Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 27

2334:: 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. -- 772:. 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 2135:: 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 Knowledge/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. 3790:

might say that some core content policies do apply to Signpost: a BLP violation in Signpost would not be acceptable. Other core content policies don't: every issue of Signpost contains original research and nobody questions it. This particular article contained advocacy for a cause. We don't allow advocacy for a cause in Knowledge's voice, but we can't control the WMF which does leverage Knowledge's credibility to advocate on matters about copyright, fair use and the internet. We are somewhat inconsistent in whether we allow advocacy in an editor's voice in project space, but I note that established editors tend to get away with it.—

1961:. 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 106:

demonstrate the level of care expected of administrators, including thinking through the implications of what they are doing. To the extent that any of us who have wielded the mop for any amount of time would have reasonably been able to predict the contention would be worsened by a SNOW close, this was an improper NAC in that the closer lacked awareness of this foreseeable outcome, and based on how few editors bring up the issue, would have likely attracted this same level of contention had it been initially done by an admin.

3266:, 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 Knowledge before - from the complainer. This is the 5th and last forum that is about to close. At that point 643:

Knowledge 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

1352:

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.

2876:

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, --

1825:- "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 2727:. 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. 809:

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

2843:, 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' 1740:

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.

2061:

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 Knowledge banner in The Signpost to promote their opinions, no matter how compelling those opinions are.

3205:. 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. 3329: 2764:- 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 92:

separate discussions are or were ongoing elsewhere, but that those focus on different aspects, such as user conduct and the appropriateness of Signpost editorials taking a side that are outside the scope of DRV. As S_Marshall noted “This is not the place to decide whether Knowledge's internal newsletter has to comply with content policies.”

1119:

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.

1604:: 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. 2769:

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 Knowledge 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.

3789:

This is not the place to decide whether Knowledge's internal newsletter has to comply with content policies. We review deletion decisions and overturn those that were unreasonable or outwith criteria. The DRV issue here has been overtaken by events; you want a RfC on WT:NPOV in my view. At that RfC I

3305:

moot in the sense of affecting this particular page. But if your point is that enough time has been spent here that the discussion ought to close with some sort of a precedent, I can understand that might make sense. (Of course, there has been no finding that the Signpost editors "had to" do anything

2957:

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

2954:

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

2929:

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 Knowledge do not uphold the principle of neutrality. The community newsletter serves the Knowledge community and

2893:

simply to get it over with. We could all have been doing better things than discussing this and while it is important for Knowledge to remain neutral, The Signpost is not Knowledge. 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

2768:

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,

2316:

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

119:

However, SK#3 is very specific and like all speedy criteria is historically very narrowly construed, such that while that policy interpretation would likely have prevailed in a full-length discussion, there’s significant disagreement here about whether it applied. SK was not cited by the closers, but

3824:

I think that used to be true. As a community we're increasingly coming to understand that our unwillingness to remove long-standing contributors whose toxicity outweighs their good work was holding us back. More recent arbitration committees are getting increasingly comfortable with desysopping or

2445:

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

2079:

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

1833:

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.

1739:

We are enraged at you systematically disrupting Knowledge 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

2833:

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

2560:

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

2060:

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 Knowledge issues and questions; it should not express opinions on main space subjects that should be dealt with in main space on article

1568:

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

1447:

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

1232:

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 Knowledge's goals, and the body of the editorial was calling for improved coverage of Russia, Ukraine and the current war.

808:

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

737:

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

598:

It is not an "outrageous use", and to express it as a "partisan attempt to impose 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

367:

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

1621:

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.

1351:

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

131:

Multiple editors have lamented that this process has been a waste of everyone’s time. I understand the sentiment, but note that we can and should learn from this incident. As former admin, I am attempting to model best NAC behavior in closing this discussion: NACs should have all the due care of a

105:

even though backed up by an admin shortly after closure and shortly before this DRV was filed. NACs are to be done at a minimum by editors who are knowledgeable in policy, process, and subject matter; uninvolved; and registered. At the same time, the community has the expectation that a NAC should

4010:

I didn't call you toxic and I didn't intend to imply that you are. I was responding to Dronebogus' point which I saw as a general one and not specifically about you. Much earlier in this debate I said "overturn" because to close a discussion after 50 mins and 7 votes is a slap in the face for the

2875:

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

2035:

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".

3658:

Or this one. Regardless of if you see this as a personal attack, surely there must have been a much better way for you to say this. This isn't really the hill I want to die on, so I'm probably not going to continue on in this part of the review. I just hope you can see this, because it certainly

2916:

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

1118:

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

4049:

I heartily endorse the "drop the stick" idea here. I'll note that this is just my 2nd entry on this page, compared to 16 for BHG. IMHO the page can be closed ASAP - which might mean tomorrow evening, 7 full days after it started. But the issue has clearly been decided already, on multiple fora.

112:

as Levivich summarized: “"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

4101:

The larger consensus, putting these processes together, seems to be that BHG is not defending the fundamental principles, rather BHG is misconstruing and misapllying them, and BHG has mis-attempted to use Knowledge processes to do so, each time rejected so far, and this has been explained with

2097:

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

91:

This should be self evident from this discussion, but Robert McClenon summarizes it well: “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” I note that

1365:

I completely agree "that there should be a better method for the community to seek a retraction from a Signpost piece than nominating for deletion", and indeed there are several, but the existence of other strategies does not justify inexperienced closers jumping in to knee-jerk close an MfD

642:

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

2945:

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

3505:

I am aware of the details of en.wp's NPOV policy. However, I do not believe for a moment that it has ever been the intention of the WMF to allow the en.wp website to be abused as a vehicle for some editors to take publish a politically partisan stand on a war or on other matters of major

1569:

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.

2719:, 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 3962:

Yeah I wouldn't quite call your comment polite, but aside from that, I'm actually referring to the whole of your interactions during this entire ordeal. Now, how many hours of editor time have we wasted here, as well as at MfD and ANI? You missed that entire part of my comment.

4087:

BHG has 3-times invoked the participation of other editors to weigh-in in Knowledge processes (ANI, MfD, and DRV). ANI, and MfD were closed as consensus was against BHG's position. DRV should also be closed, as I stated above, with consensus against BHG's position, that is

2964:

of our movement, and I urge you to reflect carefully on whether an NPOV project such as Knowledge is the right place for your talents. NPOV is the common purpose of Knowledge, but it can be difficult to remain neutral when you are passionate about an issue. If you find it

1807:

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. —

3369:

editorial backing one party in an an election? Backing some faction in the Syrian Civil War? An editorial backing one side in the abortion debate, or the legalisation of recreational drugs? It seems that Smallbones wants no limit to the crusading zeal of the

237: 1487:. 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. 2913:

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

1538:. 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. — 1375:

This DRV should not be seriously engaged in the substance of the MfD, or of the signpost article, or of the scope of WP:NPOV. It can note opinions and differing opinions, but primarily this DRV is about a very early bold close of an MfD discussion.

2283:

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.

895:

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

2811:

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.

1289:. A delete nomination that is solely based on a clearly inapplicable Knowledge 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. 706:. 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. 3859:

Allying the label of "toxicity" to a challenging a flagrant piece of political partisanship in the editorial voice of the community's newsletter is Kafkaesque stuff. A siteban for that would be a truly spectacular own-goal for Knowledge.

1689:

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

225: 98:

but rather pushed it here and elsewhere. Multiple editors have opined that an hour was insufficient, with Smallchief putting it succinctly: “A one-hour discussion by half a dozen people hardly counts as a fair examination of the

2860:. 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. 2278:

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

3983:

It was not my idea to close the MFD after only 50 minutes, and thereby push me into a DRV which piled a procedural debate at DRV on top of the substantive debate. Many other editors have pointed out the folly of that close.

