Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 12 August 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Broken template

Could someone take a look at this {{Editprotected}} request, please: Template talk:Singles#hAudio microformat, to fix a broken and highly-visible template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted to last known good version without microformats that seemingly don't have consensus to be added wiki-wide. –xeno 13:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained to you, Misplaced Pages already emits millions of microformats added by consensus over the last three or so years, buy a number of editors. They are already widely parsed by external partners, not least Google and Yahoo!. Your crusade to stop their further deployment is counter-productive. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It "emits millions of microformats" because a relatively small number of editors (that number may even be as low as one) have been going around to every template adding them (crusade- indeed!). Please show us where community consensus for these microformats that unnecessarily complicate our markup and provide no tangible benefit to our readers was originally established. –xeno 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't show you "where community consensus for these microformats that unnecessarily complicate our markup and provide no tangible benefit to our readers was originally established" because the benefits are clear and tangible. The number is not small (and if it were, so what?) and is certainly not one. Why stoop to such fallacious insinuation? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please initiate a community-wide discussion on microformats. It appears none has ever been conducted. If and when consensus is established for microformats, you will no longer see me object to this piecemeal implementation of an unproven concept that provides no tangible benefit to the average reader and adds complicated markup to already complicated templates. –xeno 14:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have no objections. That one person (xeno) objects does not mean that that a de facto consensus has been arrived at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.88.47 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That rather mistates what xeno is saying. What he's said is not that there is a consensus not to use microformts, but that no consensus has been arrived at to use them. From what I can see, Andy says there's a consensus – or alternately, that a consensus is not needed since the benefits of using microformats is inuitively obvious, and thus does not require a consensus – but has not been able to actually point to where that consensus is to be found. Since I don't understand the subject in any way shape or form, I cannot judge whether microformats are the best thing since sliced bread or a boondoggle, but xeno's suggestion of a community-wide discussion on the subject certainly seems like an excellent idea, since it would eliminate this kind of conflict and let everyone get on with their businesss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then - this being a wiki and all - he's at liberty (as indeed are you or anyone else) to start one. Or rather start another one; having failed to achieve his aims the last time. What I'm actually saying, BTW, is that I obtained consensus to start applying microformats some years ago; and the fact that we now emit millions, applied by many editors, is evidence of continuing and de facto consensus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to prove your claim that you obtained consensus years ago. You pointed us to a discussion among 3 or 4 microformat enthusiasts, but didn't show us where the community-at-large agreed to embrace this unproven concept. I could start an RFC on Microformats, but you still haven't shown me any way that they will enrich my life - so it would be fairly negatively biased. I think it's best if you started it. Are you worried that they will be rejected? –xeno 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've these allegations previously. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? You continue to refer to "previous discussions" but do not provide links to these. –xeno 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC on microformats

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno 13:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Offwiki Legal Threat

It's here: and . He attacks several editors by name due to the fact that two articles were deleted (incredibly, though, I am not one of the editors he attacked despite the fact that I was the one who AFD-nominated both of those articles!) Is this anything to be worried about? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

no why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's threatening to sue Misplaced Pages, after all... Stonemason89 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If he sues, the Foundation will deal with it. Non-lawyer opinion: there's no case there at all, so no worries. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this AFD, the user has socked, posted legal threats here, been blocked. What they say in cyberspace isn't of our concern, they can do whatever they want there, if they come back here and throw around more legal threats, then we take action, until then, there isn't anything admins can do about offline threats. At present, all accounts are blocked, so they have done all they can. A note: I have no dog in this pony show, just commenting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this kind of thread about off-wiki stuff once in a while and they always confuse me. Why do people assume that Misplaced Pages has any control over anything offsite? Jtrainor (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we do :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban of Jessica Liao

