text:
Wikiversity talk:Requests for Deletion/Archive/1

Procedures
There needs to be two different procedures :

 * 1. Deleting someone elses pages.

 * 2. Deleting a page that you created by mistake.

Currently, all the instructions, templae, and procedures are for the first case. People in the sacond case are intimidated. ~ Robert Elliott 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

 * apparently this old question was never answered here. To request deletion of a page that one created in error, place

at the top of the page, and, if you are the only author, the page will generally be routinely deleted, it may take a little while, that's all. Exceptions are rare. Please don't take routine deletions like this to Requests for Deletion, it fills up the page with stuff that isn't necessary to take to the community. --Abd 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

done!
I set this up. If you do not like it, roll back. Robert Elliott 12:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please delete my page
Pages at this page should also be delt with.--Balloonguy 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - I've dealt with most of the requests. Please leave comments on that page. Cormaggio talk 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense and bots
I'm not too familiar yet with deletion policies, but I think there's more to it than just "vandalism". Vandalism suggests malice and damage, but what about people and bots that are just being silly? Some bots run around the web just submitting any forms they can dig up and leaving behind messages like "nice site". I think it's difficult to predict what bot-programmers will think up next, but it's a waste of time voting on the obviously absurd. On the other hand, it's quite a feat of judgment to tell the difference between attempted absurdity and absurd attempts. McCormack 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Let's deal with those cases consistent with how very public wikis use soft security? I think it's a good rule of thumb. --HappyCamper 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity
Seems like no admins are monitoring this page. If someone notices this, please get on these? The Jade Knight 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to try my hand at processing these requests...keep an eye on me, and jump in to help out too if you can. :-) --HappyCamper 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, this is the pattern I am using - blanking each section once discussion has been completed, and then adding a note to the talk page if the page is kept. --HappyCamper 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
I tried to work out how/where resolved requests are archived? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See Deletion requests/Archive. I think some discussions have been removed from the page without being correctly archived. --JWSchmidt 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks JWS. That helps. It looks now to me as though there are actually two archive pages:
 * Requests for Deletion/Archives
 * Deletion requests/Archive
 * Maybe the latter should be moved to the former? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From this edit in 2006 until this April 15 2008 edit there was a link on the Requests for Deletion page to Deletion requests/Archives. On 15 April 2008, Deletion requests/Archives was moved to Deletion requests/Archive/1. Deletion requests/Archive was made on 15 April 2008 as a container for Deletion requests/Archive/1 and Deletion requests/Archives was deleted. Requests for Deletion/Archives was made on 10 August 2007, but has never been used. Hopefully all of the past discussions have been correctly archived...I have not had time to check. --JWSchmidt 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like my attempt to organize things has been a bit confusing. In any case, we really need to archive some material and figure out where the rest of the material went.  --mikeu talk 23:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved Deletion requests/Archive to Requests for Deletion/Archives and also moved the Archives/1 subpage. I left Archives/2 empty for any material that we find later, and will start using Archive/3 for current material.  --mikeu talk 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clean up the archives, and also move old discussions. Please check and see if I missed anything.  --mikeu talk 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethics
first Ethics was moved, as the beginning of a 'cleanup' effort. Then it was nominated for deletion. Then it was 'merged' - apparently without discussion - then the merge was reverted and the Ethics nomination was removed although so far as I could see only one or two people had voiced an opinion and certainly no community decision or anything like consensus had been reached. I understand Consensus is not a policy here; but is this how you normally do things? Fiat by edit-war??? Why not have a full discussion, with the Ethics project en toto, then individual pages if that does not pass. KillerChihuahua 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I note the deletion tag, complete with the "Please voice your opinion" is still on the Wikipedia Ethics page. KillerChihuahua 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'merged' and than reverted? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