1003:'s "Procedurally close as moot". The primary purpose of this DRV is to review the close of the MfD. Was it OK? Is it OK to stand as a precedent for MfD closing? If not, it should be the first thing addressed in the close. 1046:

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

3282:

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.

246: 1095:. 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.) 2749:, 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. -- 2648:; 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 3759: 1516:

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.

599:

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

4078:

If anyone is to "blame" for this DRV it is BHG, see the opening post at the top of this DRV (In which, by-the-by, BHG attacks or smears two editors as "partisan" for their attempt to apply Knowledge process).

940:

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.

85:

That’s one of the three basic parts of a SNOW close: “Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous.”

2838:

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

4092:. We have all already weighed in and taken the time to examine BHG complaints, and most (and most likely, consensus-so-far) have found these complaints without sufficient merit within Knowledge process. 2924:

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

2256:

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

127:

this is merely a closure of the deletion review. The principals involved in such a discussion have commented here, and those contributions have been noted, but bear primarily on questions to be decided

792:

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. --

1697:

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.

3262:

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

3168:

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.

1216:, 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 3502:

to a vicious personal attack on me by Smallbones, who made a wholly false allegation that I have been soapboxing. If Smllbones retracts that vicious smear, I will retract my comments on the smear.

2723:

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

2941:

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

153:

An addendum per request on my talk page: The numerical opinions were in favor of endorsing the closure, and my apologies for omitting that in the attempt to present the various rationales.

2302:

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?

1212:, which goes out of its way to say that it applies everywhere on Knowledge, without exception. Clearly, this editorial cannot be in violation of NPOV because that policy does not apply to 132:

well-crafted administrator close, regardless of the length and contention of the discussion. Every side should be aware that their argument or input was heard, even if it did not prevail.

3441:

This policy exists on all languages of projects that have adopted it, but the details of the policy vary significantly between projects and between different languages in those projects.

1931:

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.

1512:

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.

1148:

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.

3891:

It's not the fact that you're challenging partisanship; it's the way you're doing it. I'll say this again, just to give a clear warning for when this inevitably ends up at ANI: It is

3270:

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

1025:- 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. - 2153:

has been the Knowledge community newspaper. There is nothing controversial about editorials in a newspaper, and there is nothing controversial about this editorial in particular.

2575:

In any context, it would be reprehensible for someone calling for neutrality to be accused of trying to right the wrongs of the world. That is simply an inversion of reality: a

482:

on neutrality is partisan. That isn’t oxymoronic. I wasn’t saying that the Signpost was somehow not partisan (this is a “sky is blue” thing at this point, of course they were).

3431:, but I don't think this deletion review is the place to speak so poorly of an editor. As for the first founding principle, I invite you to read into that a bit more. The first 1988: 1208:

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,

1510:

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.

4109:

Let's close this in the ordinary course by reflecting the consensus but if this DRV suddenly tips to overturn, the MfD is reopened but what we are likely to get is again

2786:- 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 2354:- 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 2215:#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. — 3710:

I find it appalling that on Knowledge, making wholly false allegations against another editor seems to be acceptable ... but that objecting to being the target of a

2031:. 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 1694:

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.

865:, 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: 1679:: 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. 3017: 2190:- 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. 305:

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.

2350:

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

3707:

In this case, I harshly criticised Smallbones's despicable conduct of making a wholly false allegation against me. I did not attack Smallbones's character.

3577:

Rebut, sure. Following personal attacks with more (and arguably more agressive) personal attacks? See the essay linked above for that. To quote it exactly,

3904: 2098:

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.

48: 34: 123:

Finally, the page that prompted all the turmoil has since been redacted, and there has been a move to retract that redaction. Those actions indicate that

2112:

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,

2702:

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.

3377:

To top that off, Smallbones uses the nasty reality-inversion trick used by a few other opponents of NPOV: accusing me of soapboxing for opposing the

2446:

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.

2036:

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

43: 386:

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.

2321:

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.

2080:

grounds to argue for deletion (or amendment) of the page, both reasonable and unreasonable, but our deletion venues are not the forum for those.

3530: 195: 2229:

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

1128: 3998: 3952: 3874: 3728: 3617: 3567: 3520: 3405: 3237: 3182: 3141: 3058: 2983: 2600: 2550: 1711: 1665:

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.

535: 458: 409: 351:

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

276: 3391:

It is also utterly false to try to claim that this is a question of censorship. Upholding the core principle of the WMF is not censorship.

3035:

may actually restore its blatant political partisanship, against the wishes of the original author. Multiple layers of bad practice there.

191: 70: 2508:

on Knowledge. Reopening this would give that individual more attention towards her one-woman crusade. We should not allow that to happen.

474:”? I said you were “partisan” because you were basing your entire campaign against the signpost on a non-textual fringe interpretation of 319:

I personally favor a protest delete because it would a) deny recognition and b) get rid of the bowdlerized article, but that is obviously

2960:

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

735:

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.

395:

is an acceptable technique in community discussions? Do I have to consider taking this to ANI myself, or will someone else take action?

1419: 1397:

We're not required to be non-partisan, in non-article space, while people - including serval fellow Wikimedians - are the subject of

3582:"Yes, but they started it" is a poor excuse and will not shield you from any of the consequences of your behavior. Just don't do it. 1559:

only) the discussion was never going to end in deletion. Prolonging forgone discussions is exactly what SNOW is intended to prevent.

1222:

an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes

742:

waste of editor-hours that could be better spent on more productive things like writing about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

39: 3686:

Correct: those are my words. I did not attribute those words to Smllbones; I described their meaning. What Smallbones did say is

2958:

opposing the fundamental principles of the whole Knowledge movement, and that I will pay no heed to any such demands for restraint.

2475:. It's clear that closing this discussion early did not prevent time wastage, and instead lead to more chaos spreading everywhere. 1329:

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

3696:

One of the persistent diffuculties in discussions such as this the failure of some editors to distinguish between the concepts of

1051:

quest, across multiple venues, to enforce a policy that doesn't exist. The community is under no obligation to humor such antics.

258:

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

4022: 3836: 3801: 3127:

How can we have any credibility as creators of an encyclopedia if our internal discussions are polluted with such smear tactics?

2244: 419:

BHG, come on here. When I see a deletion review of a signpost editorial, I don’t think “this is the hill I’m willing to die on.”

1574:

So (1) the nomination had next to no chance of success and (2) if the nomination somehow succeeded anyway, it would merely be a

936:. BADNAC. BAD SNOW. Decisions like this should not be made on the basis of the voices who rush in first. The applicability of 2640:: There wasn't a valid reason given for deletion, regardless of how many people commented or how long the discussion was open. 2375: 2171:

Well it IS obviously extraordinarily controversial, but I get what you mean— it’s not exactly an “edgy” statement it’s making.

1730: 1180: 922: 589: 3156: 3091: 2566: 2513: 1778: 1745: 1627: 3895:

clear that you are being incivil and attacking other editors here, as evidenced by the multiple editors saying such. Please

2402:

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Knowledge policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the

2380:. I see no ambiguity considering the project namespace isn't mentioned anywhere there, and the rest is incredibly specific. 584:, it's clear which direction the wind was blowing, based on the AfD and the ANI thread. No harm in trying to reduce drama. 1587: 1294: 21: 3009:

I have struck large chunks of what I wrote above. Sadly, this issue is not longer moot, since Smallbones's comment below

2745:

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "pre-publication review of Signpost editorials". It sounds like you're talking about

1428:

Instead of assuming that people who have the opposite view are "wikilawyering", maybe AGF and still make the same point?