I have recognized what I consider to be the existing community ban on Jessica Liao (talk · contribs · block log) which was imposed by general consensus after a long history of sockpuppeting and abuse of email. She has historically been subject to Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition, but very little has been accomplished by denying her recognition as a persistent troublesome user who after a great deal of effort has never been able to edit productively. As is customary, should any administrator feel she should not be banned they may unblock her. I pray for the day she may be able to return and edit productively. Fred Talk 11:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection to the indef block. However, I don't think a "community ban" can logically be imposed unilaterally. You've blocked, and asked for review. If the review endorses you, and/or if no one unblocks then it becomes (in effect) a community ban. Pedantically,--Scott Mac 11:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a community ban until there is consensus, right? Well, if this produces nothing else, at least it'll stop the endless questions on Y!A about when she'll be banned. sonia♫ 11:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, she will change her tune and endlessly ask how she can get off the banned list, or whatever. Jessica stopping is not an achievable goal. But if she wants to be banned, and she is defacto already banned, why not simply say so. Why are WE playing games? Fred Talk 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred, it's bloody obvious that she has some serious, serious issues regarding basic comprehension skills, social skills, and general comptence. I am boggled by what Roger said below about her interpreting WP:OFFER as "use only one account until the 6-month-window is up" than "use no accounts and stay far away from Misplaced Pages until the 6-month-window is up". I'd also invite you (as well as the others here in this discussion) to please read Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao/Archive and judge who is the one playing games. –MuZemike 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainty endorse a ban of this editor per the evidence of long term socking at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao/Archive. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree; although I already consider this user de facto banned, I'd support a formal ban. Salvio 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I always thought she was formally banned. Obviously incapable of playing by the rules around here, and an annoyance at best. I endorse a ban on her. —fetch·comms 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so people know, I offered her the standard offer on IRC almost two weeks ago. She has stayed away from the site with a few hiccups (don't worry, there were no socks) but I feel that she is honestly sick of working, being reverted and blocked. I share the apprehension that others here share but I have told her that I will work with her should she ever return. I also told her that if she socked, I would withdraw all support and never interact with her again. I know that two weeks isn't much but who knows, maybe she has changed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I need to take a good look at exactly how she edits and goes wrong. She tries so hard, but is also a determined sockmaster. The last bunch, of four, were all sleepers she had made at least a month ago. I would welcome anyone spending the time she needs to get up to speed. Fred Talk 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For information, I've also made the standard offer to her on a couple or three occasions over the past year. Her counter argument has been that she's not socking because she only uses one account at a time.  Roger Davies 06:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note further to 'socking', I was contacted on irc today by someone who claimed to be in support of her, and only after issuing an ultimatum, admitted to being her. The fact that she lied in the very first place just screams that she can't be trusted.— Dædαlus 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Community Ban - Bans are pretty irrelevant when it comes to punishing otherwise blocked editors: either you can edit or you can't. But it does provide us with additional powers to revert her edits without violating WP:3RR. Deny Recognition is kind of a joke anyway and obviously it hasn't worked in this situation as she can just go get her negative attention from Y!A and point people there to her socking. I say ban so her socks can be reverted on sight without violating 3RR. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note - Per our best practices on community bans, this should be listed for 48 hrs minimum and then closed and have the ban listed (if approved) by an otherwise uninvolved admin. I originally prompted Fred on this, but I think I'm uninvolved in the particulars of Jessica Liao's cases and can close in a couple of days (as can any other uninvolved admin, if you want to after the minumum period expires or if i'm being sluggish). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban obviously. She's already been tagged as banned the other day anyway. Just a formality; and as was said above, her torrent of socks can be reverted with no 3RR violation... Doc9871 (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban (as stated before), pretty much per Burpelson AFB. Salvio 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support/endorse/whatever. Make her solely the probelm of Y!A, not good-faith editors reverting her. TFOWR 12:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse ban so that we can insta-revert any edits from the sockdrawer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse – about 100 socks and counting. I don't know why we are seriously discussing this, given the harassment she has engaged the past year or so post-block on-wiki, on IRC, and on the unblock-en-l mailing list. She clearly has some personal issues that need to be resolved via a trained professional; we here cannot help her with that. –MuZemike 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We are seriously discussing this because adding someone to the Banned Users list requires either a community ban (this) or an arbcom ban (not worth pursuing) or a Jimbo ban (he doesn't anymore), and having them on that list formalizes a set of responses beyond what we formally allow admins to do with socks of merely indefinitely blocked users. It does make a difference. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, George, but did you stop to think that she may be laughing her butt off or otherwise taunting us off-wiki as a result of this rather pointless discussion? I know of several other de facto banned users in which that exactly happens whenever their names are mentioned here on a new edit (via edit-stalking bots). But I suppose process is process, and we have to follow it, regardless of any consequences that may come forth as a result of a lack of hindsight. –MuZemike 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

