Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. Salvio giuliano 15:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is an obvious breach of several policies and guidelines (WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UPNOT, WP:POLEMIC and WP:PURPOSE), not to mention its inflammatory and divisive character, as its nothing more than a long pro-Confederate opinion piece. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 03:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per all cited reasons, most of which were not addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Userspace is not the place for opinion pieces only tenuously related to Wikipedia editing, and it's certainly not the place for racist spiels. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: We don't need any more faux-articles or historical revisionism.  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 04:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a disruptive nomination, WP:Presentism, and IMHO an attempt to improperly censor userspace. This user subpage was nominated for deletion less than six months ago and there was clear consensus to keep. Nominator participated in that discussion, made essentially the same points, and literally nothing has changed since that MfD, these arguments being rejected then. On the merits, as I described in my keep assertion then, this is "a personal user essay explaining in some detail how his view (of the Confederacy and appropriate coverage) was formed." We shouldn't be in the business of whitewashing Wikipedia's history when a fair number of readers have developed their views in a similar manner, for good or for ill. This retired user's point of view might not be popular (and certainly violates the precepts of essay No Confederates), but for a user to explain their thinking does the pedia a service, because many modern people hold these somewhat anachronistic views. Historians of Wikipedia shouldn't be compelled to ask for REFUND just because explaining such views have fallen out of favor among a minority of editors. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's formatted like an article, and presents those opinions as if they were facts, which they're not. We aren't obligated to host this just because it's "unpopular", especially when it's unpopular largely due to its lack of merit.  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 04:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These arguments were unpersuasive in October, and renominating a kept object mere months after a previous deletion discussion not only breaks with normal deletion procedure, but appears intended to police thought on userpages. I'm not okay with that. If somebody wants to say something on Wikipedia which reveals a foolish view, other wikipedians are entitled to read the foolishness and draw their own conclusions about the user. Courtesy blanking a page which might offend is just fine with me, but permanently deleting such material removes a significant part of the pedia's history and handicaps those wikipedians who come behind us. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reads as a user essay, sufficiently related to mainspace concerns, and within reasonable leeway. I tagged it as a Userpage to allay any concerns that any Wikipedian might think a Userpage is an article.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see we're back at this again. Emphatically, people have leeway to post content in their userspace, particularly their subpages.--⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  13:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I don’t honestly know why this was kept last time. Sundostund has provided a long, valid list of policy violations and is being met with “but WP:ITSIMPORTANT to WikiHistory” or “it’s an essay in userspace, you can put whatever you want in it” or otherwise just making accusations of thought policing and disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not getting your way in the last MfD isn't a ticket to go back and do the same thing again four months later to see if you get a different outcome. And at any rate, yes, we do allow latitude for userspace. See also when 's userpage was nominated for deletion recently, under the same pretenses. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Attribution in page history is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia. We are transparent. We merge page histories when necessary in order to maintain attribution. Permanent removal of history is limited to trusted servants of the pedia, though various public discussions like this one may guide sysops trusted to do so. WikiHistory, and the maintenance of it, is crucial to reading and understanding Wikipedia. When we start removing large chunks of "who said what" we leave the cupboard more bare than we intended it to be. BusterD (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We aren’t “permanently removing” anything. Deletion just hides the page and its history from public access. Plus Wikipedia is not an exhaustive archive on its own history, which is weirdly meta and self-referential anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to a courtesy blanking, but a deletion comes across as imposing Wikipedia's will on what sort of userspace content is and is not acceptable. You know the further down this route that we go, the more that question will become pertinent and the more we'll need to start asking at a centralized level where we draw the lines. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  18:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have raised this exact issue here. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is a clear violation of WP:UPNOT. I do not see any merit in retaining this. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment of the nominator: IMHO, it is enough just to take a look at how many policies and guidelines this violates. That alone makes it justifiable to start another MfD discussion, months after the last one, and to delete this. All those violations of policies and guidelines were not properly addressed in the previous nomination and discussion. As for the unfair accusations of disruptive nomination and censorship, none of that was my motivation when I nominated this. We should simply make it clear what is allowed on Wikipedia, and useful for the project, and what is not. Wikipedia loses nothing with the deletion of this opinion piece – it is completely useless and worthless, totally unrelated to the encyclopedic work, and is also inflammatory and divisive on top of that, with the only purpose to make an apologetic case for the Confederacy. Eventually, I must only apologize for forgetting to mention the breach of WP:NOCONFED as one of the reasons for my nomination, with an obvious explanation: I was simply too preoccupied with listing policies and guidelines that are violated here, and those reasons are (naturally) far more important than an essay, regardless of how much related and important that essay may be. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCONFED has no teeth compared to WP:NONAZIS. Period. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  19:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCONFED, WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS are all dealing with the same, gravely serious issue. There are no "mild"/acceptable and "severe"/unacceptable cases of racism. Period. The only difference is that WP:NONAZIS exists for five years, while WP:NOCONFED exists for about six months. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to stop responding so that I don't get accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, but this is a dangerous game being played here, when we are deciding by subjective viewpoints what opinions are and are not allowable in userspace. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  19:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing dangerous in sending the message to racists of all sorts that they are unwelcome here, and that their views and opinions are undesirable everywhere, including their userspace, which they don't own, by the way. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 19:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is approaching righting great wrongs though. Unless the material in question is blatant racism (which you can be blocked for here) we should assume good faith on the actions of other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. There's no reason to preserve this, it's a thinly-veiled attempt to justify the horrors of Southern history. 50.214.130.225 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Question: Can a participant in an AfD process, like the nominator relist their own nom? This seems out of process. BusterD (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So far, I certainly saw some AfD processes relisted in the same way. My intention was simply to gather more participants, and generally prevent this from becoming a stalled discussion. I didn't want to do anything out of process, for sure. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 04:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is probably better practice to leave it for an uninvolved closer to decide whether to relist an XfD, but in this instance doing so is sensible, so to avoid any procedural complications I endorse the relisting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sundostund nominated this subject at 03:32, February 6, 2023, then relisted their own procedure at  03:15, February 9, 2023, before even 72 hours had elapsed in the MfD. It had not run the normal seven days' course yet. I have never seen that done before. A person can relist at anytime during the procedure?  BusterD (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If Sundostund wants more participants, they might consider, as a courtesy, pinging the participants in October's deletion procedure for the same subject. BusterD (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Newyorkbrad, disappointing to see you endorse an improper action. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Relisting is an administrative action that should only be done by someone qualified to close, certainly not a WP:INVOLVED editor.  Also, comment-free relisting is stupid, pointless, or even counterproductive due to it hiding the old discussion amongst new discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment seems like a mixture of veiled personal attack and Wiki-lawyering. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have the same feeling about this comment, and I expect other users to refrain themselves from any personal attacks, regardless of the differences in our opinion on the subject of this nomination. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * When I wrote my prior comment, I admit I missed the fact that this discussion had been only open for three days rather than the full week. My apologies. Given that fact, I'm not sure what the point of relisting is, since it continues a discussion that was going to continue anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference of opinion about the appropriateness of this relisting. In this disagreement around process one side should not impute personal attacks to the other when they state their disagreement. SmokeyJoe's comment is fine, it is not offensive in any way, and I fully endorse his position here. —Alalch E. 17:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. His comment was not a bad-faith assumption. If someone has clearly stated their opinion to delete, and they call for it to be relisted, there is assumed to be a lack of impartiality; i.e. if they see the discussion is not trending towards delete, they may be looking for a future consensus in which it is. It's far better to let an admin, or at the very least an uninvolved editor, make that decision. ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  18:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd ask us to put aside any personalizations; they neither bring the object any closer nor bring any credit to their crafter. The involved premature relisting is problematic and not within policy. Here's the thing: User:Sundostund could certainly strike-through/undo their action. When I make a mistake, I'm the first to admit it (but the last one to know). When I make a mistake, I endeavor to undo the damage I've done, then make amends as appropriate. Part of those amends is often a decision inside myself NOT to make the same mistake, and to take delight in learning I've established that valuable new guardrail. This is just my procedure, milage may vary. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do see the comment in question as a kind of veiled personal attack, in the line of what Dronebogus stressed; If you call someone's action as "stupid", its hard to believe that you see the person who did it in some respectful way. Yes, I took it personally. Anyway, I have no intention to waste more time on that, I just don't expect it to happen again. As for the assumption of impartiality, the status of the discussion didn't even cross my mind when I relisted this; the majority of users was trending towards delete prior to the relisting (and after it), so that wasn't my motive at all. In my comment below, I clearly stated why I relisted the nomination, and I stand behind those reasons. The main idea was to prevent this from coming to a "standstill", and that's it. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 19:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have undone the relisting, as a gesture of good will and because I have no problem to admit when I am wrong, although I still think that the relisting was needed; it certainly served its purpose, as it "revitalized" the discussion, anyway. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I thank you for making this honest admission. In your relist I'm afraid more light was shed on the nominator than the subject, and I'm glad we can get back to discussing the subject on its merits. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An XfD nominator is never an appropriate editor to decide to relist a discussion, and comment-free relists are pointless processing that do nothing to help the discussion. What did you think the relist would do?  Discourage another from closing it in accordance with its current trajectory, contrary to your wish?
 * Regarding this nomination being so soon (<6 months) since the prior MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism), the nomination should have mentioned it, and ideally should have summarised it and said why tha discussion got it wrong, but perhaps you didn’t know? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, let me state facts: Sundostund has renominated a subject for deletion, when four months ago another deletion procedure was closed as keep. Sundostund chose not to notify any of the previous MfD participants. Sundostund then relisted their own procedure a mere three days after their original nom "simply to gather more participants". IMHO they've clearly unstalled the discussion, but having nothing to do with the merits. BusterD (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If it speeds up the process and gathers more consensus then I think WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO applies. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s an odd statement. Speed is never believed to improve on consensus decision making. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The original deletion discussion ended in keep because it was essentially vote-bombed into oblivion by generic “support per above” votes. Pinging users who did not meaningfully contribute opinions, and who will inevitably vote “keep”, is borderline canvassing. Dronebogus (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ended in keep because it was essentially vote-bombed into oblivion by generic “support per above” votes. -, does that jive with your interpretation of the original MfD when you closed it? ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Anyways, WP:APPNOTE is clear that notifying participants in a past discussion is appropriate and not canvassing, provided everyone is notified (it is certainly not required though). Legoktm (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In my comment above (before the discussion was closed) I clearly stated my reasons for the relisting. Those reasons had nothing to do with "discouraging another from closing it in accordance with its current trajectory, contrary to my wish". As can be seen, the majority of users was trending towards delete prior to the relisting (and for some time after it), so I was quite happy with the "vote count" at the time. Once again, my main (and basically the only) motivation was to prevent the nomination from coming to a moribund state, after several days of complete inactivity here. And that's it. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 22:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Sundostund, I’ve read your replies, thank you. I don’t accept that my input is unwelcome because I take longer to give it.  Let’s agree you made a mistake?  My point is that your reasoning is irrelevant, if you are INVOLVED, and as XfD nominator you most certainly are INVOLVED in the XfD, you are forbidden from performing any administrative function on the XfD, whether closing it, or even relisting.  I don’t challenge your motivation, but I do decry nominators relisting their own discussions. Apart from that, as a relist, it was a poor pointless relist.  A good relist gives the reason for the relist, such as important new information that early !voters need to consider, or because important parties weren’t initially notified. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: pure WP:SOAPBOXing, which means it break several other policies as well. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment of the nominator In my nomination, and in my previous comment above, I already stated the reasons why I decided to renominate this subject for deletion, months after the last nomination, and I stand by those reasons. I have no doubt about their vaildity. I saw no point in notifying previous MfD participants; if they are still interested in the topic of this nomination, and take a periodical look at the ongoing MFD discussions, they will see it and are more than free to participate. When it comes to the relisting, as I said – I have seen at least several MfD nominations relisted in the same way, over the past year or so. Maybe it was too early to do so, as it was only open for three days rather than the full week. Still, seeing zero activity here over the past few days, I didn't want this to become one of those moribund discussions, having just a few participants, with one or two of them being uber-vocal in their opinion, so I think it was a correct thing to do. It obviously unstalled the discussion, and that is the only thing really important to me - giving the chance to as much users as possible to express their opinion on this. I hope, generally speaking, that another relisting won't be necessary. In the end – once again, it wasn't my intention to do anything out of process by relisting this, and I am sorry if it happened unintentionally. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging participants of the past MfD who have not already commented on the discussion: silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rationale provided by here and at the prior MFD.  So I see we're not only WP:RAGPICKING, but re-litigating old picking of rags. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per here and at the prior MFD. Its a "personal user essay explaining in some detail how his view (of the Confederacy and appropriate coverage) was formed.", no more and no less. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you for the ping. I don't see any major change since Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Grayghost01/WBTS_Revisionism and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Grayghost01, which closed as clear keeps (and I agreed). I agree with SmokeyJoe's rationale above. As to the nom: the concern that it might be confused with an article has been obviated. And while I agree that clear instances of racism (and similar) should be removed from Wikipedia, for that to apply the racism needs to be blatant. Arguing that a racially-important element of history is more complicated, and presenting arguments some of which are (presumably) also advanced by some racists, does not meet that bar. Martinp (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting I've continued to monitor this MFD, and reaffirm my keep !vote. In particular, I've read through the discussion between SmokeyJoe and Sundostund below (under Robert McClenon's !vote). I find myself quite disturbed by the McCarthyist overtones of arguments like "there can't be...and tolerance or leniency towards those who ... relativize racist atrocities..." While superficially attractive, it implies "we have decided on how we choose to interpret certain historical events, and do not tolerate dissent". We absolutely need to draw a distinction between "promoting racism" (not acceptable) and "re-exploring historical events which had an important racial component" (acceptable, absent something else unacceptable about it). I've never been fully comfortable with the tone of WP:NONAZIS for similar reasons, and am strongly uncomfortable with WP:NOCONFED (which I hadn't heard of before) as a result. Note I am not American, which perhaps makes me blind to certain overtones here; but also perhaps sensitizes me to broader issues regarding censorship. And I have no opinion about the merits of the arguments in the page being discussed here, just I don't see anything blatant enough to delete it. Martinp (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I will explain. I commented in October that the essay was long and I would wait to read it before !voting, but then did not !vote.  I have read only part of this essay, and I do not like it.  I disagree with most of it, and strongly disagree with much of it.  However, I feel like Voltaire who said that he did not agree with a word that [someone] said, but would defend to the death their right to say it.  He was speaking of their moral right, not their legal right, because there was no freedom of speech in ancien regime France.  Wikipedia is not bound by the freedom of speech that is granted by the First Amendment, but this author should be allowed to say what he says in this essay, even though it is largely offensive.  It does express an opinion about the editing of articles, in that he thinks that we are presenting the wrong point of view on the American Civil War, and most of us think that the author is presenting a wrongheaded point of view, and showing an unpleasant attitude toward other Wikipedians.  His viewpoint, which does have to do with the editing of articles, is better addressed by either ignoring it or refuting it than by deleting it.  I am a co-author of an essay on No Neo-Confederates.  This essay is not about neo-Confederates.  It is about Confederates.  The Confederate States of America were a nation, for a little, a rogue nation, but a nation, and they are a subject of history.  In order to present a neutral point of view on the American Civil War, we should know what the points of view are.  This is an unpleasant essay, and it should be kept.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A surprisingly fair take. Some (most) of the other keep!votes have erred uncomfortably close to flat-out ignoring the inherent racial, political, and internal divisiveness of the essay. I still don’t agree that it should be kept, but I see where you are coming from. Dronebogus (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not commented on the issues you raised. That’s not to say I’ve ignored them.  I agree with Robert here, but my explanation is that the appearance of censorship can be worse than the material you want to censor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like we need a big “this is not an article, the claims presented are not vetted for accuracy, and the views expressed here are entirely this user’s and not endorsed by Wikipedia or its general userbase” at the top here. I haven’t really brought this up either, but a major concern of mine here is faux-legitimacy i.e. because it’s a big fat superficially well-written essay it looks like it’s an article or something even with the little “this is a userpage” tag Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps nominator might have chosen to courtesy blank the page leaving an edit summary exactly like your quoted material. Then we'd be exactly where your admirable feelings led you, and we wouldn't choose to be ragpicking a second time over these matters. BusterD (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand (and partly agree with) some of your thoughts on this – especially the idea that fringe viewpoints, like the one expressed in this "essay", are better addressed by either ignoring them or refuting them, than by deleting them. I would also add that they may even serve as a "warning" to other users (and especially admins) about the worldview of its author, leading to close monitoring of their editing. Still, I would never agree that something like this should be kept, having in mind its overall message (which aspects Dronebogus mentioned above). There shouldn't be any leniency towards racists of any kind, including modern-day supporters of the Confederacy, and it should be clear that their viewpoints are both unwelcome and unacceptable here. Only the compete removal of their material can really send such a message. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 22:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * “There shouldn’t be an leniency …” is an extreme position of intolerance that can make problems worse. “Reasonable leeway” in userspace is an accepted concept. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Paradox of tolerance silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  <small style="font-size:75%;">(inquire within)  01:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * “Reasonable leeway” does not imply “without limit”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There simply can't be, and shouldn't be, any tolerance or leniency towards those who are either outright racist in their worldview, or those who relativize racist atrocities (past or present) by appealing to some sort of "tradition" (or using any other excuse). Turning a blind eye to something like that, or directly allowing it in the name of tolerance, would be an insult to the whole idea of this project, and its values. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 02:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The nominated Userpage is no “outright” racist. The degree to which is is racist, or has issues of relative measures, is a matter of opinion, on which you might write an essay, but is pretty vague with respect to Userpage deletion reasons which should be based on WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT.
 * You don’t like this page, ok. Others userpages don’t need to be likeable.  There is no blind eye to this page, it is within reasonable leeway for a Userpage documentation of a user’s opinion on something related to their editing.  This page would go better being ignored. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This page, obviously, fall into the category of those works that relativize past or present racist atrocities by being pro-Confederate in its core, and something like that can't be allowed in userspace. Nobody here own their userspace, and editors should think twice before they start using it for something as inflammatory and divisive as this. The Confederacy was founded on slavery and racism as its cornerstone, and any defence or relativization of its actions is simply unacceptable. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 03:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is not an article draft, this is using Wikipedia as a webhost.- gadfium 06:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominated page is a revisionist tractate masking as a critique of revisionism making its way into Wikipedia articles. It's so obviously programmatically revisionist in nature that calling irony seems overdone. It refering to Wikipedia repeatedly is only a narrative technique used to convey its revisionist arguments, by giving them a seemingly palatable frame of reference, but the arguments ultimately don't resolve into any practicable conclusions about how to deal with the hypothesized problem on Wikipedia: References to editing of Wikipedia are just vessels, a packaging, of odious remarks that resolve into a general thesis about the Confederacy -- this thesis being a revisionist trope, which is the motive for, the starting point, and the endpoint of the essay. And that is my critique of this userspace essay: It's terrible. But it would be wrong for me to want it deleted for this reason. It suffices that I can state my critique and move on. Instead of being a critique of revisionism making its way into Wikipedia, it is an illustration for how POV editing makes its way into Wikipedia. It encapsulates a certain editing mindset, it is evidence of what goes on, and can be seen as a warning sign. —Alalch E. 12:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another interesting take. Dronebogus (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per 's observations. Essay seems to be criticism of NPOV on Wikipedia. I don't see anything about the essay that qualifies as racism per se, and if there is such, please point it out and I will change my !vote. If person 1 says the South started the Civil war, and person 2 says no the North started it, person 2 is not necessarily being racist. Maybe I missed something about this essay that actually is. Also do not like that this has been resubmitted for deletion after it being decided to keep, seems like a variation on WP:BLUDGEONing the process. Will it be resubmitted every few months until it's deleted? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If different editors keep resubmitting it for deletion after this is closed, then maybe that's a sign of an issue with the essay that needs to be addressed in some way if it is to be kept. The same editor repeatedly re-nominating the page would certainly be unacceptable, but I believe that multiple otherwise independent editors doing so one after each other, in good faith, is something that should be allowed. (Though, unless the essay is somehow modified to be more egregiously in breach of policy than it already is, no one involved in this current discussion or the previous one should.) <small style="font-size:80%;">silvia  <small style="font-size:65%;">(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  <small style="font-size:75%;">(inquire within)  01:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument about editors acting independently of each other, but respectfully, under the circumstances, I'm not sure that's exactly what took place here. This appears to just be a rehashing of the previous nomination. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  02:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is enough just take a look at the texts of these two separate nominations, and to see that I raised the issue of violation of several policies and guidelines. Those arguments were barely mentioned in the previous nomination, and the ensuing discussion. That was one of the reasons why I decided to submit this nomination in the first place. So, this can't possibly be a mere rehashing of the previous nomination, having in mind that the current nomination listed far larger number of issues, beside the problematic pro-Confederate message of this opinion piece. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 02:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pro-confederate doesn't necessarily amount to racist though. Again, without someone citing a portion of this essay that is explicitly racist, I can't agree with deleting it on those grounds. In fact in the absence of such evidence I am inclined to strike the "Weak" portion of my !vote. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pro-Confederate is inherently racist-adjacent, even if you dance around the issue that the Confederacy was founded on the dispute over the right to own slaves. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a guilt by association argument. Probably accurate enough, but again, if person 1 says the north started the civil war, and person 2 says the the south did, person 1 is not necessarily being racist per se. If there is something in this material that is actually racist I would gladly change my !vote to delete. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete consists mostly of lengthy rambling that has very little to do with Wikipedia. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is Gish galloping— it’s unclear what specific point the author was trying to make, let alone how it relates to Wikipedia editing. I’m almost more inclined to argue delete based on “Wikipedia is not a platform for the airing of grievances” Dronebogus (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.