371:

So I will not attach any label to the person of Dronebogus. Instead I will label the action, by pointing to the article

3903:

at so many different venues. You have a history of misunderstanding basic policies and acting uncivilly (especially see

2790:, which really would be censorship. If this MFD wasn't post-publication censorship, then we have strange definitions. 1609: 2529:

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

2403: 2197: 1184: 853: 818: 135: 1369:

If the MfD was an inappropriate venue for the discussion, then this would emerge as consensus in the MfD discussion.

2955:

relevant channels are those I used this time: ANI to sanction the editors, and XFD to delete the political soapbox.

2530: 2505: 2293: 1938: 1876: 1726: 1124: 918: 585: 3044:

editor's relentless pursuit of a determination to abuse Knowledge as a political soapbox. It is very very sad. --

2504:

That editor time is being wasted is not the fault of the closers, but the fault of the filer who is attempting to

4137: 4122: 3994: 3948: 3870: 3724: 3613: 3563: 3516: 3401: 3233: 3178: 3152: 3137: 3111: 3106:

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

3087: 3054: 2979: 2848: 2795: 2774: 2732: 2596: 2562: 2546: 2523: 2509: 2103: 1966: 1741: 1707: 1676: 1623: 1357: 1340: 531: 454: 405: 272: 175: 17: 3151:

I have struck my comment. I am done interacting with you in any way short of ANI. You cannot be reasoned with.

2220: 1575: 1290: 1272:

From what I read, there doesn't seem to be a strong, unanimous consensus, which is required for SNOW to apply.

3339:'s eloquent retraction and commitment to neutrality did not actually have the approval of all the rest of the 1167:

Last time I checked we had policies against censorship... Ie we are not "neutral" on censorship of knowledge.

3124:

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

2678: 2622: 2451: 2416: 2363: 1605: 1471: 1415: 433:

I have no desire to die on any landform. But I will not let smears go unchallenged, and when you use the

2192: 2161: 1372:

The MFD may be moot now, but this DRV is first about whether the close of that MfD was OK, and it was not.

882: 862: 849: 814: 125:

non-deletion discussion, ongoing elsewhere, is the forum in which this is likely to continue to play out;

3908: 3311: 3210: 2834:"haste", it seems a few are looking in the wrong place: deletion process rightly encourages discussion 2085: 2047: 2001: 1984: 1958: 1933: 1871: 1433: 1277: 1120: 738:

the closer waited for seven !votes here is generous. This ANI thread, MfD, and DRV constitute a massive

357:

to acknowledge the need for more neutrality. In the published text, EpicPupper explicitly says that he

4126: 4063: 4026: 4003: 3978: 3957: 3926: 3879: 3854: 3840: 3819: 3805: 3784: 3733: 3674: 3622: 3598: 3572: 3548: 3525: 3486: 3410: 3315: 3296: 3242: 3214: 3187: 3160: 3146: 3095: 3063: 2988: 2903: 2885: 2867: 2852: 2825: 2799: 2778: 2756: 2736: 2711: 2690: 2669: 2632: 2605: 2570: 2555: 2517: 2499: 2484: 2455: 2440: 2420: 2395: 2367: 2341: 2325: 2311: 2297: 2270: 2248: 2224: 2203: 2180: 2166: 2141: 2125: 2107: 2089: 2052: 2023: 1969: 1944: 1918: 1882: 1847: 1838: 1817: 1791: 1749: 1734: 1716: 1654: 1631: 1613: 1590: 1547: 1526: 1496: 1475: 1458: 1437: 1423: 1385: 1360: 1343: 1315: 1298: 1281: 1264: 1242: 1188: 1159: 1136: 1105: 1079: 1063: 1041: 1015: 992: 950: 926: 908: 899:

In any case, the rapid close by a non-admin new editor is not a credible decision to go on the record.

886: 857: 840: 822: 799: 783: 754: 715: 691: 674: 656: 635: 617: 593: 562: 540: 505: 491: 463: 428: 414: 332: 314: 281: 162: 148: 3037:

I am horrified to see how a potentially amicable resolution of this episode has been destroyed by the

4118: 4056: 4018: 3985: 3939: 3886: 3861: 3850: 3832: 3815: 3797: 3776: 3715: 3604: 3554: 3507: 3392: 3289: 3224: 3169: 3128: 3045: 2970: 2881: 2844: 2791: 2770: 2742: 2728: 2587: 2537: 2351: 2307: 2240: 2176: 2136: 2121: 2099: 2066: 2014: 1962: 1928: 1909: 1864: 1698: 1353: 1336: 687: 670: 631: 558: 522: 501: 487: 445: 424: 396: 328: 310: 263: 3436: 3114:

is calling me a troll or vandal, or both. And they are doing that because I uphold the WMF's first

917:

VPM, too, and a suggestion for another signpost talkpage. The VPM discussion is listed on CENT too.

3638: 3355: 3258:

I've been patiently waiting for this to close so that we can go back to our usual way of operating

3115: 3027:

where Smallbones announces their intention to revert EpicPupper's neutralisation of the editorial:

2961: 2926: 2864: 2216: 1691: 1381: 1238: 1176: 1074: 1011: 988: 974: 946: 904: 836: 810: 623: 511: 377:: a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique. 2536:

Is it really acceptable for an editor to use this page to make such a blatantly false allegation?

2262: 3029:

I'm leaning to just returning it to the original headline with post publication additions removed

2818: 2753: 2629: 2447: 2412: 2359: 2338: 1774: 1648: 1467: 1406: 1154: 966: 796: 780: 158: 144: 2075:- CSK#3 necessitates a (potentially) viable grounds for deletion. NPOV does not apply. Now, had 1006:

Sure, do not re-open the MfD, for several reasons, but don't forget the primary purpose of DRV.

3603:

Bsoyka, I utterly reject your attempt to depict my rebuttal of a smear as a "personal attack".

605: 3432: 3254:- by my count the !vote is 36 endorse to 13 oppose - a clear consensus. As editor-in-chief of 2707: 2698:

there was no valid deletion rationale, and nom was clearly pointy: SNOW keep was appropriate.

2266: 2154: 1813: 1583: 1535: 1522: 1492: 1484: 1096: 1092: 878: 4071:: As we have seen, that we are here is not moot, it is 'live', at least until this is closed. 3553:

For goodness sake, Bsoyka. Is this a place where an editor is not allowed to rebut a smear?

3972: 3920: 3668: 3592: 3542: 3480: 3307: 3277: 3220: 3206: 2899: 2685: 2663: 2479: 2434: 2389: 2212: 2081: 2041: 1980: 1786: 1555:. The nomination was based on a misrepresentation of NPOV so blatant (it plainly applies to 1429: 1403:. Anyone wikilawyering to reopen this shameful nomination really needs to stop and reflect. 1311: 1273: 1000: 763: 680: 609: 2681:. I maintain that the original closure was improper, but there's no point debating it now. 291:

a deletion review after less than 50 minutes and an admin approval is an outrageous use of

4051: 4012: 3931:

Bsoyka, I replied politely to an editor who called me "toxic" and mooted a siteban for me.

