Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 1

User:Cla68 – No consensus, although it seems that the point is now moot due to the changing of the content in question. The only consensus here seems to be a WP:TROUT for User:Balloonman. – RunningOnBrains^(talk) 05:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There are so many reasons why this MfD should not have been closed early. I'll try to enumerate them as briefly as I can:

User:Balloonman is not neutral with respect to this topic, he could reasonably be considered involved by looking at his extensive comments on the topic at Jimbo's talk page (which is the initial discussion that sparked this whole event) and ANI. He has an opinion on this topic and it is reasonable to ask whether he is expressing his opinion by shutting down the discussion.
The reason given for the early close was forum shopping, presumably because there is currently an RfC active on the topic of updating a guideline to clarify that advertisements on user pages are not permitted. The RfC is not specifically about Cla68's user page, even though Cla68's user page is what inspired it. The RfC is about updating the wording of a guideline (WP:UP) to match a policy, the MfD is about deciding whether the content on Cla68's user page is in violation of that policy (WP:SOAP). These are two different discussions, and there is no problem with having them simultaneously. The result of the RfC does not have a direct effect on Cla68's user page. The primary policy it is purported to violate is WP:SOAP, not WP:UP which is only a guideline.
Balloonman refers to the fact that previous discussions on the topic of Cla68's user page ad have resulted in no consensus. The ANI discussions were shut down with a suggestion to continue the conversation elsewhere. This is what we've done, but now this discussion has also been shut down early. How are we expected to ever find a consensus one way or the other if we can't have a discussion last more than a few days before being shut down?
Balloonman refers to the fact that there is clearly a lack of consensus in the current discussion at the MfD. Given the lack of consensus, why would the MfD be closed as "speedy keep" as opposed to "no consensus"? And why would the discussion be closed at all? What part of WP:SK encourages us to close discussions early if there is no consensus?

