Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour

Should a section offering tips to hesitant editors appear on a MfD page?
I added a section titled, I want to contribute, but I am not sure how this works ..., subsequently deleted by Qwirkle, reverted back by Galobtter  and deleted again by Qwirkle.

Qwirkleand I communicated briefly via our talk pages. We disagree (amicably). I'm not looking for a fight or anything of the sort, I simply want to understand best practices. I believe strongly in the vision and mission of Wikilove, WikiProject Welcoming Committee, and WikiProject Editor Retention -- that's my motivation. My Wikiloveness doesn't make my addition right; I simply want y'all to know where I'm coming from. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  19:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To keep this all in one place hereAs I wrote on your talkpage, @Markworthen:, A hotbutton, over-crowded loonbait thread probably isn’t the best place to add a Wiki primer. A link to one in other content, maybe, just barely maybe. Qwirkle (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was writing on your talk page when you were writing on mine. ;o) // I would think that a controversial thread is one of the best places to help out new-to-intermediate editors who want to contribute something meaningful but hesitate because they want to "get it right" and fear being reprimanded given the high emotionality and frequent vitriol they see. I'll post something on the Talk page as I am interested in other editors' perspective. Again, I'm not looking for a fight or anything of the sort. I want to understand, and asking questions is the best way to do that. Thank you. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, obviously, but that’s what makes horseraces. The hotbutton threads are often canvased, as this one was, and often bring in folks on both sides of whatever issue who are only here as advocates and polemicists. They are also naturely very, very crowded. That said, @Markworthen:, I may be wrong on this, and your guide seems a useful intro. Why not write it up in userspace and link to it in a shorter message? That’ll cover your goals and my objections to how they were expressed, and leave you with something to add elsewhere, and to refine over time. It’s got the makings of a good essay in it. Qwirkle (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I just received a nice response from Qwirkle which includes a potential solution. Please see Qwirkle's Talk page. Thanks!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  19:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For comparison, AfD discussions have a Template:AFD help at the top of the page. -- Ununseti (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice. That is the ideal solution. Thanks Ununseti!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  19:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Closer's note
I closed this now because the discussion had sufficient input from diverse editors, and the arguments were already becoming cumulative and circular. Moreover, the benefit of a quicker close is that the bad will generated by editors arguing over a passionate topic can be minimized. No Wikipedia articles were involved in this controversy, meaning the controversy was tangential to our mission of creating a high-quality online encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 15:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for this analysis. I think we edit conflicted so I did not see it before closing, but I did the same type of analysis myself and your numbers reinforce my conclusion.  While only 32 were on record in favor of blanking, I understood that this outcome would be agreeable to many more editors, including those who felt that the article needed to be declared "unacceptable" through deletion. Though many wanted to delete, I do not think this opinion was widely enough held that the outcome could have been delete.   The leading options were no consensus, which defaults to keep, or the result I put. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I might levy a criticism – the lightest one you'll possibly receive as closer of a major discussion. Wikipedia is not a work environment, let alone is it a professional one. At best, Wikipedia is a hobby project that receives occasional input from subject experts, but it is otherwise run by monkeys on a typewriter producing a compendium of all significant knowledge someday. And all of this for no pay. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment was aggressively optimistic and aspirational. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... fair enough. Can't criticize that. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) Thanks for the closure. The outcome had been obvious for a while now but it's a shame that the community had to step in when The Signpost could have simply put owned up to its mistake and retracted the piece. I still hope that they'll retract the piece, but I'm not holding my breath given the multiple personal attacks from Signpost staff and their statements at ARBCOM. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there were three outcomes suggested - keeping because nothing wrong was done, blanking because something wrong was done but deleting is not the correct move, and deleting because something wrong was done and deleting is the correct move.
 * If we agree that something wrong was done, why have you put so much weight on the arguments of the minority (22 vs 57) who argue that blanking is the right move? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: To be super clear, this is an invitation to further elaborate on why you believed the arguments of those who preferred blanking to deleting were better, not just me being grumpy. I hope it wasn't just a 'golden mean' selection. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All the keep voters felt that the page should be kept, and not necessarily because they agreed with it, but because they felt discussion should be allowed, for example, in the name of free speech. There was no consensus to delete, so a delete outcome wasn't possible.  I used my keen sense of clue to recognize that Keep and Blank would be preferable to almost all of the Delete voters, over the option of Keep and Restore the Content.   In this way I generated an outcome that would maximize satisfaction among the community members.  Maybe it's not the first choice of most people, but it is at least the second choice or better for a great majority. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, the golden mean fallacy then. Drat. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's implied ranked voting. Imagine that each editor declared a first choice and a second choice.  While there was non consensus looking at first choice, there was a clear consensus when considering second choices. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Compromise is not consensus. You do not get to imagine what each editor would like second most. You have picked the position that the least editors supported, without even looking at the strength of the arguments they have put forth, and decided based on what you imagined would be the most in betweeny. Whatever this is, it's not a 'clear consensus'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a compromise, it's an outcome that satisfy anyone but the extremists. Many, if not most delete votes were made because they felt the piece was unacceptable to publish in the Signpost / Wikipedia. Many keep votes were made because, while they do not agree that the piece should have been published, it was published, and the page should be retained for historical reasons. Blanking satisfies the arguments of both those camps, save for the extremists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To add on to Headbomb's analysis, compromise CAN also be consensus, in this case because the compromise was made by Jehochman clealry reading each comment and weighing the arguments made, RATHER than your raw vote analysis, Peter. By putting aside the tally, and looking at the already written, expressed intent of the voters, Jehochman made a reasonable compromise that also met the requirements of consensus: he was able to come up with a result and a rationale that met the predominant concerns of BOTH the delete camp and the keep camp.  -- Jayron 32 16:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Blanking & Deleting, the same thing? GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They're close, but not the same thing no. Deleting means the page is no longer accessible to non-admins. Blanking means the old version is still available in the page history. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When a page is blanked, the content is still visible in the page history. If the page is deleted, the content is only visible to administrators. Some of the Keep !voters didn't want the page deleted because they thought it would be useful for discussion: this achieved that. Some of the Delete !voters wanted the page deleted because they didn't think it should appear that it was a community-held view: this fixes that too. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You exercised the wisdom of Solomon on that one; the voting was evenly enough split that any decision would piss off about 1/3rd of people. Taking the middle road (keep but blank) seems a reasonable compromise.-- Jayron 32 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * People often forget that Solomon did not, in fact, cut the baby in half. EEng 17:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As I correctly predicted, had those who were offended simply ignored the page, it would have had comparatively few readers (most people who get the signpost notifications don't bother reading the subpages), but by attempting to remove that which they found offensive, they triggered the Streisand effect and insured that before this is over tens of thousands of people (7800 so far) will have read the page. On the Internet, attempts at censorship almost always backfire, generate a ton of free publicity, and result in the material being reproduced on dozens of websites and in hundreds of online discussions. See AACS encryption key controversy for another example of attempted censorship having the opposite effect. --17:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Stupid Rosa Parks. Had she stayed at the back of the bus, and kept her mouth shut, none of those race riots would have happened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Stupid Lenny Bruce... EEng 17:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aw man, I'm sorry to hear SMcCandlish and Barbara got arrested and charged by the state like Lenny Bruce. Is there a link to a GoFundMe where we could help with their legal fees? Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean like Rosa Parks? EEng 18:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have made the Rosa Parks comparison either. :) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Somebody needs to learn the difference between "censorship" and "editorial judgement". Both authors wished it hadn't been published in Signpost. Time to move on. -- Colin°Talk 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely. People also need to learn the difference between "attacking and defaming minority groups" and a "tin ear for satire combined with some poor judgment as to how something will likely be received". <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to thank Fæ for bringing the article to the community's attention. I also want to push back against the notion that this process was a failure or that this has just given the article "free publicity". Personally, at least, I don't care how many people have read the article or not read it. But I would have cared if a hurtful, misguided, out-of-touch article that dealt with trans issues was just left to stand in a prominent part of Wikipedia without any pushback. As of now, the article has been retracted, one of the two authors has issued a thoughtful apology, we've had a good discussion about it, and, most importantly, everyone now knows just how loud and powerful our community's response to insensitivity and exclusion can be. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also a thank you to Barbara for your apology. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 4:05 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * I suspect that a similar result (good discussion, thoughtful apology) would have resulted just letting things unfold in the comments section of the piece itself. An MfD was not necessary in order to "bring the article to the community's attention"; it just created needless drama. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Woke versus Humor
And who's to say we weren't all being trolled by a 40-year-old guy with a doctorate in early renaissance poetry (whom some have called Titanic McGriddle)? – Athaenara ✉  21:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

And no, I don't mean the author of the piece, I mean those who initiated and carried out the hue and cry against him and anyone who could see the humor in it. – Athaenara ✉  21:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 21:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an awful lot of WP:ABF against the people who were ligitimately offended or hurt by the piece. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK


 * Folks, this MfD has been closed for several days now. The talk page for the MfD is not intended to be a forum for debating the Signpost piece or the issues it raises. There is a talk page for the Signpost page itself if that's your subject. If you have objections to how the MfD was closed, the appropriate forum is deletion review. --RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)