3900: 3896: 3846: 3826: 3811: 3791: 3763: 3336: 3284: 2877: 2765: 2746: 2495: 2331: 2303: 2234: 2230: 2172: 2117: 2062: 2005: 1924: 1900: 1578:

that, by itself, could not overturn the current consensus regarding where NPOV applies. –

1543: 711: 683: 666: 652: 627: 554: 497: 483: 420: 341: 324: 320: 306: 292: 1230:

written and maintained by a community of volunteers through a model of open collaboration

2378:, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. 3444: 3101: 3082: 2918: 2861: 2641: 2490:

It was a valid speedy keep though, as there was no valid deletion rationale provided. —

2289: 2258: 1804: 1782: 1505: 1377: 1255: 1234: 1197: 1168: 1145: 1032: 1007: 984: 970: 959: 942: 937: 900: 845: 832: 730: 701: 644: 475: 259: 255: 437:

technique of propaganda to try to discredit a colleague, you should expect a response.

3420: 2813: 2783: 2761: 2750: 2720: 2626: 2335: 2322: 1896: 1892: 1844: 1835: 1800: 1770: 1643: 1209: 1149: 1132: 1088: 1048: 793: 777: 739: 662: 154: 140: 969:. As a matter of respect for deletion process, this is completely unacceptable. -- 359:

apologize for violating our commitment to neutral coverage of the Wikimedia movement

2703: 2261:

that make Knowledge an insular echo-chamber on many issues. It's also simply rude.

1809: 1579: 1518: 1488: 1451: 1622:

BHG, drop this now before you end up blocked. You've registered your objections.

3964: 3912: 3660: 3584: 3534: 3495: 3472: 3385: 3012:

of 02:22. Smallbones is adamant they recognise no constraint at all on what the

2895: 2787: 2724: 2682: 2655: 2586:

is incompatible with the standards of truth required to create an encyclopedia.

2476: 2426: 2381: 1307: 1115: 1055: 980: 962: 828: 746: 604: 1514:

but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process.

983:

made related posts only after the MfD close, none were before. Not INVOLVED. —

110:

The early closure precluded the community from reaching a non-boolean decision,

2491: 1539: 1251: 1217: 707: 648: 3681:

It seems that Smallbones wants no limit to the crusading zeal of the Signpost

2425:

I'd argue that while this opinion may be controversial, it's not disruptive.

698:

Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating.

3450: 2285: 1861:

VPM. We need one point of conversation on the issue, not multiple. Courtesy

1260: 1225: 1026: 3343:

team: certainly not the editor, tho the position of the others is unclear.

2930:

is hosted on the Knowledge servers, so it should uphold community values,

2409:, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. 600: 3905:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals § BrownHairedGirl desysopped

1768:

there is nothing in that editorial that violates any Knowledge policy.

1600:. Closing the discussion after only fifty minutes wasn't a particularly 3711: 2583: 2576: 2000:

a bit early, but I saw no objection to the editorial other than BHG's.

470: 441: 434: 391: 382: 373: 3907:

and ANI archives), so I advise you to reconsider here. You won't stay

364:

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

120:

a few editors proposed it as an alternate reason for the same outcome.

3651:

It seems that Smallbones wants no limit to the crusading zeal of the

603:'s recent changes feed, which is how I discovered this discussion. ✨ 1254:'s comments. Could it have been left open longer? Probably. Was it 873:. If "we" is the team, a defined group of editors, they can express 3825:

site-banning, and AN/I is noticeably less patient these days, too.—

2969:

to accept that principle, then maybe you are in the wrong place. --

848:, my point is that XfD was not the right forum in the first place. 514:

puts neutrality as its first item ... but according to Dronebogus,

1448:

anyone other than the nominator even agrees with the nomination.

3165:

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

3022: 2582:

However, we are all here to create an encyclopedia. A repeated

1331: 83:

There was no support for the nomination in the time it was open.

2650: 2473:

The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time

1843:

I agree this now seems moot since the editorial was retracted.

1829:

these discussions to spread to other pages, as people look for

3810:

Established users tend to get away with practically anything.

3346:

So in many ways we are back to square one. The editor of the

2411:

which implies that Knowledge: space is not blanket exempted.

696:

Not as cool as a Wikilink, but my personal page has a quote.

1325: 113:

things, for a reason other than the reason the nom raised).”

1366:

discussion. XfD processes rely on respect for the process.

3760:

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

3447:

policy states, as myself and others have mentioned above,

979:

My apologies, on checking the date stamps more carefully,

389:

Is this community really reduced to the point where the

3645:

to actually take sides in an actual war. Unbelievable.

3362:

to actually take sides in an actual war. Unbelievable.

3081:

I would reply to this with something of substance, but

3010: 704: 355: 232: 218: 210: 202: 2561:

this DRV to AN if it gets closed against you as well?

192:

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

117:

The propriety of the nomination was disputed by some.

71:

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

3714:

prompts criticism and threats against the objector.

827:

DRV is the forum to evaluate the appropriateness of

76:

Problematic close, no consensus to overturn closure.

