![]() | 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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)
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.
Kane 1371 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please delete this is not accurate 108.201.156.33 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | 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:
Thanks! 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
"... 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)
References
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)
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)
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)