Closing down this discussion early without a thoughtful closing summary by an uninvolved admin is a slap in the face to the dozens of editors who took time out to contribute to it. It sends the message that their time was wasted and their input was not valued or considered by anyone. I respectfully ask that this discussion be quickly reopened, not closed until it has been open for a full 7 days, and closed by an uninvolved admin who provides a neutral summary of the discussion. If that is not possible, then I think the MfD should be relisted. ‑Scottywong | express _ 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Yes, we should smack Cla for the breaching experiment, but we don't need to re-open this particular iteration of this broader policy debate. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While Scottywong makes valid points, I think reopening or relisting the DRV would be needless drama. The matter was clearly not going to result in a deletion, and Scottywong and others of his opinion, I think will have ample opportunity to express their opinions before all this is done. The forum isn't that important.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Pointy MfD for a pointy post on a user page - but there's not going to be a consensus to delete Cla's user page. (note: I opposed the MfD for whatever that disclosure is worth). — Ched : ? 21:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen/Relist though there's no chance it will happen. The discussion probably would've been judged as no consensus at best based on numbers alone...though I don't see an argument based on policy to keep the advert. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stand by my decision I stand by my decision. This is a clear case of Forum Shopping. First, it goes to ANI where there is clearly not going to be a resolution and views support Cla's actions. Then a discussion gets opened at Jimbo's page, where again it is clear that no consensus existed to do anything. Then an RfC gets started. When the RfC got started, that should have been the culmination of activity. Let the broader community get involved---which is what an RfC is for. But RfC seems to be going in favor of modifying the COI policy and (dare I say) to possibility of paid editing. So three forums down. Let's try MfD. Again, another forum where we can have the debate and try to reach a conclusion that wasn't going to materialize on any of the previous pages. The fact that this is clearly going no where and is nothing but a feeder discussion from the previous three (or 4 if you include a second ANI report) is the sheer size of this MFD. 63K bytes in a matter of days---a clear plurality (if not majority) which argue to keep the page. 63K when normally there are just a handful of editors who chime in on MFD's? It is clear that the people participating in the MFD are the same as the ones whom have chimed in everywhere else to no avail. The people who were commenting there are going to be the same one's coming here, and the DRV is going to be yet another battle ground over an issue which has no clear consensus. With an active RfC that was started 22 hours before the MFD, Let the RfC do it's job---and let's not let people start multiple forum shopping campaigns.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put notices on the MFD talk page and Cla's talk page that the MFD closure was at DRV---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, with how obvious it is that this MfD will not result in anything significant, I guess my question has to be: why is there such a rush to close it? Additionally, we have admins who are divided on whether or not the user page violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. So, my next question would be: where is the proper place to discuss whether the top of Cla68's user page should be forcibly deleted? ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the issue is clear forum shopping and we keep issues open for way too long around here when real people are involved. This project has become heartless in that it forces issues to stay open due to procedure when they should be closed earlier. Take the RfC on Fae as an example. There was no reason to keep that RfC open for 30 full days, but people insisted on it and refused to close it despite the fact that it had turned away from being an RfC on Fae and turned into a baiting match between a few people relative to Wikipedia Review. Yet we kept it open not cognizant of the fact that there is a person on the other end. This MfD is another case where we're keeping issues that are better off put to bed alive. We don't need to have multiple places where we are discussing the same issues with the same voices.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that any real people are being hurt by letting this MfD run for 7 days, but whatever. What about my second question? ‑Scottywong | chat _ 01:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, pick a forum. Any one of the four places where this was brought up COULD have resulted in the page being delete or sanctions being brought against Cla... but in none of them was there anything close to resembling consensus. The reason behind Forum Shopping is that there might be multiple pages which could be reasonably be used to obtain a response. Forum Shopping is intended to prevent people from wantonly going from forum to forum seeking a favorabel response. This MfD is exactly what Forum Shopping is intended to prevent---people going from page to page seeking a consensus when they failed to get one on a previous page.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there was no single person (or coordinated group of people) that was going around from forum to forum seeking a favorable response. There was Jimbo's page, which is clearly not a place where binding decisions are made. There was ANI, which was shut down with the recommendation to discuss elsewhere. Then, there was the MfD which is the next logical place. The RfC is a lateral discussion. Even if the RfC were wildly successful, it still wouldn't mean that we would be able to remove the advertisement from Cla68's user page without discussion somewhere. The only reason I started the RfC was to clarify the guideline, that's it. The RfC is not a discussion about Cla68's user page. So, I ask again: Multiple admins are divided on whether Cla68's user page is a violation of policy, therefore acting unilaterally to change Cla68's user page would likely result in wheel warring. Please tell me a specific place where we are supposed to discuss the specific issue of Cla68's user page, where you or anyone else won't shut down the discussion right in the middle of it. And please make sure that the place you recommend is sufficiently public so that any consensus obtained there won't be invalidated by not being publicized widely enough. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 02:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. When there have already been 3 discussions on the subject---and no consensus exists---and an RfC on the subject has begun... then you don't start a fourth discussion. Let the RfC run its course. Four plus discussion on 4+ pages on the same subject hoping to get different views is ridiculous---and the epitome of Forum Shopping/Disruption.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is not specifically about Cla68's user page. I'm going to stop discussing this because the level of WP:IDHT is getting unbearable. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen/Relist This MFD was created by me as a response to a discussion on Jimbo's talkpage. That of course was an inappropriate place to discuss the deletion of a few lines of another user's page. As the user refused to allow the removal of an advertisement from their userpage, an MFD is the appropriate process to have a community discussion about removing that portion of the page - NOT just the entire userpage. Indeed, when submitted, I was 100% unaware of the RFC, however, it is obvious that the RFC is general whereas the MFD was specific to this individual situation. It was therefore valid, and per SOP's. The RFC was generating significant comments from the Wikipedia community, and there was neither a consensus nor WP:SNOW keep at the time of closing - indeed, it was still receiving comments. The close - by ANY administrator - was therefore 100% invalid, and must be reversed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add: relist is likely the better option: this close has prejudiced any opportunity for proper further discussion of the current listing. And, as many !voters mistakenly misunderstood that MFD can be used to request removal of a portion, the MFD should be re-listed and allowed to run its minimum timeframe (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reluctantly. Balloonman should not have closed it himself, he should not have closed it prematurely and I'm not at all sure that a claim of forum shopping is a proper rationale for prematurely closing a well-used MfD. However, we are where we are, and I can see no point in reopening the MfD given that it would be very unlikely to come to a different result (whether "keep" or "no consensus", which amounts to the same thing). I think we have to act pragmatically here. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. DRV's task is to see that the deletion process is properly followed. It is beyond dispute that it has not been properly followed, both because of the early close and because of the closer's substantive involvement in other discussions related to this very page. T. Canens (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. T. Canens has got it in one. There was no benefit to the encyclopaedia in terminating the debate early and preventing good faith users from having an input. Indeed the out-of-process early close has done what out-of-process early closes always do in controversial situations: it's created even more drama. The closer showed extremely poor judgment.
(Edited to add:) DRV regulars will know that I've been commenting here for many years. This is the first time I have ever felt the need to say "The closer showed extremely poor judgment". It's not something I would do lightly.(/Edit)
Also, I want to be 100% clear that it is quite unacceptable for the inevitable lack of consensus here to lead to an "endorse by default" outcome. That would lead to a first-mover advantage for a deleter who closes down debate in controversial situations, which is entirely contrary to this page's purpose. The rule at DRV is: "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." I very strongly exhort the closer of this DRV to consider that rule carefully and apply it with more discretion and good judgment than has so far been shown.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse and keep Per Ched and MBisanz. This DRV is pointy and largely directed against Bman. This is not the place for that.PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT sure does get thrown around a lot lately by people who apparently don't understand what it means. If this DRV is pointy, that means two things: first, that it is disruptive, and second, that there is a point I'm indirectly trying to prove by starting the DRV. Neither of those are true in this case. If I wanted to be pointy about this situation, I would put a blatant advertisement on my user page and wait for everyone to start discussing it on ANI. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 23:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If ANI can't get rid of it try Jimbo. If that does not do it try an RfC. If that does not do it try a MFD, if that does not do it try a DRV - I am sure there are a few options left - maybe the BlP noticeboard or black vans. Anyway the closure of the MfD does not preclude the ultimate deletion of the offending material after the RfC has finished its course. If that does not come to any conclution an MfD is doomed anyway. If you know the RfC will go against the deletion of the material then trying to get it forced through on a smaller audience is WP:POINTY. Agathoclea (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and Keep I'm going to use the nominator's own words here to explain why this early close was the best option.