3490:added underlined wording 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3388:by Smallbones, and it utterly despicable conduct,. 3223:. Closure as moot may be the best way to proceed. 2948:I think that it is very unlikely that the current 776:is free to propose my user page for deletion. -- 354:The editorial's author commented when replacing it 1483:. Was the speedy close preemptive? Probably, but 96:An early close failed to conclude the discussion, 3018:WT:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#OK,_that's_enough 440:I note that you make no attempt to retract your 3757:A bold suggestion to those still participating: 3688:We get to publish opinions, no ifs ands or buts 2952:team will make any such error again. However, 661:Agreed, the MfD wasn’t to process but I think 3649: 3627: 1686:is also bogus. There was no personal attack. 8: 3679:Bsoyka you claim that Smllbones did not say 2937:Thankfully, the ANI discussion prompted the 174:The following is an archived debate of the 3938:of being "uncivil" and "attacking". Wow! 3648:Yeah, nowhere did they say this themself. 1684:personal attacks at the closers of the MfD 1660: 766:and GeneralNotability's post-endorsement) 103:The close was done by a non-administrator, 63: 3252:Totally object to procedural "moot" close 1869:as the editor who opened VPT discussion. 3506:international or political controversy. 368:terms for someone who inverts the truth. 1663: 1233:How can any Wikipedian object to that? 344:asserts that my call for neutrality is 3687: 3680: 3633:regards it as absolutely fine for the 3578: 3468: 3448: 3440: 3350:regards it as absolutely fine for the 3105: 3028: 2645: 2472: 2401: 2373: 2040:drama, ill feeling, and wasted words. 1722: 1683: 1556: 1513: 1509: 1229: 1221: 1201: 734: 515: 496:Would you prefer “fanatical” instead? 358: 345: 4011:nominator. That remains my position.— 2095:Endorse but allow speedy renomination 1306:. Far too early to close under SNOW. 7: 1857:if this is overturned, please close 4140:of the page listed in the heading. 3580:The hypocrisy is simply staggering. 3443:Here on the English Knowledge, our 3016:may publish. I have since visited 2048: 1220:is described in our own article as 3439:, which very specifically states, 2654:reinforces my !vote even further. 1891:The village pump discussion is at 28: 3693:The meaning is absolutely clear. 3637:to trample all over WMF's first 3423:? If you want to comment on the 3384:s soapboxing. That is textbook 3354:to trample all over WMF's first 3327: 3326: 4136:The above is an archive of the 2917:entirely with those who abused 553:of that neutrality is partisan 478:. Your attempt at pushing this 2400:It does however continue with 1485:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy 1: 2526:. That is inverting reality. 3641:(neutrality) by abusing the 3449:All encyclopedic content on 3358:(neutrality) by abusing the 3031:. So there we have it: the 2147:Endorse close keep editorial 2133:Neither endorse nor overturn 977:) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 3531:Don't call the kettle black 3467:falls into the category of 1927:. Had the wrong tab open. @ 647:we do run things that way. 289:Keep and endorse snow close 4163: 3203:Procedurally close as moot 2909:Comment from DRV nominator 2904:19:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 2886:00:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 2868:20:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2853:18:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2826:12:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2800:16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2779:16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2757:12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2737:03:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2712:00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2691:22:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2670:20:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2633:19:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2518:19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2500:18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2485:18:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2456:10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 2441:00:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 2421:09:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 2396:20:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2368:18:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2342:18:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2326:18:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2312:17:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2298:17:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2271:14:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2249:13:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2225:06:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2204:01:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2181:04:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2167:01:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2142:23:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 2126:04:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 2116:) is patently ridiculous. 2108:21:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 2090:21:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 2053:19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 2024:19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1989:19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1970:19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1945:19:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1919:19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1883:18:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1848:01:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC) 1839:18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1818:17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1792:16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1632:15:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1614:15:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1591:15:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1548:15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1527:14:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1497:14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1476:12:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1459:12:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1438:01:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1424:11:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1361:10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 1344:08:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1316:08:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1299:08:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1282:06:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1265:05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1243:04:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1189:03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1160:03:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1137:02:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1106:01:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1080:01:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1064:01:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1042:01:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 993:09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 951:00:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 927:00:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 909:01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 887:21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 858:01:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 841:00:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 823:00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 800:00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 784:00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 755:23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 716:23:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 692:23:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 675:23:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 657:23:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 636:23:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 618:23:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 594:23:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 333:05:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 315:23:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 282:22:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 89:The close was contentious. 