounce or sanction me for upholding NPOV across this site: you are trying to undermine the first Founding principle of our movement, and I urge you to reflect carefully on whether an NPOV project such as Wikipedia is the right place for your talents. NPOV is the common purpose of Wikipedia, but it can be difficult to remain neutral when you are passionate about an issue. If you find it too difficult to accept that principle, then maybe you are in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would reply to this with something of substance, but WP:DENY.~~ Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of WP:DENY: This page in a nutshell: Recognition is a motivation for vandalism. Trolls require food − don't feed the trolls.

So, @Trainsandotherthings is calling me a troll or vandal, or both. And they are doing that because I uphold the WMF's first Founding principle: neutrality.

YCMTSU.

How on earth is it remotely acceptable for someone upholding NPOV to be falsely smeared as a troll or vandal?

How can we have any credibility as creators of an encyclopedia if our internal discussions are polluted with such smear tactics? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my comment. I am done interacting with you in any way short of ANI. You cannot be reasoned with. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I am very willing to have reasoned discussions.

But I have zero tolerance for smear tactics such as those you deployed here and elsewhere, so I am delighted that you will cease to try interacting with me. Thank you for striking that smear above. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally close as moot. The nominator has confirmed that she does not seek deletion of the page as it currently exists, so the MfD could not be reopened even if the speedy close were overturned. Therefore, the outcome of the DRV could not have any meaningful effect, and the matter is moot, regardless of any issues that may or may not have existed at an earlier stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Newyorkbrad. Closure as moot may be the best way to proceed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally object to procedural "moot" close - by my count the !vote is 36 endorse to 13 oppose - a clear consensus. As editor-in-chief of The Signpost I've been patiently waiting for this to close so that we can go back to our usual way of operating The Signpost according to our usual rules which are totally consistent with WP policies and guidelines. We are a newspaper publishing in project space (as we have been for 17 years). Opinion pieces are common in The Signpost, editorials from the staff (or team) somewhat less common, but the principle is the same. We get to publish opinions, no ifs ands or buts. The original complaint about the editorial was that it violated NPOV - it clearly does not since it is not in article space. The "adjusted" complaint was that we were Soapboxing - it was accompanied by a level of soapboxing that I've never seen on Wikipedia before - from the complainer. This is the 5th and last forum that is about to close. At that point The Signpost will have a clean path to writing our newspaper according to our rules. Just stating that the question is "moot" will allow BHG to continue to bully and bludgeon her way to censoring The Signpost. @Newyorkbrad: And that would just result in the same old problem arising again - BHG or another editor doesn't agree with an editorial so we have to delete or otherwise censor it. That's not going to happen if I have any say in it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 *'''Endorse''' per Hut 8.5. -- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 12:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse'''. Was the speedy close preemptive? Probably, but [[WP:NOTBURO|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]]. I think everyone here understands that there is exactly a 100% chance it will be kept if it were to be ran through the process again. All that needs to be done is to say "hey Ed maybe wait a smidgen longer next time" and for us to move on with our lives. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
-*'''Relist'''. [[WP:SNOW]] says {{TQ|The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement.}} I personally thing that there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement in BHG's argument, along with her supporters. I don't agree with her side, but the have a reasoned basis. {{TQ|but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process.}} I highly disagree that having a 50 minute deletion discussion gave due process to the minority, at least a day should have been given. I don't think the outcome will change, but this wasn't a appropriate close. [[User:Sea Cow|Sea Cow]] ([[User talk:Sea Cow|talk]]) 14:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
+*'''Relist'''. [[WP:SNOW]] says {{TQ|The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement.}} I personally thing that there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement in BHG's argument, along with her supporters. I don't agree with her side, but the have a reasoned basis. {{TQ|but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process.}} I highly disagree that having a 50 minute deletion discussion gave due process to the minority, at least a day should have been given. I don't think the outcome will change, but this wasn't a appropriate close. [[User:Sea Cow|Sea Cow]] ([[User talk:Sea Cow|talk]]) 14:25, 28 March 2022 (UTCj
 *'''Endorse''', [[WP:NOTBURO]]. I'm really disappointed by the number of places this discussion has been spreading to. The original deletion rationale (NPOV) does not apply to the Signpost (only to mainspace), no other deletion rationale has been presented, no need to reopen this. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse'''. The nomination was based on a misrepresentation of NPOV so blatant (it plainly applies to {{tq|encyclopedic content}} only) the discussion was never going to end in deletion. Prolonging forgone discussions is exactly what SNOW is intended to prevent.
@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 *'''Procedurally close as moot'''. The nominator has confirmed that she does not seek deletion of the page as it currently exists, so the MfD could not be reopened even if the speedy close were overturned. Therefore, the outcome of the DRV could not have any meaningful effect, and the matter is moot, regardless of any issues that may or may not have existed at an earlier stage. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 *:Thanks, @[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]. Closure as moot may be the best way to proceed. [[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
+*'''Totally object to procedural "moot" close''' - by my count the !vote is 36 endorse to 13 oppose - a clear consensus. As editor-in-chief of ''The Signpost'' I've been patiently waiting for this to close so that we can go back to our usual way of operating ''The Signpost'' according to our usual rules which are totally consistent with WP policies and guidelines. We are a newspaper publishing in project space (as we have been for 17 years). Opinion pieces are common in ''The Signpost'', editorials from the staff (or team) somewhat less common, but the principle is the same. We get to publish opinions, no ifs ands or buts. The original complaint about the editorial was that it violated NPOV - it clearly does not since it is not in article space. The "adjusted" complaint was that we were Soapboxing - it was accompanied by a level of soapboxing that I've never seen on Wikipedia before - from the complainer.  This is the 5th and last forum that is about to close. At that point ''The Signpost'' will have a clean path to writing our newspaper according to our rules. Just stating that the question is "moot" will allow BHG to continue to bully and bludgeon her way to censoring ''The Signpost''. {{ping|Newyorkbrad}} And that would just result in the same old problem arising again - BHG or another editor doesn't agree with an editorial so we have to delete or otherwise censor it.  That's not going to happen if I have any say in it. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 02:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)