She is- or at least, someone else is. Y!A as usual, but on a number of other forums as well. sonia♫ 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The consequences really are only a slight wasteage of time. The benefits are that we have a consistent standard on true bans. I don't see much if any dissent here on the outcome, but we have never had a "This longtime admin / ex-arbcom member can just say you're banned" policy or precedent. I think the community is unsuprisingly supporting his judgement here, but it is worthwhile making sure that the actual true ban is per extant policy. If we want to expand the ban process such that certain longtime trusted admins / ex-arbcom members / whoever can ban people who are indefblocked already and still abusing, that's fine, but a separate question. I don't know that I'd support changing the policy but if you want to propose that, open a thread and do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with George and will go a step further: Why does anyone care what she's doing on Y!A or other websites anyway? To hell with them and her. Let's deal with our own website and leave her irrelevant off-wiki attention-whoring to the other websites. If she gets jollies from this discussion, who cares? It doesn't make any difference. Shunning the normal discussion process, or any other process, because of what we think she may or may not like is just another way of acknowledging her. We should only be concerned with the process and the Wiki and not let her foolishness prevent us from treating this as just another in a long line of boring, pointless sockmasters. THAT'S what "deny recognition" ought to be about, rather than trying to ignore the elephant in the room. Ban, tag, and revert. Initiate a rangeblock, if prudent. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - Sockpuppetry is not tolerated as well as incivility or personal attacks are not tolerated. She has shown to have clearly disruptive editing, which we users will not allow either. On top of that, she has also exhausted all of our patience. So, with those policies I have stated in my comment, "enough is enough." We should revert her edits as stated above and in addition to the block, her email priviliges and talk page priviliges should be disabled indefinitely.Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I figured this had already happened ages ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fully Endorse I tried to help her understand, but at this point I've basically come to accept the fact that she's just fucking with us, and that she has no interest in ever being a part of Misplaced Pages. Sodam Yat (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

NAC closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro)

Could an admin please review the NAC closure of this AfD? It was closed as "speedy keep" after 5 days. I did not participate in this AfD but my feeling is that this AfD was not suitable for a NAC closure. With only 4 keep !votes, plus the nom arguing for deletion, I don't think it was in the SNOW range. The nominator did not withdraw the nomination and in fact argued rather strenuously in favor of deletion during the AfD; the rather heated and contentious nature of the discussion (with various accusations and counter-accusations of bad faith etc) shows that this was far from a non-controversial AfD and thus a poor candidate for the NAC. Plus one of the keep !votes and the non-admin closer clearly used faulty logic in their arguments. The nominator suggested deletion based on the contention that the two articles in question were unneeded content forks of another existing article. The closer stated that "Come on, SnottyWong, if the main problem isn't notability, you know better than to bring it here". Of course, there are many other valid reasons to delete an article, apart from notability, and a content fork argument is an example of such a reason (whether or not that argument was persuasive in this case). The nominator has complained at the closer's talk page, but the closer indicated that he is not going to reconsider his NAC close. I think an admin review of this close is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Second this, This was a completely inappropriate closure, and I've observed multiple other instances where this user performed inappropriate speedy keep, non admin closures, and discussion with them has achieved nothing. I don't feel they understand deletion policy, nor NAC guidelines enough to perform non admin closures. Swarm 12:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Thirded. Inappropriate NAC but leave closed with leave to renominate. The participants were attacking each other as much as arguing whether or not the article should be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've reviewed it, and also would say it's an inappropriate NAC. Furthermore, it's very poor form to place a warning about personal attacks in a closure rationale, so that's another reason this ought not to be just left as-is. I agree with Ron's suggestion, but I would like to leave it to another admin to alter the close, since I've previously reverted two of the same user's non-admin closes already: here and here. Thanks. Paul Erik 13:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that at the very least the closing statement needs to be changed by an admin since the current closing statement clearly uses faulty logic (as noted above, lack of notability is not the only valid argument in favor of deletion). I am fairly neutral on the issue of reopening for another few days/relisting or whatever. Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) The discussion was closed with an incorrect use of speedy keep, which is only to be used in very specific cases, so I have reinstated the AfD discussion. —DoRD (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks DoRD. I hope it was not overly harsh (usually I'm happy to see non-admins helping reduce the workload at AfD), but I've asked that the user not perform any more NACs for the next couple of months, as a pattern is emerging here. Paul Erik 14:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed - if this editor doesn't even know deletion policy (let alone the criteria for Speedy Keep) they shouldn't even be commenting at AfDs, let alone closing them. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'm the original AfD nom. Most of my thoughts are already on Erpert's talk page, so clearly I'm of the opinion that this was an inappropriate close. Whether or not Erpert has a history of inappropriate NAC's, I don't know. I don't think that reopening the AfD will actually accomplish anything (which is why I didn't start this discussion myself), although I think that strongly encouraging Erpert to refrain from NAC's is a very good idea, as he doesn't appear to be particularly capable of making unbiased decisions. Further evidence of this point is the fact that Erpert gave User:Oakshade a {{WikiPint}} on his talk page here. Since Oakshade was the user who was clearly making assumptions of bad faith during the AfD, it seems odd for the closer to "spread the good cheer and camaraderie" with him directly under my warnings. In any case, the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} userbox on Erpert's user page would seem to be a lost cause. SnottyWong 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know. Politely telling someone that "If you weren't such a raging dick about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination." is not a smart thing to say, and pointing to policy on this, is not something that is necessarily held against the person pointing to the policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I never said or implied that my reaction to Oakshade's assumptions of bad faith was entirely appropriate, although I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion. SnottyWong 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think this is another sign of the common misunderstandings around SK. It is commonly treated as some sort of "super keep" rather than a set of limited technical decisions about an XfD debate. No comment yet on the actual debate. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion has been reopened and more comments have been added. I agree this was an inappropriate close Protonk (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• First of all, neither the {{WikiPint}} nor the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} templates have anything to do with this situation. Yes, some people have said that they don't think I understand WP:NAC, but I have responded to the claims explaining why I do understand, to which there was no response. Thus, I thought people saw my side. And where in WP:SNOW does it state a set amount of time to wait in order to speedily close? It seems like SnottyWong is mad and just following me around because I don't agree with him/her, and using my later contributions to try to convince people into thinking I recruited Oakshade or something--and now several people are on SW's side by coming here. I am not a bad editor, so please don't treat me like one. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Black Kite, I do know the deletion policy. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, why did you write "And you said yourself that the problem wasn't notability, so why bring it to AfD in the first place?" Deletion policy clearly states that content forking is also a perfectly good reason to bring something to AfD - and that's exactly what the AfD nomination gave as its criteria. I may be missing something, but it does look like you were saying that (lack of) notability was the only reason something may be deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • So you'll be able to tell us which Speedy Keep Criteria this deletion discussion met, right? Protonk (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Erpert doesn't understand when it's appropriate to do NACs and should be told to refrain from making them in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There are 5 situations in which the Speedy Keep might be applied, and none of them work here. The first doesn't apply because Snottywong neither withdrew or "failed to advance" the deletion, on the contrary. The nomination wasn't vandalism or disruption, Snottywong isn't banned, the page isn't a policy or guideline, and the article isn't linked from the main page. Those are the only times that you can apply a Speedy Keep. -- Atama頭 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Are y'all aware of WP:BATTLE? (And Bali ultimate, don't talk about me like I'm not here.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • One more thing: WP:SK says "reasons for a speedy keep include", not are. There's a difference. (Also remember WP:AGF.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't think that the closing was done maliciously, only that the use of SK was incorrect. There may be some wiggle room in the guideline, but after five days, the closing was anything but "speedy". If you had allowed the discussion to have its full run, or perhaps snow closed it instead, we wouldn't be having this discussion. —DoRD (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I also don't think it was a malicious close. It was only incorrect. I assume good faith, but I don't have to assume you're correct. -- Atama頭 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Erpert: Several experienced admins (Paul Erik, DoRD, Black Kite, Protonk, Atama) have told you that your NAC was inappropriate - and yet you are still stubbornly refusing to admit your mistake. You should try to listen to people's advice that is offered to you in good faith and learn from it instead of stubbornly digging in your heels and assuming that people are out to get you. It has been explained to you that the standard 5 criteria for speedy keep did not apply here. If you are trying to argue that this was a SNOW keep case (in which case you should have stated so in your close), that does not hold up either. At the time of your close, there were only 4 keep !votes, one of them (by Milowent) was obviously faulty - that argument was that "the nomination seems to be about organization, not notability". As was pointed out to you above, making an assertion that a particular article is a redundant content fork is a perfectly valid deletion rationale, distinct from the issues of notability. Yet you yourself also repeated that faulty argument in your close by saying: "Come on, SnottyWong, if the main problem isn't notability, you know better than to bring it here". 