4127:14:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 4113:, all the more reason to 4064:13:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 4027:08:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 4004:03:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 3979:02:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 3958:02:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 3934:And for that, you accuse 3927:01:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 3880:01:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 3855:20:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3841:11:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3820:10:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3806:09:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3785:08:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3734:04:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3675:04:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3623:04:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3599:03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3573:03:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3549:03:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3526:03:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3487:03:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3411:03:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3316:02:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3297:02:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 3243:22:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 3215:22:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 3188:21:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 3161:21:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 3147:20:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 3096:20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 3064:05:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 2989:18:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 2606:05:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 2571:17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 2556:17:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 2233:grounds if nothing else.— 1750:17:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 1735:17:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 1717:17:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 1655:05:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 1386:04:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 1016:04:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 563:06:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 541:05:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 506:05:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 492:05:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 464:03:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 429:03:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 415:20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 163:00:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC) 149:23:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 18:Knowledge:Deletion review 4143:Please do not modify it. 2625:may be of interest. -- 2049:Penny for your thoughts? 1723:raging anti-NPOV brigade 877:view in an editorial. -- 181:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 4102:reasons multiple times. 3659:looks attacking to me. 3453:must be written from a 3437:m:Neutral point of view 2934:the core value of NPOV. 2679:Special:Diff/1079987889 2623:Special:Diff/1079988210 3698:criticism of an action 3657: 3647: 2004:; this is a timesink. 1797:Endorse as speedy keep 1725:is a personal attack? 1196:The first sentence of 863:User:GeneralNotability 665:applies in this case. 516:neutrality is partisan 3911:if you keep this up. 3899:, and stop trying to 3455:neutral point of view 1957:Thanks for the ping, 1766:Endorse as snow close 1727:ScottishFinnishRadish 919:ScottishFinnishRadish 586:ScottishFinnishRadish 323:so I’m not doing it. 3469:encyclopedic content 3463:I don't see how the 3153:Trainsandotherthings 3112:Trainsandotherthings 3088:Trainsandotherthings 2646:encyclopedic content 2563:Trainsandotherthings 2524:Trainsandotherthings 2522:For goodness sake, @ 2510:Trainsandotherthings 2209:Endorse speedy close 2058:Overturn and relist. 1979:'Twas a good close. 1742:Trainsandotherthings 1677:Trainsandotherthings 1624:Trainsandotherthings 1557:encyclopedic content 1202:encyclopedic content 3325:, oh dear oh dear. 2927:Founding principles 2531:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 2506:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 2372:The policy states, 1996:as speedy keep. It 1823:Overturn and relist 1721:Would you say that 1692:Founding principles 1682:The allegations of 1321:Overturn and relist 1304:Overturn and relist 1291:Boing! said Zebedee 1114:. On the one hand, 512:Founding principles 299:Overturn and delete 178:of the page above. 3639:Founding principle 3629:The editor of the 3433:founding principle 3356:Founding principle 3116:Founding principle 2962:Founding principle 1994:Endorse SNOW close 1606:Extraordinary Writ 1165:Endorse snow close 965:for closing while 613: 4150: 4149: 4025: 4002: 3956: 3878: 3839: 3804: 3732: 3621: 3571: 3524: 3427:, comment on the 3419:calm down on the 3409: 3241: 3186: 3145: 3062: 3026: 2987: 2604: 2554: 2247: 2140: 1761: 1760: 1715: 890: 850:GeneralNotability 815:GeneralNotability 611: 539: 462: 413: 280: 139: 136:non-admin closure 4154: 4145: 4117:keeping now. -- 4059: 4017: 3993: 3991: 3989: 3975: 3969: 3947: 3945: 3943: 3923: 3917: 3890: 3869: 3867: 3865: 3831: 3796: 3783: 3781: 3773: 3772: 3723: 3721: 3719: 3671: 3665: 3612: 3610: 3608: 3595: 3589: 3562: 3560: 3558: 3545: 3539: 3515: 3513: 3511: 3491: 3483: 3477: 3421:personal attacks 3400: 3398: 3396: 3383: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3292: 3281: 3232: 3230: 3228: 3177: 3175: 3173: 3136: 3134: 3132: 3100:From the top of 3053: 3051: 3049: 3043: 3020: 2978: 2976: 2974: 2816: 2666: 2660: 2653: 2644:applies only to 2595: 2593: 2591: 2545: 2543: 2541: 2437: 2431: 2392: 2386: 2374:This applies to 2317:is some obvious 2239: 2200: 2195: 2164: 2159: 2139: 2050: 2019: 2010: 1959:Star Mississippi 1943: 1941: 1936: 1914: 1905: 1899:. All the best, 1881: 1879: 1874: 1868: 1790: 1706: 1704: 1702: 1661: 1651: 1646: 1466:per Hut 8.5. -- 1454: 1422: 1413: 1409: 1334: 1328: 1228:, after all, is 1173: 1157: 1152: 1121:theleekycauldron 1103: 1077: 1062: 1060: 1058: 1040: 1035: 1029: 868: 753: 751: 749: 614: 607: 530: 528: 526: 453: 451: 449: 404: 402: 400: 271: 269: 267: 249: 244: 235: 221: 213: 205: 183: 133: 64: 53: 33: 4162: 4161: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4141: 4138:deletion review 4119:Alanscottwalker 4062: 4057: 3987: 3986: 3973: 3965: 3941: 3940: 3921: 3913: 3887:BrownHairedGirl 3884: 3863: 3862: 3777: 3775: 3768: 3764: 3717: 3716: 3702:personal attack 3669: 3661: 3606: 3605: 3593: 3585: 3556: 3555: 3543: 3535: 3509: 3508: 3489: 3481: 3473: 3394: 3393: 3381: 3335:It seems that @ 3328: 3306:in this case.) 3295: 3290: 3275: 3226: 3225: 3171: 3170: 3130: 3129: 3047: 3046: 3041: 2972: 2971: 2845:Alanscottwalker 2814: 2792:Robert McClenon 2771:Robert McClenon 2766:prior restraint 2747:Prior restraint 2743:Robert McClenon 2729:Robert McClenon 2688: 2687:it has begun... 2664: 2656: 2649: 2589: 2588: 2539: 2538: 2482: 2481:it has begun... 2435: 2427: 2390: 2382: 2259:systemic biases 2198: 2193: 2162: 2155: 2100:Spirit of Eagle 2017: 2008: 1967:Please ping me! 1963:A. C. Santacruz 1939: 1934: 1932: 1929:A. C. Santacruz 1912: 1903: 1877: 1872: 1870: 1865:A. C. Santacruz 1862: 1769: 1762: 1700: 1699: 1666: 1649: 1644: 1641:Happy Editing-- 1576:local consensus 1452: 1411: 1405: 1404: 1358:Please ping me! 1354:A. C. Santacruz 1341:Please ping me! 1337:A. C. Santacruz 1330: 1324: 1169: 1155: 1150: 1097: 1075: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1027: 747: 744: 743: 610: 524: 523: 447: 446: 398: 397: 265: 264: 245: 243: 240: 231: 230: 224: 217: 216: 209: 208: 201: 200: 179: 176:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4160: 4158: 4148: 4147: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4073: 4072: 4054: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 3932: 3857: 3845:Amen to that! 3787: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3708: 3705: 3694: 3691: 3684: 3503: 3389: 3375: 3363: 3344: 3333: 3319: 3318: 3287: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3166: 3125: 3122: 3119: 3108: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3036: 2992: 2991: 2959: 2956: 2947: 2935: 2923: 2915: 2906: 2888: 2870: 2855: 2828: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2781: 2714: 2693: 2686: 2672: 2635: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2580: 2534: 2527: 2502: 2480: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2328: 2281:in addition to 2273: 2251: 2227: 2217:David Eppstein 2206: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2144: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2092: 2070: 2055: 2026: 2002:WP:NOTCENSORED 1999: 1991: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1886: 1885: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1820: 1794: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1737: 1695: 1687: 1680: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1635: 1634: 1616: 1594: 1593: 1571: 1570: 1561: 1560: 1550: 1529: 1499: 1478: 1461: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1373: 1370: 1367: 1318: 1301: 1284: 1267: 1245: 1191: 1162: 1139: 1108: 1082: 1076:casualdejekyll 1068: 1067: 1066: 1031: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1004: 997: 996: 995: 931: 930: 929: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 897: 893: 892: 891: 811:forum-shopping 805: 804: 803: 802: 787: 786: 757: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 640: 639: 638: 596: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 519: 438: 387: 378: 369: 365: 362: 352: 349: 335: 252: 251: 241: 228: 222: 214: 206: 198: 186: 185: 170: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 129: 121: 114: 107: 100: 93: 86: 79: 78: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4159: 4146: 4144: 4139: 4134: 4133: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4107: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4091: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4070: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4060: 4053: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4015: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3976: 3970: 3968: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3924: 3918: 3916: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3901:prove a point 3898: 3894: 3888: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3858: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3829: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3794: 3788: 3786: 3782: 3780: 3774: 3771: 3767: 3761: 3758: 3755: 3735: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3713: 3709: 3706: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3685: 3682: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3672: 3666: 3664: 3656: 3654: 3646: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3596: 3590: 3588: 3583: 3581: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3546: 3540: 3538: 3532: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3478: 3476: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3390: 3387: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3368: 3364: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3324: 3321: 3320: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3304: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3293: 3286: 3279: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3250: 3249: 3244: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3189: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3167: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3126: 3123: 3120: 3118:: neutrality. 3117: 3113: 3109: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3079: 3065: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3040: 3034: 3030: 3024: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2990: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2968: 2967:too difficult 2963: 2953: 2951: 2946:unreservedly. 2944: 2940: 2933: 2928: 2922: 2920: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2892: 2889: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2871: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2856: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2832: 2829: 2827: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2817: 2810: 2807: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2784:User:RoySmith 2782: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2767: 2763: 2762:User:RoySmith 2760: 2759: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2715: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2694: 2692: 2689: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2675:Close as moot 2673: 2671: 2667: 2661: 2659: 2652: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2636: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2607: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2535: 2532: 2528: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2483: 2478: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2448:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2444: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2432: 2430: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2413:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2410: 2408: 2406: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2387: 2385: 2379: 2377: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2360:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2357: 2353: 2352:WP:NOTSOAPBOX 2349: 2343: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2327: 2324: 2320: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2277: 2274: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2252: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2228: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2201: 2196: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2165: 2160: 2158: 2157:Bluerasberry 2152: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2064: 2059: 2056: 2054: 2051: 2045: 2044: 2039: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2025: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2003: 1997: 1995: 1992: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1875: 1866: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1821: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1793: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1696: 1693: 1688: 1685: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1662: 1656: 1653: 1652: 1647: 1640: 1637: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1617: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1572: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1551: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1479: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468:Pawnkingthree 1465: 1462: 1460: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1412:Pigsonthewing 1408: 1402: 1401: 1396: 1393: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1335:'s argument. 1333: 1327: 1323:. Agree with 1322: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1302: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1268: 1266: 1263: 1262: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1192: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1172: 1166: 1163: 1161: 1158: 1153: 1147: 1143: 1140: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1107: 1104: 1102: 1101: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1078: 1072: 1069: 1065: 1059: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1036: 1030: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 976: 972: 968: 964: 961: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 948: 944: 939: 935: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 910: 906: 902: 898: 894: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 867: 866: 864: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 847: 844: 843: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 825: 824: 820: 816: 812: 807: 806: 801: 798: 795: 791: 790: 789: 788: 785: 782: 779: 775: 771: 770: 765: 761: 758: 756: 750: 741: 736: 732: 728: 725: 717: 713: 709: 705: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 689: 685: 682: 678: 677: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 659: 658: 654: 650: 646: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 620: 619: 615: 608: 602: 597: 595: 591: 587: 583: 580: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 543: 542: 537: 533: 529: 520: 517: 513: 510:So the WMF's 509: 508: 507: 503: 499: 495: 494: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 472: 467: 466: 465: 460: 456: 452: 443: 439: 436: 432: 431: 430: 426: 422: 418: 417: 416: 411: 407: 403: 394: 393: 388: 385: 384: 379: 376: 375: 370: 366: 363: 360: 356: 353: 350: 347: 343: 339: 336: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 317: 316: 312: 308: 304: 301: 300: 296: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 283: 278: 274: 270: 261: 257: 248: 239: 234: 227: 220: 212: 204: 197: 193: 190: 189: 188: 187: 184: 182: 177: 172: 171: 164: 160: 156: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 137: 130: 126: 122: 118: 115: 111: 108: 104: 101: 97: 94: 90: 87: 84: 81: 80: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 59:27 March 2022 57: 50: 49:2022 March 28 45: 41: 36: 35:2022 March 26 23: 19: 4142: 4135: 4114: 4110: 4089: 4068: 4013: 3966: 3935: 3914: 3892: 3827: 3792: 3778: 3769: 3765: 3756: 3701: 3697: 3662: 3652: 3650: 3642: 3634: 3630: 3628: 3586: 3579: 3536: 3499: 3474: 3464: 3458: 3454: 3428: 3424: 3416: 3378: 3371: 3366: 3365:What next? 3359: 3351: 3347: 3340: 3322: 3302: 3272:The Signpost 3271: 3268:The Signpost 3267: 3264:The Signpost 3263: 3260:The Signpost 3259: 3256:The Signpost 3255: 3251: 3202: 3080: 3038: 3032: 3013: 2966: 2949: 2942: 2938: 2936: 2931: 2912: 2908: 2890: 2872: 2857: 2840: 2835: 2830: 2820: 2819: 2808: 2717:Weak Endorse 2716: 2699: 2695: 2674: 2657: 2637: 2618: 2469: 2468: 2428: 2404: 2383: 2355: 2318: 2280: 2275: 2253: 2235: 2208: 2191: 2187: 2156: 2151:The Signpost 2150: 2146: 2132: 2113: 2094: 2076: 2072: 2057: 2042: 2037: 2032: 2028: 2016: 2015: 2007: 2006: 1993: 1976: 1911: 1910: 1902: 1901: 1858: 1854: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1796: 1765: 1642: 1638: 1618: 1601: 1597: 1582: 1565: 1552: 1531: 1501: 1480: 1463: 1450: 1449: 1444: 1420:Andy's edits 1416:Talk to Andy 1407:Andy Mabbett 1399: 1398: 1394: 1348: 1320: 1303: 1286: 1269: 1259: 1247: 1214:The Signpost 1213: 1205: 1204:. That core 1193: 1170: 1164: 1141: 1111: 1099: 1098: 1084: 1073:per Tamzin. 