page deletion and censorship
There was some recent discussion of censorship during consideration of a page deletion proposal. Page deletion can function as an important part of censoring wiki content. I feel that page deletion is for pages made by vandals and pages that are actively doing damage to the mission of Wikiversity. Every time I see a page deletion proposal for which I am unable to understand how the page is doing damage to the mission of Wikiversity I start to try to understand why the page has been proposed for deletion. In this case, the deletion proposal raised the prospect making either just my learning blog, or potentially, if a precedent were set, all learning blogs, subject to censorship at Wikiversity. I am using the term "censor" to refer to the power to control freedom of expression. The use of learning blogs for exploration of learning goals and educational experiences is an experiment at Wikiversity, an experiment concerning a specific way to use wiki technology as a tool to support online learning. Allowing the blog format on Wikiversity user pages allows for more freedom of expression than is possible in other Wikiversity namespaces. Since Wikiversity has already seen censorship and a warning issued that some censorship is not a matter for discussion or open to questioning by the community, I feel that learning blogs have become an important resource for examining the educational implications of censorship at Wikiversity. My comment was a call for discussion and clarification of why my blog was proposed for deletion and the implications of that deletion proposal, particularly implications for Wikiversity censorship. I'd still like to see a community exploration and discussion of censorship at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the best approach would to have a (simple, clear) policy on userspace blogs, as well as other uses of the userspace (assignments, surveys, etc.). Sound good? --SB_Johnny talk 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized we have this page: Help:Blog. I made a link to it from User page. I'm not sure if it will be possible to have a simple policy. [deleted bad faith assumption of censorship]. Is policy development still relevant to Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 * User:Darklama: do you care to defend your latest act of censorship? In my comments that you censored (above) I provided a description of events at Wikiversity that is relevant to this discussion and my description was entirely civil. I stand by my description and I am willing to defend its validity by discussion of the evidence of past censorship of Wikiversity content. Can you explain what is uncivil about discussing the history of censorship at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 20:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Defense? That sounds like wikilawyering to me. I don't think there is anything inherently uncivil about discussing censorship in and of itself. I think you did more than that though. If you don't like a proposal or decision, I think name calling [and] throwing accusations around [removed comment] isn't going to help people see your side of things; I think people are in fact more likely to respond in kind, which is probably why people have called you a troll or accused you of trolling. If you have got a problem with how things are going, why don't you propose policy changes or propose new policies instead? I think if you equate deletion with censorship that is your problem. In the mean time people will continue to make Requests for Censorship and discuss whether contents should be censored, whether you like it or not.
 * I think people are less likely to think your being uncivil, if you stuck to using "I" sentences that explain your position. You were doing fine above when you did stuck to "I" sentences. I think things quickly went off course thereafter. I think my change kept what was civil and removed what wasn't. I don't think bringing up censorship was particularly relevant in your response to SB_Johny, but could of been kept if what you wrote had remained civil like the rest of what was kept. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, Darklama, you want "I sentences"? Here is one: I reject all attempts to put Wikiversity in the front ranks of wikis that are ruled by a gang of deletionists and censors who cannot be bothered to write down as policy what the rules are for their practices of deletion and censorship. "why don't you propose policy changes or propose new policies instead?" <-- Mainly because the last two times I have tried to do so I was blocked from editing, desysoped and censored. There is also the fact that some "leaders" at Wikiversity have adopted the infantile strategy of opposing any policy that I help develop. As far as I can tell based on the events of the past six months, the Ruling Party's plan for how to run Wikiversity is to impose all the repressive rules that exist at Wikibooks while giving members of the Ruling Junta the right to violate policy and apply unwritten rules and mandates as they please. Have fun with that, but don't expect me to happily let that vision of the future be imposed on this community. For two years Wikiversity functioned according to its mission, but now a gang of self-appointed censors is participating in disruption of the Wikiversity mission by means of deletionism and the promotion of double speak. I will always resist any effort to turn Wikiversity into a police state where censorship cannot be discussed and where discussion of the history of Wikiversity is called "wikilawyering" and "uncivil". One of the major tasks for participants at Wikiversity is to discover how to promote online learning. An unwelcome invasion of deletionists and censors from Wikibooks and Wikipedia has forced upon the Wikiversity community the need to study and learn about how self-appointed censors function in wiki communities. Part of the fruits of that learning is applying what is learned to the task of developing Wikiversity policy. I'm engaged in that process. I think when you insist on reducing discussion of Wikiversity history and policy to [censored] then you are helping people see my side of things. Let me make a prediction. At Wikipedia it has become a proud mantra that Wikipedia does not allow free speech. My prediction is that you will become famous at Wikiversity for proclaiming that Wikiversity is not a place for free speech. "name calling" <-- please make a list of all the names that are not allowed at Wikiversity. I wonder if "troll" will make your list, or is that name officially approved of by the Ruling Party? Do you want me to refer to the Ruling Party at Wikiversity as something like, "The glorious beacons of reason and scholarship?" Please start Doublespeak so that you can provide me with a guide to the officially sanctioned way to talk about the history of Wikiversity and the Ruling Party. "why people have called you a troll" <-- it is very simple....people who talk about topics that others do not want talked about are called "troll" or "witch" or "commie". If you are in the Ruling Party you can be grossly uncivil and call people "troll", or worse. A mere peon like me is called uncivil for daring to discuss past actions of the Ruling Party. Doublespeak and double standards are an interesting foundation for developing a community of learners. "throwing accusations around" <-- I stand by my descriptions of past events at Wikiversity. If you do not agree with my views then why not participate in an adult discussion of the evidence so we can find out if your view or mine is closer to reality? Are you so unsure of your position that all you are willing to do is stuff a rag in my mouth? There is nothing uncivil about discussing the past actions of admins no matter how ugly those actions are or how much they want to whitewash history. At Wikiversity, custodians have an obligation to explain their actions, not to prevent discussion of their past actions from taking place. I realize that your custodian mentor is a master of preventing of discussions, for example by banning me from #wikiversity-en without discussion, warning or reason given, but are you really comfortable with following him down that road? There was a time when I thought you were going to bring technical expertise to Wikiversity...it never occurred to me that you would take up the task of censoring Wikiversity. Had I known, I would have asked some questions about your qualifications for the job. Maybe we should make "censor" an official new type of Wikiversity functionary and have community discussions of candidates for the position. --JWSchmidt 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Darkcode (and mikeu): I don't think this editing people's comments approach is going very well. If there's a problem, please just warn the user on their talk page, and block if the warnings aren't heeded. This comment by SBJ was continued and signed below. --Abd 16:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. --mikeu talk 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt: this should probably be on WV:CR, since your complaints seem to be about more than just what's been going on at WV:RFD. --SB_Johnny talk 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Making assumptions about other people's motives are unhelpful in an adult conversation. JWS you still need to work on not making assumptions about what motivates other people, and what their motives are. From what you have said above you have already made a bunch of assumptions:

 * 1) people are motivated by policies on Wikipedia and Wikibooks
 * 2) people are motivated to impose such rules on Wikiversity
 * 3) whatever rules you think are being used on Wikiversity actually exist on Wikipedia and Wikibooks
 * 4) people are motivated to oppose any policies that you suggested
 * 5) people are strongly motivated to delete anything they don't like
 * 6) people are strongly motivated to censor anything they don't like
 * 7) people who are motivated to delete or censor anything must come from Wikipedia or Wikibooks
 * 8) people are motivated to turn Wikiversity into a police state
 * 9) people are motivated to prevent discussions about censorship and the history of Wikiversity
 * 10) people are motivated to disrupt the mission of Wikiversity
 * 11) people share enough of the same motivations and reasoning to be part of some common gang, party or whatever
 * 12) people that talk about subjects that other people don't want to talk about are called trolls
 * 13) that I was asking for an explanation, rather than trying to explain myself why you might of been called a troll
 * 14) that you were called a troll because people don't want you to talk about a subject
 * 15) that people don't want you to talk about a subject
 * 16) that talking about past actions is uncivil
 * 17) that what has been said was not an adult conversation
 * 18) that I am personally censoring you simply because I disagree with your views
 * 19) that I have made censoring Wikiversity my personal task

All of this does a very poor job of telling me or other people what you want and does a poor job of encouraging a constructive adult conversation. Rather this is the sort of things that leads people to make assumptions of there own about your motivations. Like that you have a personal vendetta and that you no longer have Wikiversity's best interests in mind.

