This page is not a forum for general discussion about the December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about the December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions at the Reference desk.

Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This page is an attempt to define a narrative. It's propaganda, not information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwoodjw (talk • contribs) 00:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a historically significant event and the public deserves to know how one man tried to suppress freedom of press after lecturing everyone about free speech. Keep this page please. 23.93.99.188 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The European Union (EU) and the United Nations have condemmed the suspensions. The EU have threaten with sanctions if the suspensions are upheld.^[1]

Germany has condemmed the suspensions too.^[2] That made this an international case of free speech and freedom of press. And from my point of view that AfD Request is made because the CEO of Twitter has made the article publicly.

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption: Many of his fans want to defend there "star" blindlessly. Wikipedia is not a site for political discussion but a site for neutral information. A deletion of this page is unacceptible in this point of view. Gelbphoenix (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard disagree, delete this page, the latest Twitter suspensions are a drop in the bucket compared to the sheer volume of censorship suspensions that happened in the past. Keeping this page opens the door to making Wikipedia into a mere logfile, as other similar wiki pages will spring up to commemorate every other far larger mass suspension event in the past (pepe pfp bans, okgroomer bans, etc etc etc) Zaphraud (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It's relevant and important. Though I agree the title is a little weird I haven't really seen it referred to as Thursday night massacre. Ohlwiki (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The deletion requests appear to be either unsubstantiated, or vaguely substantiated, as though Musk should be able to define the rules for what is valid Wikipedia content. Grokitas (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is not an actual edit request? Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 22:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this page contributes to continued censorship. It effectively censors information about a key censorship event. The deletion of this page only benefits those who wish to repeat this kind of censorship in the future (aka Elon Musk). 2601:19B:C800:1260:32A7:5B55:FDF8:53AD (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC) There is no reason to have an entire article, the content here are perfectly usable as a part of the several other articles already written.[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kane 1371 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about information. If there are factual errors, they should be corrected. But, the fact that these things happened, have such a bearing on the conversation around Free Speech, the actions of a celebrity, and the effect on a very well known social media platform make these events very appropriate to document. 2605:59C8:B1:7F10:B984:5647:A810:70D1 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable that this is a page. Those people aren’t journalists and Twitter is a glorified high school. 90% of Americans don’t even know what this is 2601:240:CB03:5C60:D845:634F:87B4:AA27 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all adept at editing but managed to find this comment and entirely agree. If you do not delete this relatively ridiculous page, I feel my donations (however small they might have been) will have been ill advised. I do use the sight and find it somewhat useful. Although it seems to me to be somewhat left-leaning, it’s hardly surprising when so goes much of the tech world is. But even this article’s original title of “Thursday Night Massacre” is incredibly hyperbolic and misleading. This entire thread gives Wikipedia a black eye and allows the accusations of being part of the “MSM” some actual credibility. I’d think that was the last thing this it would want or need. As little as my single readership and small donations matter in the grand scheme, if this article is _not_ deleted, I’ll be personally more convinced of my creeping sense that this site is far more partisan than the open source nature of the platform might seem to indicate. I think it’s almost undeniable that those who tend to contribute here are more technologically savvy than most (perhaps myself excluded). Such people, perhaps until very recently seem to have a liberal bent. Please do the site a favour and do not drag the childish whining from twitter onto this platform. Elon Musk may not be perfect. But he us far more fair and less cemented to his opinions than anyone else with a fraction of his power and influence. I believe he is honest and that he is trying his best to tell the truth in an even handed manner. I implore this site (and Jimmy Wales) to do the same. Do not bend to the obvious attempt by immature and reactionary people to sway this site. I apologize if this came off as a rant; it was not my intent. Elon Musk is no right-wing reactionary. He’s a hard working intelligent person with good intentions…as I believe Mr Wales to be. I hope Wikipedia does what seems to me to be the right thing. I guess we’ll know soon enough. Thanks if you rob the time to read my reply. And I apologize if it should have been posted elsewhere on the site.

Peace Hellenback137 (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even know to edit my rather poorly worded comment or correct any typos. Any advice would be appreciated. Hellenback137 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{[ping|Hellenback137)) if you are on a computer you should find an option to do do in the top right corner of the post you replied to. If you are on a phone you might have to click a link at the bottom of the page that says "Read as wiki page" before you get that option. If neither of those helps, click "Community" on the main page and find the link to the Teahouse, which has a lot more experience than I do talking people through these problems. Also, if you answer me here I probably won't see it and I do not know if anyone else will answer Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for the unprotection of this page at WP:RFPP, but will reproduce my comment here.