1070: 1022: 999:I object to 958:Also firmly 957: 933: 896:appropriate. 879:Gerda Arendt 874: 870: 773: 768: 767: 759: 727:SNOW endorse 726: 697: 581: 550: 546: 479: 469: 390: 381: 372: 337: 302: 298: 297: 288: 287: 253: 180: 173: 124: 116: 109: 102: 95: 88: 82: 75: 69: 58: 3909:unblockable 3386:gaslighting 3308:Newyorkbrad 3278:Newyorkbrad 3221:Newyorkbrad 3207:Newyorkbrad 2788:memory hole 2725:memory hole 2149:Since 2005 2082:Nosebagbear 2043:HJ Mitchell 1940:Mississippi 1878:Mississippi 1564:If the MfD 1430:Firestar464 1274:Firestar464 1001:Newyorkbrad 981:User:Ed6767 967:WP:INVOLVED 963:User:Ed6767 829:User:Ed6767 624:experienced 601:meta:Teyora 4052:Smallbones 4014:S Marshall 3990:HairedGirl 3944:HairedGirl 3893:incredibly 3866:HairedGirl 3847:Dronebogus 3828:S Marshall 3812:Dronebogus 3793:S Marshall 3720:HairedGirl 3609:HairedGirl 3559:HairedGirl 3512:HairedGirl 3500:responding 3397:HairedGirl 3337:EpicPupper 3285:Smallbones 3229:HairedGirl 3174:HairedGirl 3133:HairedGirl 3050:HairedGirl 2975:HairedGirl 2932:especially 2878:Goldsztajn 2841:only civil 2683:* Pppery * 2592:HairedGirl 2542:HairedGirl 2477:* Pppery * 2405:Knowledge: 2332:Dronebogus 2319:procedural 2304:Dronebogus 2236:S Marshall 2173:Dronebogus 2118:Dronebogus 2063:Smallchief 1981:XOR'easter 1925:Miniapolis 1703:HairedGirl 1536:WP:NOTBURO 1400:war crimes 1252:User:Hobit 1218:Solidarity 1093:WP:NOTBURO 1061:(she/they) 831:’s close. 769:and relist 762:(both the 760:void close 752:(she/they) 684:Dronebogus 667:Dronebogus 628:Dronebogus 555:Dronebogus 527:HairedGirl 498:Dronebogus 484:Dronebogus 450:HairedGirl 421:Dronebogus 401:HairedGirl 342:Dronebogus 325:Dronebogus 307:Dronebogus 268:HairedGirl 128:elsewhere. 44:2022 March 4058:smalltalk 3451:Knowledge 3435:links to 3291:smalltalk 3219:Thanks, @ 3023:permalink 2862:Mackensen 2407:namespace 2376:usernames 2213:WP:SKCRIT 2038:even more 1831:somewhere 1602:good idea 1378:SmokeyJoe 1332:SmokeyJoe 1258:? Yes. - 1235:Cullen328 1226:Knowledge 1200:mentions 1171:Doc James 1008:SmokeyJoe 985:SmokeyJoe 971:SmokeyJoe 943:SmokeyJoe 901:SmokeyJoe 846:SmokeyJoe 833:SmokeyJoe 774:editorial 764:WP:BADNAC 702:SmokeyJoe 681:WP:NOTBUR 545:No, your 3999:contribs 3953:contribs 3897:be civil 3875:contribs 3729:contribs 3653:Signpost 3643:Signpost 3635:Signpost 3631:Signpost 3618:contribs 3568:contribs 3521:contribs 3498:: I was 3465:Signpost 3429:Signpost 3425:Signpost 3406:contribs 3379:Signpost 3372:Signpost 3367:Signpost 3360:Signpost 3352:Signpost 3348:Signpost 3341:Signpost 3301:The DRV 3238:contribs 3183:contribs 3142:contribs 3059:contribs 3039:Signpost 3033:Signpost 3014:Signpost 2984:contribs 2950:Signpost 2943:Signpost 2939:Signpost 2894:saying. 2751:RoySmith 2700:Signpost 2651:RoySmith 2627:RoySmith 2601:contribs 2551:contribs 2470:Overturn 2336:RoySmith 2323:Levivich 2294:contribs 2276:Overturn 2254:Overturn 2231:WP:CIVIL 2137:Isabelle 1923:Thanks @ 1845:Levivich 1836:Levivich 1771:Headbomb 1712:contribs 1270:Overturn 1181:contribs 1129:contribs 1023:Overturn 934:Overturn 794:RoySmith 778:RoySmith 622:Yay I’m 536:contribs 521:YCMTSU. 459:contribs 410:contribs 346:partisan 321:WP:POINT 293:WP:POINT 277:contribs 155:Jclemens 141:Jclemens 20:‎ | 4115:endorse 4090:endorse 4069:Comment 3712:Big Lie 3415:Can we 3323:Oh dear 3121:YCMTSU. 3102:WP:DENY 3083:WP:DENY 2919:WP:SNOW 2891:Endorse 2858:Endorse 2831:Endorse 2809:Endorse 2704:Kingsif 2696:Endorse 2642:WP:NPOV 2638:Endorse 2619:Comment 2584:Big Lie 2577:Big Lie 2263:Letcord 2188:Comment 2077:someone 2073:Endorse 2029:Endorse 1977:Endorse 1855:Comment 1810:Mhawk10 1805:WP:NPOV 1803:#3. As 1639:Endorse 1619:Endorse 1598:Endorse 1553:Endorse 1532:Endorse 1519:Sea Cow 1506:WP:SNOW 1489:Endwise 1481:Endorse 1464:Endorse 1453:Hut 8.5 1445:Endorse 1395:Endorse 1349:Comment 1287:Endorse 1256:snowing 1248:Endorse 1206:content 1198:WP:NPOV 1194:Endorse 1146:WP:SNOW 1142:Endorse 1131:) (she/ 1112:neutral 1100:Calidum 1091:and/or 1085:Endorse 1071:Endorse 960:WP:SLAP 938:WP:NPOV 731:WP:SNOW 645:WP:NAZI 582:Endorse 549:on the 476:WP:NPOV 471:big lie 442:Big Lie 435:Big Lie 392:Big lie 383:Big lie 374:Big lie 303:neutral 260:WP:SNOW 256:WP:SNOW 247:restore 211:history 3995:(talk) 3967:Bsoyka 3949:(talk) 3915:Bsoyka 3871:(talk) 3766:Formal 3725:(talk) 3663:Bsoyka 3614:(talk) 3587:Bsoyka 3564:(talk) 3537:Bsoyka 3517:(talk) 3496:Bsoyka 3475:Bsoyka 3402:(talk) 3234:(talk) 3179:(talk) 3138:(talk) 3055:(talk) 2980:(talk) 2896:Gazamp 2865:(talk) 2836:before 2815:Jayron 2754:(talk) 2677:given 2658:Bsoyka 2630:(talk) 2597:(talk) 2547:(talk) 2429:Bsoyka 2384:Bsoyka 2356:relist 2339:(talk) 2194:Gerald 2163:(talk) 2018:apolis 1913:apolis 1897:WP:VPT 1895:, not 1893:WP:VPM 1801:WP:CSK 1708:(talk) 1502:Relist 1326:Stifle 1308:Stifle 1210:WP:BLP 1156:plicit 1116:Tamzin 1089:WP:IAR 1057:Tamzin 797:(talk) 781:(talk) 748:Tamzin 663:WP:IAR 551:extent 547:stance 532:(talk) 468:What “ 455:(talk) 406:(talk) 273:(talk) 99:issue” 3988:Brown 3942:Brown 3864:Brown 3718:Brown 3607:Brown 3557:Brown 3510:Brown 3395:Brown 3227:Brown 3172:Brown 3131:Brown 3110:So, @ 3048:Brown 2973:Brown 2914:then. 2590:Brown 2540:Brown 2492:Kusma 2114:again 1827:cause 1701:Brown 1650:Chaos 1540:Kusma 1508:says 1185:email 875:their 733:says 708:Hobit 679:Also 649:Hobit 612:talk! 525:Brown 448:Brown 399:Brown 266:Brown 233:watch 226:links 52:: --> 16:< 4123:talk 4111:keep 3974:talk 3922:talk 3851:talk 3816:talk 3779:talk 3770:Dude 3762:. –– 3700:and 3670:talk 3594:talk 3544:talk 3482:talk 3459:NPOV 3445:NPOV 3312:talk 3211:talk 3157:talk 3092:talk 2900:talk 2882:talk 2849:talk 2796:talk 2775:talk 2733:talk 2708:talk 2665:talk 2567:talk 2514:talk 2496:talk 2452:talk 2436:talk 2417:talk 2391:talk 2364:talk 2308:talk 2290:talk 2286:Elli 2267:talk 2221:talk 2211:per 2177:talk 2122:talk 2104:talk 2086:talk 2067:talk 2033:that 2009:Mini 1985:talk 1935:Star 1904:Mini 1873:Star 1814:talk 1799:per 1746:talk 1731:talk 1628:talk 1610:talk 1580:Tera 1544:talk 1523:talk 1493:talk 1472:talk 1434:talk 1382:talk 1312:talk 1295:talk 1278:talk 1261:jc37 1250:per 1239:talk 1177:talk 1133:they 1125:talk 1110:Eh, 1087:per 1028:ZLEA 1012:talk 989:talk 975:talk 947:talk 923:talk 905:talk 883:talk 871:Keep 854:talk 837:talk 819:talk 712:talk 688:talk 671:talk 653:talk 632:talk 590:talk 559:talk 502:talk 488:talk 480:view 425:talk 338:Wow! 329:talk 311:talk 219:logs 203:edit 196:talk 159:talk 145:talk 32:< 3997:• ( 3951:• ( 3873:• ( 3727:• ( 3616:• ( 3566:• ( 3519:• ( 3417:all 3404:• ( 3236:• ( 3181:• ( 3140:• ( 3057:• ( 2982:• ( 2873:Meh 2721:MFD 2599:• ( 2549:• ( 1998:was 1859:VPT 1710:• ( 1645:IAm 1584:tix 1566:had 1414:); 1054:-- 1049:1AM 869:"* 745:-- 740:1AM 534:• ( 457:• ( 408:• ( 275:• ( 238:XfD 236:) ( 22:Log 4125:) 3977:) 3936:me 3925:) 3853:) 3818:) 3673:) 3597:) 3547:) 3533:. 3485:) 3471:. 3314:) 3303:is 3274:. 3213:) 3159:) 3104:: 3094:) 3042:'s 2911:. 2902:) 2884:) 2851:) 2821:32 2812:-- 2798:) 2777:) 2735:) 2710:) 2668:) 2621:: 2569:) 2516:) 2498:) 2454:) 2439:) 2419:) 2394:) 2366:) 2358:. 2310:) 2296:) 2292:| 2269:) 2223:) 2199:WL 2179:) 2124:) 2106:) 2088:) 2046:| 1987:) 1965:⁂ 1816:) 1785:· 1781:· 1777:· 1748:) 1733:) 1630:) 1612:) 1546:) 1534:, 1525:) 1504:. 1495:) 1474:) 1436:) 1418:; 1384:) 1356:⁂ 1339:⁂ 1314:) 1297:) 1280:) 1241:) 1224:. 1187:) 1183:· 1179:· 1144:. 1135:) 1127:• 1014:) 991:) 949:) 925:) 907:) 889:" 885:) 856:) 839:) 821:) 813:. 729:. 714:) 700:-- 690:) 673:) 655:) 634:) 626:! 616:✨ 606:Ed 592:) 561:) 504:) 490:) 444:. 427:) 380:A 331:) 313:) 262:. 254:A 161:) 147:) 74:– 42:: 4121:( 4061:) 4055:( 4023:C 4021:/ 4019:T 4001:) 3971:( 3955:) 3919:( 3889:: 3885:@ 3877:) 3849:( 3837:C 3835:/ 3833:T 3814:( 3802:C 3800:/ 3798:T 3731:) 3704:. 3690:. 3683:. 3667:( 3655:. 3620:) 3591:( 3570:) 3541:( 3523:) 3494:@ 3479:( 3461:) 3457:( 3408:) 3382:' 3374:. 3310:( 3294:) 3288:( 3280:: 3276:@ 3240:) 3209:( 3185:) 3155:( 3144:) 3090:( 3085:. 3061:) 3025:) 3021:( 2986:) 2921:. 2898:( 2880:( 2847:( 2794:( 2773:( 2741:@ 2731:( 2706:( 2662:( 2603:) 2579:. 2565:( 2553:) 2533:. 2512:( 2494:( 2450:( 2433:( 2415:( 2388:( 2362:( 2330:@ 2306:( 2288:( 2265:( 2245:C 2243:/ 2241:T 2219:( 2175:( 2120:( 2102:( 2084:( 2069:) 2065:( 1983:( 1867:: 1863:@ 1812:( 1789:} 1787:b 1783:p 1779:c 1775:t 1773:{ 1744:( 1729:( 1714:) 1675:@ 1626:( 1608:( 1588:₵ 1542:( 1521:( 1491:( 1470:( 1432:( 1410:( 1380:( 1310:( 1293:( 1276:( 1237:( 1175:( 1151:✗ 1123:( 1039:\ 1034:T 1010:( 987:( 973:( 945:( 941:— 921:( 903:( 881:( 852:( 835:( 817:( 710:( 686:( 669:( 651:( 630:( 588:( 557:( 538:) 518:. 500:( 486:( 461:) 423:( 412:) 361:. 348:. 340:@ 327:( 309:( 295:. 279:) 250:) 242:| 229:| 223:| 215:| 207:| 199:| 194:( 157:( 143:( 138:) 134:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 27 - Knowledge

Index