I never thought things would turn out this way either. I never would of guessed if I had been asked last year, that you would go so far in your ways as to make a construction adult conversation with you basically impossible. Despite that I still feel obligated to try to help you learn and help you learn how you can have a constructive adult conversation with me and other people, even if it feels like a waste of time at times and feels like all you want to do is fight me, and even if it seems like you consider me the enemy. I guess I'm just stubborn like that. So you can attack me, fight me, assume bad things about me, criticize me, etc. all you want. However I doubt I will ever be able to notice, understand or comprehend what it is your after or your criticisms until you do completely away with your current approach in trying to talk to people. I doubt very few other people will ever be able too either. Before you jump to any more conclusions, I doubt it has anything to do with ignoring you personally intentionally either. I know for myself almost anything you have written in the past 6 months or so has been rather like trying to find a needle in a haystack or like trying to find multiple needles in multiple haystacks. If you don't care that I cannot understand or comprehend your writing, or that other people may not be able to do either, that's fine too. I just hope that when you can reply to this, you will think things over and not continue in this way. --darklama 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 * "you can attack me" <-- It is unfortunate that you adopted the habit of calling discussion of your own behavior an "attack". That is a way of gaming the system that does not help Wikiversity move ahead. Please list everything you think is an "attack" and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Since concerns have been raised that no "off topic" content be added to this page, I suggest you come to my talk page and discuss what is upsetting you. I'm willing to discuss all concerns about my editing. Alternatively, you could remove the bad ban you imposed on my participation in #wikiversity-en and we could talk in there. --JWSchmidt 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 * You are now assuming that I am trying to "game the system" because you have assumed that I see and understand what you wrote in the same way that you see and understand it, which is not true. You are also assuming that I am upset when I am not upset. I don't see any discussion about my behaviors. I see assumptions, assumptions that seem to always lack a frame of reference or substance. The biggest assumption you seem to make is that people know what your talking about or referring to. What references you do use seem to always be pulled out of context. Without a frame of reference or any idea why you consider a specific reference important, what you write looks like an underhanded way to attack people you have a grudge against, rather than an adult conversation. If you want to move this to your talk page, please move this entire section there. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you want to move this to your talk page...." <-- I prefer to carry out discussions where they start, however, I have learned that doing anything to upset the Ruling Party can result in a block or a ban, so I suggested that it might be safest to move this discussion. I suspect that you get a special exemption from the Ruling Party under their rules for double standards, so I'll risk staying here if you do. "You are now assuming that I am trying to 'game the system'" <-- I made no such assumption. I do not know if you are trying to game the system. Making false claims about what is civil and what constitutes a personal attack are common practices in the wiki world. Usually such false claims are used by abusive admins when they want to get rid of a new wiki participant who does not know how to put up a defense against admin abuse. Some admins really enjoy using that strategy to game the system and they start making false claims where experienced wiki editors will notice. Eventually, enough people in the community will notice what is going on and the community will get rid of the abusive admin. Sometimes that process takes years, but the truth wins out in the end. "it feels like a waste of time at times and feels like all you want to do is fight me, and even if it seems like you consider me the enemy" <-- Pardon me, but if those are the kinds of things that are on your mind then I find myself forced to conclude that I have done something to upset you. "what you write looks like an underhanded way to attack people you have a grudge against" <-- I'd like to discuss this. Please list the "number one example" of something I wrote that "looks like an underhanded way to attack people". --JWSchmidt 19:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the examples that can be found on User:JWSchmidt/Review, your recent comparison of certain wikipedians to arsonists could easily be interpreted as an underhanded attack. --SB_Johnny talk 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was exploring an analogy that you suggested, but in other forums I've used direct and precise language to describe the same events I was referring to in that analogy. I dispute the often repeated claim that discussing historical events at Wikiversity is a way of attacking people. I think it is reasonable to make an analogy between arson and someone coming to Wikiversity with the assigned mission of getting a Wikiversity participant banned...outrageous behavior that truly resulted in a firestorm. The fact that someone could come to Wikiversity with the goal of getting a Wikiversity participant banned and be rewarded with custodianship indicates that we need all available tools, including analogies, to explore such historical events. I also think it is reasonable to make an analogy between arson and an admin from Wikipedia rushing in to censor Wikiversity in an attempt to hide the facts of a bad block at Wikipedia...particularly since that censorship culminated in a fiery meltdown during which multiple Wikiversity pages were falsely called attack pages. I find it a strange double standard that Wikipedians can get away with such things but my attempts to defend Wikiversity from abusive Wikipedians is called "underhanded attacks". --JWSchmidt 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from RfD for Game design
Moved from Game design --Abd 16:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Proposal. It is sickening to watch the work of Wikiversity community members called nonsense and a page like this one subjected to a call for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for vandalism. If a page needs to be improved then the correct thing to do is click "edit" and improve the page by collaborative editing. I am forced to wonder why Guido den Broeder is at Wikiversity. Sadly, Wikiversity has been disrupted for years by outsiders who obtained the power to delete pages and block Wikiversity community members without first demonstrating an interest in the Wikiversity mission or participating as a Wikiversity community member by creating learning resources and participating in learning projects. Of course, the small gang of disruptive sysops who performed their Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity in 2008 continue to support and encourage the disruption of this learning community by backing deletioninsts and forcing upon this community more abusive sysops who love to play with their tiny banhammers. The Wikiversity community cannot recover until all the policy-violating sysops resign and Wikiversity bureaucrats stop allowing misguided outsiders to disrupt the mission of Wikiversity. I propose that ALL page deletions for reasons other than obvious repeated vandalism be stopped until the currently active bureaucrats resign. Erkan should be given back his tools and all of the honest Wikiversity community members who were driven away during the Hostile Takeover should be invited back. All Wikiversity community members who were subjected to emergency desysop when no emergency existed should be given back their Custodial tools. All Custodians who resigned in protest of the Hostile Takeover should be given back their tools. Only after Wikiversity is liberated from the Hostile Takeover should community discussions of page deletion decisions be resumed. Wikiversity Policy development has been disrupted during the Hostile Takeover. During the Hostile Takeover, outsiders have attempted to apply sickening and disruptive deltionist policy imported from other wiki websites. Wikiversity needs an official page deletion policy that protects the work of Wikiversity community members from deletion. Page deletion is for vandalism. Weak Wikiversity pages are not deleted, they are improved by collaborative editing. --JWSchmidt 14:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * JWS misrepresents the purpose of speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for deletion considered non-controversial, and the most common reason isn't vandalism, from my experience. Unneeded redirects, pages of nonsense with no active author, mistakes, user pages no longer needed, etc., are all not "vandalism," per se, but still are appropriate for speedy deletion. As a custodian, if I saw a page with requested speedy deletion, and I did not agree that the page was appropriate for deletion, I would often remove the tag. In this case, Guido requested speedy deletion, and that is the right of any user. One of the purposes is for Guido to learn what deletions are acceptable to the community and what ones aren't. It was your right, JWS, to remove that tag. What was not your right was to replace it with a diatribe against Guido, that was vandalism. It was not about the topic of the page. That's why I took this to Request custodian action, because I knew, from experience, that you would not be responsive to a mere warning from me. (And I'm not a custodian, but any user may warn any other user over behavior they consider disruptive.)
 * There is no sign or report of excessive deletion. If it's happening, then this is what should be done:
 * Clutter wikiversity space, user space, and even mainspace, with complaints about corrupt administration.
 * Request that the deleting custodian restore the page. If the custodian is not willing to restore the page to mainspace, if that's where it was, then request restoration to your user space. Unless the content is positively harmful, most custodians will do this.
 * File an RCA request if the deleting custodian will not restore, within a reasonable time. (Whether refusing to do so or just because of absence. Avoid making accusations, just request what's legitimate.)
 * If needed, file an RfD here to discuss undeletion and, perhaps, restoration.
 * Only if all simpler steps fail, and if this is due to unresolved wheel-warring or inadequate custodial attention, address administrative problems. We are short of active custodians, and much effort, lately, has been aimed at reducing the number, mentorship has been, perhaps, suspended, etc. Bad Idea. We need more, not less. Sure, custodians should be experienced, but until we understand how wiki administration works -- when it works -- we are going to have continual difficulties. Making it easy to remove or suspend custodians could be part of the solution, but that requires, then, much more careful process than we have. See User:SB Johnny/CR CR for some thinking toward solutions.
 * I have seen no recent complaints about improperly deleted files. The page in question is marginal, I favor keeping, as I stated. Guido was within his rights to tag it, and JWS within his rights to remove the speedy tag, but not to add a rant about Guido to the page. Guido improperly restored the tag in removing the rant, but then changed it to a tag proposing deletion, hence his filing here. Guido made a transient error. JWS has been insisting that his rant in mainspace was proper. That's not relevant to the delete/keep decision here, and we do not "punish" users by keeping or deleting contrary to their wish. --Abd 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * This is not the page to propose restoration of rights for Erkan Yilmaz. I have no opinion on that user, I have not reviewed the process by which rights were removed, and, if requested, would investigate. This could be discussed on User talk:Erkan Yilmaz, if he consents, on the talk page of any other consenting user, on WV:Request custodian action (requesting a 'crat review), on the talk page of the 'crat who requested the removal, if it was done through local process, or, new idea, a proposal could be floated on User Abd/Community Review/Erkan Yilmaz, in which case I'd chair a "committee," or any user could start such a draft in their own user space, or that of a consenting other user, and invite participation. We are discussing, on User:SB Johnny/CR CR, process for turning such user-space CRs into fully filed and effective CRs. JWS, as a highly experienced WV former custodian, is, I expect, welcome to participate, but, note: a user space CR is subject to the discretion of the user, as to participation and process. It is like a discussion in the office of a professor: the professor may set boundaries, and the campus police will support that. --Abd 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC) struck as unnecessary, this was a voluntary resignation. --Abd 16:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I have requested that Erkan Yilmaz, who resigned voluntarily in 2008, request return of his privileges. The CR is unnecessary. --Abd 16:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Closes I've performed while "involved"
I was fairly active in commenting on proposed deletions. Few, however, have been closing deletion discussions. Generally, someone who has commented in a discussion -- other than neutrally as to the conclusion -- should not close; however, discussions that weren't going anywhere, any more, were not being closed. And a decent time, absolute minimum one week, two weeks or a month would be better, as long as the page doesn't get too large, should lapse between a close and the archiving of a request, to allow ready review of closings.

I have accordingly closed a number of discussions. Generally, I've noted that I was "involved," and therefore have proposed the following process: Any registered user may revert an involved close, and the presumption is that the user should promptly provide some argument for the reverse decision. Further, the proposer may not revert. What this does is to require a second, effectively, for a discussion to continue.

I believe that most, if not all, of my closes will simply stand, thus this is efficient process. Reverting an involved close takes seconds, and if all the reverting editor wants to do is get another opinion on the close, that can be stated. What I would object to is a bald revert with no explanation. The revert will remove my closing comment, which is fine. The explanation can be in the edit summary, if it is merely to request a second opinion. If it is based on a new argument, this argument should either be given in the discussion itself, as part of the close, or the reverting editor should state that argument will be provided, presumably within a reasonable period of time. Let's keep it simple.

As I am not a custodian, I cannot close with "delete," though I may recommend a series of these somewhere, if discussions that could show a deletion conclusion are standing. (Theoretically, a non-custodian could close with delete, but, then, a custodian must agree with this close to implement it. Better to make a list (non-binding) of such possible closes, perhaps on Request custodian action. All arguments should already be in the deletion discussion, so the RCA request would simply be a pointer, and arguments for keep or deletion should not be made there, normally. --Abd 17:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Please place archive top and bottom templates per section, this is a mess. Guido den Broeder 17:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was already fixed before this note. It was easy to identify the missing bottom template, because the subject header of the next section was included. Easier to fix this than to ask for fixing it! But that's okay, sometimes a user doesn't know how to quickly fix it.... --Abd 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. And I can't determine what your intentions were, you could just as easily have forgotten some templates or have misplaced the archive top. Next time, please use the preview. Guido den Broeder 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have written, "before I saw this note." I added closing text to every section where I closed, and each one was edited individually. As I noted, it was easy to spot the defective section. I use preview routinely. Preview does not display this error, the section looked fine (better software would note that an unclosed template exists). Guido removed my close (he did not simply revert, perhaps he didn't want to restore the text moved to Talk, but had he done the revert, and deleted the additional text, he'd have removed the archive bottom present at the end. When I noticed that his revert (17:33) didn't unarchive the discussion, I removed the archive bottom tag, wonder if that, contrary to my expectation, would fix the problem. As it happened, Guido must have another edit so close to my removal that his edit (17:40) made it through first. I didn't see an edit conflict. Then I saw that this didn't fix it, so I looked and saw the obvious, and [ fixed it] at 17:41]. Guido's comment above was filed at 17:39. However, I didn't see it until about ten minutes later. Guido has ignored the easy lessons here: how to spot a missing archive bottom template (all succeeding section titles will be included -- the archive template should not include the section header!), and to be a bit patient with other editors. We make mistakes. Normally, a request to fix an error made by a user should be on the user talk page, not on a Talk page for some edited page, because the user will then get a Talk page notification. I suggest that Guide sit down, calm down, and start learning how to work with other editors. It would help. --Abd 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: The proposer may not revert a contrary close by a registered user. I'd like to see us nail down the details, and contingencies, but allowing a proposer to, alone, continue a discussion, when the conclusion is obvious, invites the continued waste of time of WV users. All it takes is for a single additional registered user to reverse, thus effectively seconding the position of the closer, and then discussion would continue. In a present case, the request of the closer that the proposer not revert was ignored. Because archived discussions will remain on the RfD page for quite some time, the proposer still has a fair shot at finding agreement. My close here was actually a neutral one, because I have no interest in the page involved, and only intervened because I saw revert warring. However, treating me as involved, my request should still have been honored. --Abd 18:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you don't get to impose your one-man ideas of policy onto the community. We have been there before, so many times...
 * It is of course the exact opposite, i.e. only the proposer decides over an early close. Anyone else closing early, without the consent of the proposer, shows disrespect to the proposer as well as the community as a whole. Guido den Broeder 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guido radically misunderstands both wiki process and standard democratic process.
 * Wiki process: Above, I propose a principle for the community to consider, to simplify deletion process, overall, by adding a very small amount of structure or process rules. I do not "get to impose my one-man ideas of policy on the community," nor has this been attempted, unless you consider making a bold edit, not revert warring to keep it in place, an "attempt to impose." Guido, in fact, is trying to repress proposals that he doesn't like, by turning the issue into a personal attack. And that's what he did at meta, and that's why he was blocked there. I supported, there, process to unblock him, because the response was excessive, but he will be right back in the same place, if he continues his previous behavior there.
 * Democratic process: A proposal is not debated unless seconded. Wikis have suffered greatly from failure to implement process that follows this. Brainstorming is different, open discussion is different, but when there is a proposed action, especially one where a result tends to be Yes/No, there are centuries of experience of how to handle discussion and debate. And this isn't the place to go into all that.
 * Now, can we discuss the issues here? The basic issue raised in this section is process for closing, in general, with some specific attention to an involved close, where the closer either has already commented, or may be expected to have some bias. Because we are small, with few editors paying attention to this page, those who do pay attention may have decided to comment, which then makes the supply of those available to close even smaller. Setting up procedure for involved close will help us, and similar procedure will assist with keeping this page cleaner, improving attention to what needs attention. --Abd 19:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to be diverted by personal attacks (your edit summary), then stop making them. Guido den Broeder 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * @Guido: only the proposer decides over an early close. That's not true on wikis in general. It's true in a special case: a proposer may withdraw a proposal, for example, thus closing it early, but this is not necessarily the case. A proposer might propose deletion, then change his or her mind, but if the proposal has attracted delete comments, these editors become additional proposers, and only if they all consent, would this closure by consent be done speedily. Hey, my first RfA on Wikipedia was speedy closed, as snow opposition (as was expected by the nominator, who had an independent agenda than success). Repeated AfDs, if repeated too quickly, will be speedy closed, certainly not with the consent of the proposer! Etc.
 * This is about deletion requests, where there is already a difference of opinion among editors. If the author of a page wants it deleted, and nobody else has edited it, the norm is to allow deletion, exceptions are unusual cases. That's an example of close with consent.
 * In requesting Game design be deleted, Guido is asking the community to consider deleting the page, contrary to the apparent view and work of an editor who may not still be around to defend it. In this case, a speedy deletion tag was removed by User:JWSchmidt, so we already have a disagreement among active editors. Since deletion is a positive action to be taken, and since our default is -- strongly -- keep, there should be some agreement for a deletion discussion to continue.
 * Anyone else closing early, without the consent of the proposer, shows disrespect to the proposer. When it's obvious to a closer what the outcome of the discussion is likely to be, a speedy close is not an insult to the proposer, it is a (possible) disagreement as to whether or not the discussion will benefit the community; I do not recommend that editors without substantial experience with the Wikiversity community close discussions, and especially not speedy closures.
 * Again, this conversion of a disagreement over the value of a discussion, on a page which we want to keep clear of useless discussion, into an "insult," is a problem. It is not an insult to point out to someone proposing a thing that their proposal lacks any support, and to require that a "second" appear in order for discussion to continue. That doesn't repress discussion, in fact, because users may continue to discuss things on user talk pages, and on the attached Talk page. It just keeps the content page clear of useless discussion, and, as I proposed it, any other user can re-open. The close is really a proposed close, which should stand unless someone -- other than the proposer! -- objects by re-opening. Nobody is prevented from commenting further, but the proposer, a little.
 * disrespect to the proposer as well as the community as a whole. The kind of close suggested, and followed by me here, shows full respect to the community, respecting not only the community's right to discuss, but also its right to not be forced to discuss out of fear of a contrary result. Discussion of process is not the goal of Wikiversity, the goal is educational content. Deletion is a drastic move, making content unreadable to other than custodians. If a proposer of a deletion, being given the opportunity to propose speedy deletion, to appeal a reversion of that here, to have it open enough to gather some comment, and then, even if speedy closed, for the request to remain here on the RfD page for a substantial time, so that any other registered user may re-open the discussion, to attempt to reverse the close, that being invited in the closing statement, isn't satisfied, I submit, the problem is not the process, the problem is not a closer, the problem is a user who is unwilling to accept that the community rejects his ideas of what Wikiversity pages should be.
 * By the way, if an IP user reverted a keep close, making a reasonable argument for deletion, I'd accept that, too. I just don't want to guarantee that! --Abd 20:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Abd, that's just wrong. Marking a discussion with the archive-headers closes it off to all future suggestions to its improvement, and there is no policy that explicitly states that the proposer may not revert the closer. Normally, if the one who closes it prematurely is promptly reverted by the nominator, then the result is that discussion is reopened and details for closure are hashed out on the nomination's talkpage. In the case where the closer attempts to shut down the nomination, the result would be that it'd get lost in the archives somewhere before it reached a proper conclusion, and there would therefore be no way for any user, registered or not, nominator or not, to properly revert the closure. Abd, you are halting discussion and disrupting the nomination. Only clear cases where the majority (at least two) people have opted for keeping a page should you close it. You need to be more aware of wikiprocess. TeleComNasSprVen 09:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TCNSV, you have the right to your opinion, but what nomination was "interrupted"? I made a bunch of closes, and I've suggested procedure. There was a problem with one, quickly fixed.

 * You don't like the procedure suggested. You are correct there is no policy. I'm suggesting policy, first here, where it would be most relevant, but eventually it will be on a deletion policy page.

 * The RfD page is not auto-archived, I just reverted your comment-free signature on a closure, an RfD that proposes no specific page for deletion but which seems to make us into stalkers of a specific user's contributions, which is not the purpose of RfD.

 * My closes can be reverted by any user, and can be reverted with my consent by any user other than the nominator, as I described. I'm not the Emperor of Wikiversity, but I am a free editor, and my right to approve or disapprove remains.

 * Archive headers do not close off a page to "all future suggestions to its improvement," and plenty of time was allowed for the nominator to make relevant arguments, needed for a close.

 * Archive headers do not prevent any user from re-opening the discussion, and it is a separate step to actually archiving the nomination. If you have further argument to present, by all means, do so. But keeping inactive discussions open here for a long time isn't an option. The exceptions are ones where there is no consensus for deletion or in the other direction, and nobody has appeared willing to make a close. --Abd 15:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Regarding your point "plenty of time was allowed..." Developments to a certain page take place over time, and sometimes they either strengthen or weaken the argument(s) for deletion previously proposed by the nominator, and he/she often has not yet had the proper time to address them. I've been very busy with RL, thank you very much, and this closure has just disrupted the nomination that I've been trying to get back to, but have been short on time for.

 * Regarding your point "Archive headers do not close off a page..." Then why does it explicitly say for each header "The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion."?
 * --TeleComNasSprVen 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd, two members of the community have expressed concern about the way that you have handled discussions here. That should be taken as a clear sign that you should proceed more cautiously. --mikeu talk 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Two users unfamiliar with WV deletion practice, sure, and clearly not caring. I made a long series of closes. Most were not controversial. Two proposers complained. The first RfD was satisfactorily closed, again, by me the same day with apparent consensus, and remains closed. The solution there didn't require deletion, and could have been done at any time. The second one remains with the archive template on. The close reason invites removal, but, my opinion, reversion of the closure should have some support beyond the proposer, there were two comments, basically negative, no support. Since I was one of those commenting negatively, I closed with caution, noting what I'm suggesting about reversal.

 * Yes, I should proceed carefully. But I was already proceeding carefully. Mike, I've concluded you don't understand what is going on, what has been disrupting Wikiversity for years, and how to fix it. If I did something wrong, Fix It! It would take seconds. Instead, you are focusing on discontent, as if that proves anything. Real life, I've organized large groups of volunteers, highly contentious people, and was able to demonstrate 100% consensus, or very close. And you? There are a few people who will oppose efficient and fair consensus process, always, and they tend to take over wikis. I've been doing what is within my rights as an ordinary user, anyone could do it. The problem is? And, if there is a problem, is this the page to consider it on? --Abd 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Knowing wiki process and complete understanding of what is going on as prerequisites for participation and attention being given to concerns can create unnecessary barriers to entry that nobody can live up to. People arguing for those prerequisites may already have made participants feel alienated, contributed to a decline in participation, and impeded consensus. I suggest you stop telling people what they do and do not know or understand, and focus instead on explaining whatever it is you think people don't know or understand. -- dark lama  18:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been doing exactly that, and it's unpopular among some. The situation at Wikiversity is untenable, as it has been. To move toward fixing it, I'm acting as any editor may act. Moulton writes about Action Research. I do it. If I make a mistake, Fix It.

 * If, Darklama, you think I've been proposing that one should "know wiki process" and have "complete understanding" before participating, you have not, yourself, been paying attention. Where have I argued for this? However, I'll review the above for examples of "telling people that they don't understand." Is it okay to tell them what they do understand? I've been told, about a hundred times on Wikiversity, that I don't understand, and I haven't seen any intervention from you. So why now, Darklama? I can guess, but what do you say?

 * This page is about RfD, and about RfD process. That's what I was writing about. Instead, I become the topic. Is this what you want to support, with your toothless and useless tools? As long as far, far more uncivil comment than this is allowed to pass, routinely, from certain users, I'll consider that the defacto Wikiversity Policy is Anything Goes. --Abd 18:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In olden days the Prince of Socking  Was looked on as something shocking  But now Abd knows,  Anything goes!  Good writers here who once used fewer words  Now use mainly "kiss my tochus" words  Writing prose —  Anything goes.   But now it's wintertime in Arkansas  The Lake of Ozarks Park is frozen, pshaw. So DarkLama, I'll thank —<BR> Jump in a snow bank!

 * Above Atrocious Song Parody by Moulton who may want to replace this with his standard notice.... --Abd 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * . --Abd 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I'll stand with what I wrote, having reviewed it. The only comment that clearly resembled what Darklama was asserting was this: Two users unfamiliar with WV deletion practice, sure, and clearly not caring. That was in response to Mu's comment: two members of the community have expressed concern about the way that you have handled discussions here. That should be taken as a clear sign that you should proceed more cautiously. If how I have handled discussions here is consistent with WV consensus -- and the clear evidence is that it is, at least provisionally -- then my dismissing those complaints as to requiring me to increase caution was not protesting their right to participate, it was answering a personal objection to my behavior. Yet I see no concern on the part of Mu301 or Darklama for that. This reflects what happened in my "emergency desysop." I closed a "confirmation hearing" on SBJ, filed on the Candidates for custodianship page. That closure was vigorously protested, I was threatened with block, and when Ottava filed his "topic ban proposal," the first !vote, within minutes, was from Diego Grez, !voting because of that close. But the close stood, because the basis was sound. It was an ordinary edit. Diego could have reverted, for example. Ottava then moved the "hearing" to a Community Review, and removed the close, and I did not protest, because it was at least closer to WV process. In other words, I get flak, and a lot of it, for following and correctly anticipating WV consensus. I do it in a way that does not assert exclusive control, that invites participation and review of my actions.
 * And that I'm not supported by the likes of Mu301 and Darklama when I do this, points precisely to the biggest problems at Wikiversity. Anyone who arrives, and who cares enough about Wikiversity to start to clean it up, to build a real consensus, will be seen as rocking the boat, disturbing the community, even though most of the community, really, has left because of prior failure to address the problems.... --Abd 19:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * You wrote above, "Guido radically misunderstands both wiki process and standard democratic process", and "Mike, I've concluded you don't understand what is going on" in this section as two examples of stating what people don't understand. The defacto Wikiversity Policy does seem to be Anything Goes, and I have tried to contribute to changing that when and where ideas occur to me. Ideas for changing things come hard to me and infrequently, though ideas seem to be coming more frequently of late. -- dark lama  19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks. Ordinarily, Darklama, I'd go back and strike, just because you pointed it out and objected. But I'm not doing that now, because I need to stand with what I see, these aren't ordinary conditions. I want to encourage you do do whatever you think will improve the wiki. If you think it would improve the wiki to warn me, and block me if I disregard the warning, do it, and we will find out what the community thinks. You have not, here, warned me. You've advised me a certain way, and I don't think that simple compliance is the best that I can do. There are, indeed, some hopeful things going on. Part of what I'm trying to do is to stimulate those ideas of yours.