"Closing down this discussion early without a thoughtful closing summary by an uninvolved admin is a slap in the face to the dozens of editors who took time out to contribute to it. It sends the message that their time was wasted and their input was not valued or considered by anyone."

We already have a discussion on this issue at Jimbo's page and the RfC started by Scottywong's (the DRV initator here, surprisingly). What would truly be a waste of time and input is having the same debates over and over on many pages, rather than focusing the debate into one forum dedicated to getting an overall consensus on the issue. As I said in another page, if the point of the RfC is to clarify policy, and it decides that content like Cla68's is OK, then the MfD was essentially a waste of time because you would end up having discussed and discussed just to have another group decide differently. Dozens of editors have weighed in with their own variants of what they feel is and is not acceptable, and the last thing we need is to have the debate spread all over just so different people can end up coming to different conclusion. We need a single, clear, unambiguous consensus that the community can endorse rather than competing forums. The MfD nominator knew the other discussions were ongoing and brashly decided that he needed to speed up the consensus process saying "somebody had to have the balls" to nominate it for deletion. Personally I could give a crap which way this debate goes. I don't have a dog in this fight and I personally think its a lot of fuss over not much. BUT, I realize it is important to have a clear decision in a way that gives all the parties a chance to weigh in and come to a reasonable conclusion. That won't happen if people split up the debate. If your own RfC is insufficient to the task of coming to a resolution on the WP:SOAP policy, I would also suggest you close it and move the debate to a proper forum ASAP. Some have also said this is an "obvious" violation of WP:SOAP, but my reply to that is that if it so obvious, why has it generated so much debate? In the end, our goal here should be that we have a clear recognition of what is and isn't proper content, even if that means we use WP:IAR to allow or disallow some things. Having one discussion in one place with a clear goal and a clear resolution will give any admin a clear POLICY foundation to go to Cla68's page to either protect or delete. At this point in time, I don't see that clarity existing. -- Avanu (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Agathoclea and Balloonman. C'mon now. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Partially because the ed. has removed the most offensive portion--the price quotation of $1000 for writing a featured article. But MfD can in practice be used to remove content from a page: people can say quite clearly, that unless you remove the content, the page will be deleted. We've done this a number of time with other offensive content. But there are already enough discussions already in progress--this p. may have been the incentive for inducing people to realize the nature of the problem, but it's not the place to resolve it. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The silliness continues. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, the close deviated substantially from established process. I find merit in all four of Scottywong's numbered points. I am not at all convinced by Balloonman's invocation of WP:FORUMSHOP: this MfD and the RfC overlap, but their scopes are distinct. If the MfD had been closed very early – nipped in the bud, before "63K bytes" of discussion accumulated in three days – or if there were consensus that it was forum shopping, I would consider that rationale more favorably. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is simply knowing it was under discussion. ScottyWong started his RfC at 20:06, 26 April 2012, and over a day later, Bwilkins posted a note on Jimbo's page two minutes after he started the MfD, the comment being "Somebody had to have the balls - I have nominated his userpage for deletion". This went unnoticed in all the discussion for a couple days until Carrite posted a comment of simply "WP:POINT", at which point *I* realized what Bwilkins had done and went to close it, having been participating in the RfC and wondering why in the world Bwilkins was doing this. I believe you might find substantial overlap of comments and even editors in the two debates, and so the question I again ask is simply 'why?' This is best resolved in one place, not multiples. I'm puzzled that ScottyWong is interested in re-opening this considering that it is his RfC that was started first. I could guess that maybe since Bwilkins and ScottyWong seem to share a similar viewpoint, they are more likely to support each other's chosen approach to removing the stuff from Cla68's page.

To quote FORUMSHOP: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful. It doesn't help to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) I believe many editors would say we are essentially raising the same issue, which is "Do we let editors have any sort of self-promotion on their user page?" Our Consensus policy (where FORUMSHOP lives also, btw) says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Since the RfC deals with the 'wider scale', it would be a waste of time for the MfD to discuss and eliminate the content, only to have the RfC to come out with a policy change that favors Cla68 and re-instates it. I'm puzzled by the reactions, because I'm fairly certain we all understand that this is how it works, unless we appeal to WP:IAR. Let's get together on this, let's have one big debate, and let's get it settled as a community. -- Avanu (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins has already said in this discussion, "Indeed, when submitted, I was 100% unaware of the RFC." Do you have evidence to dispute that? --Onorem ♠Dil 07:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot present evidence of what was in Bwilkins' head. However, I can look at his contribution history on this matter.

17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC), AN/I started by Orange Mike on Cla68
19:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC), Orange Mike starts a thread on Jimbo's page
12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC), AN/I closed by Wehwalt

No consensus for any administrative action, and that's really why this page is here. Undoubtedly much to say about paid editing and feel free to say it! Someplace else.

18:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC), second AN/I by The Red Pen of Doom on Cla68
18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC), second AN/I closed by Jayron32

The greater policy question can be handled at another venue (let me suggest WP:VPP) however there was not any consensus for administrator action during the last discussion Red Pen participated in; in a few hours that is unlikely to change. Let me suggest moving the discussion over the policy issue to the more appropriate venue. (my bold)

In the text of that debate 28bytes wrote "If you think his userpage – or a particular part of it – should be deleted, you'll need to nominate it at MfD., he also mentions that the Cla68 User page has been protected by an admin.

20:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC), RfC started by ScottyWong
20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC), ScottyWong notifies the thread on Jimbo's page of his RfC
11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC), first Bwilkins comment on closed AN/I discussion
19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC), second Bwilkins comment on same closed AN/I discussion
22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC), MfD started by Bwilkins
22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC), Bwilkins notified the thread on Jimbo's page of his MfD

From the time Orange Mike started the first An/I, Bwilkins had posted 5 times on the AN/I board on other topics. After the RfC began, until he started his MfD, he posted 3 more times, 2 of those on the topic relating to Cla68. However, almost immediately after he posted his MfD (2 minutes), he tells the thread on Jimbo's page "Somebody had to have the balls" and notifies them about his MfD.

Could he have missed ScottyWong's mention of the RfC? Most certainly. At that point there were at LEAST 4 separate discussions going on about the User Page of Cla68. Bwilkins was reading and posting to the AN/I (8 times), and he almost immediately posted at Jimbo's page after his MfD, so he knew about that also.