4 keep !votes, one of them based on faulty reasoning, plus the nominator still strenuously arguing his case in the AfD does not make for a SNOW keep case, not by a long shot. You should also remember that the spirit of NAC is to be used for only clear-cut and noncontroversial cases, which this one, fairly clearly was not. The requirements of WP:NACD are quite stringent, both in their letter and in their spirit, exactly in order to avoid having to have prolonged discussions of controversial NAC closes like this one. You should listen to the advice of the more experienced users (including 5 admins!) offered to you here in good faith and take it to heart. You also seem to profoundly misunderstand AGF. No-one here says that you acted maliciously or with any kind of bad intent. What people are saying is that your actions were misguided and were based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the relevant policies. Nsk92 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd suggest a ban for Erpert from closing AfDs since he is clearly not competent enough at this time to do this task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.191.215 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that is necessary. Epert made a mistake, it was reverted, it isn't the end of the world. Obv. I agree broadly w/ Nsk92's comments that Erpert take the comments onboard, but a ban or prohibition is a little much. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with all of the criticisms of the AfD closed. But Erpert raises one good point: the SK criteria say the reasons for speedy keep include, not are. I think it should be are as SK has always been understood by the criteria as a limited ground for closure adequately covered by the five reasons (in particular, Reason 2 is broad enough). Thoughts? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My first thought is to change the word from include to are. SK has (or should have) a narrow, technical meaning just as CSD does. Use of SK outside of that narrow, technical meaning invariably results in threads like this and lots of ink spilled over something which could have been resolved through either patience or clarity. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd agree with this. Clause 2 of SK pretty much covers everything else anyway. I can't think of many situations where those five criteria don't meet the point. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I see where you're coming from Mkativerata, but we're allways going to end up eventually having a situation where the strict rules don't work, so keeping all our policies and guidelines flexible does help, even if at times it seems it doesn't. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I know from experience that SKs are pretty rare and in practice, we tend to be pretty strict on the use of this procedure to close AfDs. I really do think that it should be less ambiguously stated that SKs must fall under one of the 5 criteria listed, simply changing "include" to "are" should suffice as Mkativerata suggests. I believe doing so will update the guideline to reflect how it is actually perceived, which I think is the best reason to change a guideline. -- Atama頭 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I find it amusing that Erpert is asking people to AGF, yet he continually insists that everything I do is because "I'm mad that everyone disagrees with me at the AfD, and I'm trying to get back at him", or something along those lines (i.e. a clear assumption of bad faith), despite the fact that this discussion was independently created by someone else without my involvement, and countless editors have told him he was wrong. I was actually going to forget about the AfD and move on, because it seemed like a lost cause, and I didn't care enough to pursue it. Now that the AfD is actually getting some delete votes, I hope it's becoming clearer to Erpert how disruptive his NAC was. SnottyWong 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not a helpful comment. Please consider retracting it or refactoring it. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Protonk: Your comments here have been somewhat less than helpful, Snottywong, so I'll add that you should probably disengage from the situation. —DoRD (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• To answer Nsk92's latest comment: you say no one thinks I acted in bad faith, right? Well, what am I supposed to think when an ANI report is started about me? And I understand that several admins have brought it to my attention, but I see it as their opinions, not my misunderstanding of guidelines. If people still think I misunderstand, I think a little rewording (as mentioned above) of WP:SK wouldn't be such a bad idea. (And just for the record, I haven't even looked at that AfD since this started because I think it's best if I'm uninvolved from here on out.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • When you see a WP:AN report regarding you, you are supposed to read it and try to listen to the substance of what people are saying instead of taking it personally. The report was filed to request an admin to review a non-admin closure of an AfD; WP:AN is a perfectly proper and standard venue for making such requests. If you read my original post and the posts by other users here carefully, you'll see that nobody is accusing you of acting maliciously, just of making a mistake out of misunderstanding. That is what you are supposed to think. Now, if five experienced admins offer you their informed opinion - you should listen to them. These are experienced users who have been Misplaced Pages editors a lot longer than you have, and who are admins, meaning particularly trusted users of the community specifically charged with enforcing Misplaced Pages policies, particularly in the area of AfD closing -you really should assume that they know the issue better than you do. There are several other users here telling you the same thing. Assuming that everyone else here is wrong and you alone are right is precisely the wrong attitude to take here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've been here since 2005; this account is new because I retired from another account--and no, it isn't sockpuppetry because I haven't even so much as logged into the old account since creating this one. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, who is this suspicious IP, that just registered today, that is suggesting a ban? Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards