Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health

Blanking
I'm puzzled by your assertion that a consensus not to blank "is not reason for not blanking". Isn't consensus the reason that we do anything here? Why does the discussion on a user talk page carry more weight than that on a centralised community noticeboard? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A small number of people agreed in an acrimonious debate on AN mainly centred on MH. You cite that as "unanimous". It is rather obvious by now that "unanimous" is superseded by a significant number of people who support blanking and are looking at the content, not the contributor. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I see the need for total blanking. If there is BLP violating or defamatory material, we can redact that and have the rest visible. I've protected this for a couple of days, wrong version, not the version I agree with either, blah blah. Hopefully we can sort this out before protection expires. Perhaps a fuller discussion at ANI or BLPN would help. For now, BLP concern probably trumps other considerations.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Superseded how? If we're counting heads, about the same number of people have expressed an opinion in the Jimbo discussion as at AN. As one of those people, I don't think you get to decree whose opinion is better. I would say there is "clearly" no consensus here, which of course means we should retain the two-year stable version of this AfD, i.e. not blanked.
 * (, thanks for stepping in as a neutral party, but since we're all admins I'm not sure the protection changes much. The locus of this dispute is whether there actually is a BLP concern.) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, great. I just responded to the RFPP request and saw this dumpster fire. -- Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the original discussion mostly focused on "we really don't think this is libelous, so why blank it?" The later discussion was more "should we go ahead and blank it, because it might possibly affect reputations, even though the original request was phrased atrociously?" -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC):
 * That's one way of reading the phrase "oppose blanking", I suppose. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * is exactly correct. We don't punish real people because we dislike the Wikipedian who originally made a request. The debate is doing nothing now (the article is a redirect), there is no ongoing purpose to retaining its visibility, and someone out there appears to be upset. Guy (Help!) 05:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The greatest fiasco on Wikipedia
There are plenty of folks who have been around much longer than I have, but the administrative edit warring on this closed AFD, the jimbo-talk-tattle-fest, the garbage on AN and the self-immolation of MH that caused it has to be the biggest fiasco I've witnessed on wiki. Dlohcierekim calling this a "dumpster fire" is massively understating the dysfunction.

All of this and the contentious material is visible to the world in the AFD history. Holy smokes. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)