BUT, lets assume good faith first. We had at least FOUR separate threads, all discussing essentially the same thing. And let's assume Bwilkins missed the RfC because of that. Doesn't that show that the idea of consolidating all these discussions has merit? -- Avanu (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Consolidating the discussions might have had merit...but it doesn't justify your accusation. You said he knew. You said that you figured out what he'd done and moved to stop it. I don't care what the time frame was. Seems both AN/I discussions concluded with a 'go away and talk about this somewhere else' result. Jimbo's talk page is nice for debate, but is not at all the place for decisions to be made. If you want to justify the close based on forum shopping, you should probably be prepared to give better evidence than you have above. --Onorem ♠Dil 08:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of this sentence do you find to be in error? "The MfD nominator knew the other discussions were ongoing and brashly decided that he needed to speed up the consensus process saying 'somebody had to have the balls' to nominate it for deletion." -- Avanu (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he didn't know other discussions had taken place. I said I'm AGF that he didn't know about the MfD in progress. You figured him out though...and called him on it. Good for you. /golfclap. I'm unwatching every page related to this bullshit. I'll be watching for the RfC on the policy page to start since the one on the guideline page isn't doing anything worthwhile. --Onorem ♠Dil 08:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read what I wrote. "let's assume Bwilkins missed the RfC because of " all 4 threads. The point is that there's too many threads already, why revive one more? Like I said, maybe he just got excited and started another thread. It wasn't intentional. OK, so that's fine. I don't see why we have to get so upset. This isn't really that big a deal except I'm just trying to avoid having things go off track any more than they already have. I really have no animosity at all for Bwilkins and I think he is trying to do the right thing too. It isn't personal. -- Avanu (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avanu, when you attempted to close the MfD after two days, 56 users had made 124 edits, none of which were attempted closings. By Balloonman's close, the numbers had increased to 79 users and 186 edits. There were complaints about the perceived misuse of MfD, but that is a large number of users who were aware of the MfD and participated normally. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist Where do I even begin? The MfD was closed prematurely by someone involved in the discussion based on a rationale not found in the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Relist). As per Tim. Forumshop is not a WP:SK criterion. Administrative shortcuts attempting drama reduction are counter-productive. (it's not going to be deleted, but seven days debate per nomination is what we do). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, what do you call seven days of divisive debate when you know the page won't be deleted? Unproductive?
- There is no cardinal law that a page nominated for deletion needs to be run through a seven-day process, particularly in this case where the issue was receiving (and continues to receive) plenty of attention elsewhere. Whether or not this meets the exact definition of WP:FORUMSHOP or any other page isn't really relevant; what's relevant is that this was a failed attempt to force the community's hand through a bad deletion nomination. Why you feel that it needs a second round is beyond me. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many unproductive MfDs. We don't speedy close for unproductiveness.

MfD debates are rarely divisive. This is because they are contrained to a defined question.

We frequently tell people at MfD that MfD is not for policy debates. Making that point clearly, and having it agreed to in the tail end of discussions, is very effective in halting scope creep.

The debate might have been early closed as "Wrong forum", with a pointer to where the real debate is or should be. It would have been a strech I think, but possibly acceptable if done by an UNINVOLVED admin and MfD regular. It could have been a stretch of a WP:SNOW close, citing the limitations of MfD on policy matters. However, it is not OK that a high profile, involved, non-regular at MfD jumps in to shut down a process against the process rules.

If there is no serious continuing argument that the page should yet be deleted (I think not), then maybe I should be calling for a "Slap the closer", instead of "Overturn", as long as it is clear that this sort of close is not welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist Tim is exactly right. And further, I agree with SmokeyJoe that shortcuts like this almost always make things worse, not better (I've got a similar quote from him on my user page). Hobit (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that quote points to an interresting case. The second AFD someone posted a "strong delete" comment and then later noted that the article should not have been renominated as quickly. Agathoclea (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit: Err, aren't you creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? The reason that early closures fail is that people like you come out and vote to overturn and relist, right? Then you point and say "see! these early closures are always a bad idea!" That seems rather silly.
- A lot of people in this discussion point to the arbitrary seven-day discussion period or other arcane and esoteric rules/policies/guidelines/procedures. But that completely misses the point. At some point common sense and pragmatism should prevail, surely? It's a matter of looking at the merits of the deletion nomination and the discussion closure and figuring out whether either was improper. In this case, the deletion nomination was a very poor idea. (Do you disagree?) Closing the deletion discussion was then a Good Thing. What's the issue here? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, closing the MfD was the self-fulfulling prophecy. By closing the MfD, you render all of the discussion useless, and then you point at it and say "look how useless all that discussion was, good thing we closed it early!" Even if you believe it wouldn't result in anything, I still don't understand the rush to silence the discussion. What/who would have been harmed by allowing it to run a few more days? The MfD would not have been useless if it had been closed by an uninvolved admin who could have summarized the discussion, and recorded the current state of the consensus (or lack thereof) at the top of the page. Instead, we have an overly bolded sloppy mess of a closing statement from someone who is decidedly not neutral, which does not summarize or even resemble any of the discussion contained within. The discussion was absolutely productive up until the point that Balloonman touched it. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (To MZMcBride) Yes, to some extent that's right. At the same time if DRV supports admins closing down discussions out-of-process, we are going to get a lot more out-of-process actions. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. And I think the right place is to follow process unless IAR clearly applies (the vast majority agree not following process help). That's not the case here. Also, having a fair and open discussion without shutting it down early tends to make those that "lose" feel better. They may have lost, but they had a fair shot. And fairness ("FairProcess" if you will) is important in a place like this. Hobit (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That most of the DRV regulars I recognize – Timotheus Canens, S Marshall, SmokeyJoe (though he softened to Trout), Hobit, and I; but not DGG – support overturning should indicate that the breach of process was severe. If I remember correctly, this level of agreement is pretty uncommon. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's apparent that this behavior of closing down discussions early (after tons of people have already participated in the discussion) is becoming quite popular. In my opinion, this needs to be nipped in the bud. Do we need a policy/guideline/essay which strongly encourages us to avoid closing discussions which already have a defined end date, and which already have a certain level of participation? This type of behavior does not solve any problem, and only serves to generate drama. (Case in point: ↑↑↑.) ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 18:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Firstly, this was not a case of forum shopping. The RfC was about the practice of userspace advertising in general, the MfD was a community discussion on what to do about one particular incidence of it. That's not forum shopping, that's having the proper conversation in the proper forum. RfC is for deciding on general policies and principles, MfD is one avenue of enforcing them in specific cases. Secondly, it is correct that Balloonman was not neutral or uninvolved. While he did not comment on the MfD, he certainly has commented on the issue. I would certainly not close an AfD if I had previously expressed an opinion that it should be kept or deleted, even if that comment was outside the AfD. That gives a clear appearance of conflict of interest. Thirdly, to close a discussion early due to a lack of consensus is exactly counter to what we should do in such a case—if we haven't reached a consensus, that means we have more talking to do! I see some fortune tellers here stating that a consensus never would have been reached, but I've certainly seen discussions that were originally at a tipping point swing decisively one way or the other. That's why we have the discussions in the first place, and that's why we don't shut them down rather than hashing out our differences. This issue isn't going to just go away, and we need a better decision on how to deal with it than "No consensus and shut up about it." But in closing, I'll note that DRV is ultimately to decide if a closing followed process. Neither a lack of consensus, nor a suspicion of the nominator's motives when many others agree with the nomination, is a speedy keep criterion, and it is well established that the closer of a contentious discussion should not only refrain from participation in the discussion, but be uninvolved in the underlying issue as well. The fact that people are endorsing an out of process close by an involved administrator, just because they liked the outcome, rather saddens me to see. We didn't used to do things like that, and we certainly used to not tolerate them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The fact that an open editing community based on consensus could bring Yasser Arafat to Feature Article status had always been my beacon of hope for Wikipedia. After this whole debacle, I am no longer sure. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist It is categorically unacceptable to have an involved editor to close a contentious discussion. In this case, the discussion was largely between keep !votes, who argued there was no consensus per the RfC, and remove/delete !votes, who argued regardless of the legitimacy of the service, advertising is prohibited. For an editor to prematurely close adopting one of these perspectives without consensus is highly problematic. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist. Closing a contentious discussion early is a bad idea. Having an involvd editor doing so is also a bad idea. The combination is a really, really bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per WP:INVOLVED. Prematurely closing an MfD is not the prerogative of an involved editor. Discussions are important not only to determine consensus but also to allow the community to have a voice. Relisting would allow a greater portion of the community to weigh in on an important issue. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 11:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The RfC is the more appropriate forum for discussing and attempting to achieve consensus on statements like this on a user page, not an MfD of a user page for an active user in good standing. Rlendog (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The wording on Cla68's user page has changed to a much more neutral disclosure that is less focused on advertisement. It's my opinion that, if this change isn't reverted (and it hasn't been for a few days), then a new MfD on his user page becomes unnecessary. It's not my intention to withdraw this DRV, because I think it is important to get a ruling on whether this type of closure is inappropriate. However, should the DRV close with a result to relist the MfD, at this point it would probably be more practical to close it instead as something like "no prejudice against speedy renominating", i.e. without an automatic relist. Since the offending material has been more or less neutralized, an MfD on the page would no longer be relevant, in my opinion. Others may not share that opinion, however, and that is their right. ‑Scottywong| express _ 22:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- i second Scottywong's opinion. I know that with the wording as it now exists on the talk page my previous analysis would need to be reviewed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This DRV and any subsequent MfD is no longer necessary, as the content on the user page has changed. Silver seren^C 04:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, just because the content has now changed doesn't mean the close was appropriate at the time. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 06:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no point in relisting it, because the content the AfD was directed at is now gone. Silver seren^C 07:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ad still contains promotion for the "service" and contact info, and is still inappropriate. For the record, I still support a relist given such. A disclosure should consist of "I edit at times for pay," the details of exactly which articles the editor has been paid to edit, and nothing more. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy, Seraphimblade? WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. So please point to a specific policy statement or invoke Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules and explain why. -- Avanu (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not promotion at all and doesn't fall under advertisement. So what policy is actually being violated here? Silver seren^C 23:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is advertising—"Contact me at FOO for BAR service" is an ad regardless of price info. And Wikipedia is not for advertising is policy as long as I can recall. There's a tremendous difference between a disclosure and an ad, and a disclosure doesn't even give a hint of solicitation. This is well past a hint, it's advertising, and so it's not acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summation of that section title, but I should have been more clear in my request. Can you specifically cite a sentence in the policy that applies to this situation? Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sure can! The sentence that makes it clear that it applies to the page in question: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (emphasis added) This being the case, the following sentence is clearly intended to promote the value of the author's services: "For additional qualifications, please review the rest of this editor's user page." The following sentence then indicates how to book such services: "You may contact this editor via email (click here)." (links excluded) That is clearly a promotion of and advertisement for the user's services, and advertising is prohibited. Can you please indicate if you still disagree, and if so how? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that, only one problem, that is the summation of the policy, and not really the specifics of the policy text. It serves to sum up the content of the entire WP:SOAP into one paragraph, but doesn't specifically address the particulars of the actual policy. You might just continue down a few sentences where you found that and you'll see the bit I've been pointing toward since my first question of you. -- Avanu (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that WP:SOAP generally is not applicable when the issue is project related. The issue is outside policy as currently written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per T. Canens comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:BURO; trout Balloonman for closing while involved. The statement's gone, people. There's nothing to see here. Even if it was still there, the MfD was obviously headed for a no-consensus anyway. --N Y Kevin @153, i.e. 02:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to WP:NPASR The close was a procedural close, and procedural closes are normally WP:NPASR. Unscintillating (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - The MfD early close deviated from process substantially and disenfranchised those editors who held a view different than the early closer. Discussions are one of our most important tools and the predetermined terms of consensus discussions are intertwined with our most important policies. The process needs to be completed to term to continue the sense of fairness that we've worked hard to establish. And this is especially true for very controversially issues. The close should be overturned and the MfD relisted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per "shit nobody cares about". Highly unlikely to result in a deletion, so WP:BURO as well. Time to move on. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not relist while the early closure was out of process and actively unhelpful the appropriate action at this point is a trout and not a relist for a discussion that is arguably misplaced and certainly superseded by new developments. The moral is that it is usually better to let disputed discussions run their course, even if they are misplaced and strictly unnecessary because a early closure will just shift the dispute to DRV which is hardly the desired outcome. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist premature closure by involved editor. Mo ainm~Talk 11:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.