I say here the same thing I say every time there is a big media circus AfD: I don't think having it protected is a good idea. Indeed, it avoids some work for clerking editors and closing admins (i.e. they are spared the effort of having to skip over a couple dozen silly !votes that don't cite policies or guidelines). However, this action carries a significant cost, namely that it is extremely powerful propaganda to the effect that we are indeed biased, or run by a cabal, or in the pocket of Big Reptilian, or just plain jackoffs.

When we AfD an article, we put a huge red notice at the top telling readers that we want them to offer their opinion at the AfD -- as we've wanted for almost twenty years. Is this not true? If it isn't, we need to change the template, and indeed, the entirety of the AfD process.

The message we send by holding a deletion discussion open to the public -- or by refusing to hold one -- will be received by untold hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of readers. Overall, the cost of alienating them seems like a rather steep price to pay for the privilege of avoiding a few dumb comments. jp×g 05:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was of the same opinion (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Twitter suspensions AfD, but after letting it run for a bit the only non-confirmed edits were disruptive. The issue isn't the silly !votes, it's the ones made in explicit bad faith, the PAs, the disruptive edits. At that point, there's nothing to gain from avoiding protection - it just becomes a timesink. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 06:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jpxg. This is the same reason we don't lock TFA. 2601:84:8A00:2DE5:C1E4:38F2:58B2:3583 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this is certainly an event that happened that may be worthy of a Wikipedia page, the way the wording is used clearly conveys a negative connotation and frames a narrative that isn’t helpful to discussion or the preservation of history. Further, if an article about the suspension of certain Twitter accounts is to be made, why not make articles about all other instances of Twitter accounts being removed and/or reinstated? There must be a clear line drawn and I’m not sure this is “newsworthy” or “historically significant” enough to warrant a page, let alone how poorly the page is written and pushes a narrative. 73.181.181.17 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly worth an entry in an encyclopedia, this two-day suspension of half a dozen journalists for defined violations, when thousands were banned or shadow-banned in the past for vague or arbitrary reasons. Why not describe this as an example on a more general page about bans on social media? 2600:4040:2CAA:F600:D385:C5A3:60B9:D187 (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont comment on the contrent because there’s lots of other pages I consider useless but the title of the page is completely unacceptable and is an insult to humans and humanity. I recommend changes the title to “2022 doxxing rule fiasco”. This would also allow for a broader page on the topic which might actually be a useful page some day 2607:FEA8:BE5F:ED90:B4DD:F780:C2F0:216F (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many agree that a better title is needed, but your suggestion is not very good either. We appear to have only used the word fiasco in a page title like this once, at Ferry fiasco, but even that is contested despite a solid WP:COMMONNAME argument. --Pokelova (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why so many IPs and new accounts are here speaking as though the article is still called by its original name when it's now the anodyne "December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions".

It really raises my credence in the idea that people are being directed here from off-wiki by some outdated post. CharredShorthand (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this is not accurate 108.201.156.33 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is semi-protected, making it impossible for this person to express it in the right place. jp×g 15:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few people got suspended off a social media platform. In no way a massacre. So insignificant might as well add a page that details my birthday. 2601:646:9701:8B90:F975:F8B:DDE5:AB78 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday!🎂 This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's early on still, but IMHO given the meta media coverage and apparent canvassing it would be wise to have three experienced closers summarize this already complex discussion. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Very much agree on this point. Is there any way to make this request for a panel close in an official way? Like an appropriate/specific admin board that we could post the request to? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. jp×g 02:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, someone should open a thread at WP:DFD. jp×g 05:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Done! See:

WP:Discussions for discussion#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions

WP:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions

Thanks for your help with that, JPxG. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to cast a !vote, but page protection is preventing me. I understand the reasons for this, but would grateful if someone could add the following for me:

Delete: On top of the remarks about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM above, it's been obvious that a faction of the political establishment in the US have been absolutely livid about the changes to twitter management since Musk took control and have been looking to cause him as much trouble as possible as a result. My view is that the independent existence of this article amounts to advocacy from that faction. Correspondingly, I would like to remind my fellow editors of WP:RGW. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CharredShorthand (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help, but as another user has seen fit to edit war my !vote from the page and is ignoring further discussion, I hope you are not offended if I set my query to not answered in the hope that a third party may aid me. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done casualdejekyll 18:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: the particular IP appears to have contribution history going back several years and cites policy; I see no particular evidence they were canvassed. If an IP editor is able to make an edit request which cites policy I think you have to have better rationale than "IP users should be ignored" or that they might be canvassed. CharredShorthand (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for all that I disagree with the !vote and rationale, no one has brought up WP:RGW on the page thus far, so it is even a novel perspective on the discussion. CharredShorthand (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Hemiauchenia directly if policy had changed and I needed an account. My query was reverted with the comment: IP users are second class citizens, better get used to it. How civil. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that another editor fulfilled the edit request and Hemiauchenia has reverted again with the same justification, having ignored this discussion. I restored it. If this continues it needs to go to a noticeboard. CharredShorthand (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the vote and the rationale, but you are right. This person is at least basing their vote on wikipedia policy and has made a perfectly civil edit request reflecting what appears to be their own thoughts, vs parroting someone else Elinruby (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Wikipedia? At what point did it become completely overrun by leftist activists? The insane pissing and moaning about Twitter has bled over to all areas of the internet, apparently. You guys need to get a grip. You still have your authoritarian control of Facebook, Instagram, Google and pretty much every other company from Silicon Valley. Maybe just take the loss and stop trying to control every narrative. 67.87.42.109 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia being biased was a given by now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: I don't think it is particularly helpful to joke around with stuff like this, especially when a lot of people are already upset about the discussion. jp×g 02:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@elonmusk: "... Wikipedia is controlled by the MSM journalists. Can’t trust that site anymore."^[1] Yes, hmmm. I wonder why people are coming here and getting upset. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a "Close Keep" purely as a matter of procedure. At this point, per documentation on closing, not only are "further contributions unlikely to be helpful" but the discussion is playing into divisiveness and thus becoming an issue in and of itself.

For the record, On the merits I suggested deleting.

Any issues with the article can be addressed over time when the issue is "less hot." Any changes, or the disposition of the article, can better be addressed on a pragmatic basis at a later date.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a "Sandstein close" of sorts - it's clear that this is a more heat than light situation. (Even though to me it's pretty clear what'll happen when we inevitably return to this in a few months...) casualdejekyll 18:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though on second thought, this discussion has more numerical consensus, irregardless of any actual consensus. casualdejekyll 18:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At odds with "editorial integrity" the imperative for "Eye-catching headlines for increased sales" (or perhaps even PR) complicates a subjective analysis of notability in AFD discussions. The two keywords in finding notability here would be "presumed" and "reliable" and a discussion on those points would be subjective. Not rushing to AFD or quickly closing AFD on procedural grounds might protect Wikipedia from the collateral damage from a profits driven imbroglio. (doing better is never a bad thing) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense to me. Per User:JPxG/Oracle/2022-12, the other one was closed "keep" per WP:SNOW at around 60%, and this currently has a "keep" percentage of around 30%. Sure, a lot of the comments (on both sides) are nonsense and will make no difference, but we cannot close something with 30% keep as "snow" keep. jp×g 09:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using "Find" as an estimating tool - There are 93 keeps and 99 deletes and 92 merge. The reason this AFD conforms more to standard (and did not snowball keep) is that the discussion was restricted to established users. What cost would be incurred if the article was created, allowed to run its course, and not immediately AFD'ed? None, no cost whatsoever with any concern solving itself over time. The idea though is to retain credibility by not getting pulled into a story, narrative, conflict with a single person looking for notoriety, or a mass-media engine trolling for revenue" examples;

https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musk-criticizes-wikipedia-over-calling-his-suspension-of-journalists-accounts-a-massacre_4931177.html

https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/elon-musk-wikipedia-thursday-massacre

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjk5j7/we-are-watching-elon-musk-and-his-fans-create-a-conspiracy-theory-about-wikipedia-in-real-time

https://www.foxnews.com/media/elon-musk-slams-wikipedia-considering-deletion-twitter-files-entry-non-trivial-left-wing-bias

Not feeding trolls - internally or externally. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The suspended accounts who said they were going to leave Twitter, willfully doxed real-time locations using private information against the terms of service of Twitter. Then wrote this to try and lie to change the narrative. 68.56.241.113 (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is entirely the wrong place to express an opinion about whether or not this article should be deleted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they supposed to do that? The AfD is protected. jp×g 15:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they could make edit requests, like one enterprising IP editor did. Admittedly sparking an edit war since someone felt that !vote ought not to be included, but... CharredShorthand (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, @Hemiauchenia, "This discussion is for established users only, as indicated by the semi-protection" completely misses the point of why it was semi-protected in the first place. But something something dead horses old dogs lying. casualdejekyll 21:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is about as interesting as the brand of TP I purchase. They were re-instated within 1-2 days, even though they clearly violated Terms of Service. Does every Twitter suspension now deserve its own Wikipedia article? Shemsea (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shemsea: ummm, ahem WP:NOTFORUM. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]