 * Just, please, understand one thing: I arrived at Wikipedia in 2005, having about twenty years of serious consensus process experience, knowing the rules of parliamentary procedure on top of that, knowing how to integrate them with consensus process to make it efficient, and having demonstrated this, and having written extensively about it. I understand how wikis work, in reality and in theory. I.e., I also understand how they don't work. I understand the problems with classical democratic process as well, and I understand possible synthesis. When I try to explain a small part of what I understand, there go my famous "walls of text." Which are so-called even when formatted as careful and clear expositions and not true walls, i.e., they breathe, visually, and even when the comments are relatively brief. There is usually a method to my madness. But I cannot do this alone. --Abd 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had just about enough out of you, Abd. The only cases where one should close a deletion request is when the nomination is obviously a product of vandalism after WP:AGF had been thoroughly exhausted as out of the question and where there is a clear majority of at the very least two users opposing the nominator covered under the WP:SNOW clause. You close prematurely deletion discussions and shut them off from further input, when what we're trying to do is find a way to somehow improve the project as a whole and request community input on how exactly to do that through these discussions. That is disruption. You continuously hark upon others about using the speedy deletion tags for non-controversial deletes, yet you have not observed at all that I have been doing exactly that long before you condescendingly told me how, nor have you completely reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion. None of the pages listed on here so far fit the category, so you are obviously wrong. In addition to that, there are now four users who have opposed your hasty closures; that's four against one, clearly in your so-called wiki process, and yet you ignore consensus still. You must have no idea what democracy or consensus really means when there is a majority against you, now do you? You make up policy as you go along, yet you refuse to adhere to your very own Recusal policy. In the deletion process you broke two rules already: you commented in the discussion and you are not an unbiased admin. As such you are not fit for closing such discussions. TeleComNasSprVen 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the title of this section, TCNSV? First of all, I'm not an admin. These were all non-admin closes. Yes, I commented, but that doesn't prevent me from closing non-controversially. There was controversy over one close, and it was quickly resolved. Notice that Guido, seeing my closes, also closed a discussion in which he'd commented, he was actually the nominator. It's more efficient than "withdrawing the nomination," which would still require someone else to close. Quite a number of the pages would have been speedy deleted if tagged for that, so I don't know what TCNSV is talking about there. While I was a custodian, I deleted a number of the pages brought to RfD immediately. Below, I examine this "four against one" concept. It seems opposition is how TCNSV thinks.

 * You are correct, I have not warned you. No conditions or warning is implied. Yes I have advised you, advice is the only intention. If you assumed there is more to it, you may be failing to assume good faith. I suggest you stop suggesting people warn and block you too, before someone takes you up on it, and blocks you simply because you suggested it. -- dark lama  20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Darklama, I'm suggesting, in fact, that all custodians warn users about violations of Civility policy and back it up with (short) blocks as needed. With advice, advice is great, but ... I could easily be twice your age, I don't know, but from the signs, I do have more experience. That doesn't mean that I should disregard your advice, I don't disregard it. Just don't be surprised if I have a different idea! I did not assume there was more to it than advice, that was plain from what I wrote, right? I see you fairly clearly, Darklama. As to being blocked, I've discovered that it is painless, the only damage it does is, possibly, to the wiki. And, in the end, it's up to the community, and if the community doesn't want me editing, I won't continue! And if it doesn't care, I probably won't continue anyway, it depends! At least not editing of other than my Favorite Topic. --Abd 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Incorrect, the meaning and context of what you write was not plain to me. I found about 5 ways to read what you wrote, each with a different meaning and context, and possibly different undertones. People seem unable to agree if incivility should be prevented, let alone how to address incivility, how to interpret the civility policy, what is to be prevented, and what is uncivil. These issues are not unique to English Wikiversity either. Weighing harm that may be caused to the community caused by taking action against the harm that may be caused to the community by not taking action may be the only means right now for a block to have any kind of foundation on which to build on. However my experience at English Wikiversity, suggest so far that there are no right or wrong answers to be found, and there are no actions, including inaction, which isn't seen as harmful. I am aware of a principle of ignoring a vocal minority, and I would be inclined to follow that principle if I could, but I am no good at guessing what a silent majority wants. -- dark lama  00:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Great, Darklama! There are 5 ways to read what I wrote? Now, how could I reduce that to one? Should I, in fact, reduce it? The best writing carries many different levels of meaning. I'm puzzled, though. You start with "incorrect." What is incorrect? I wrote a lot of things, were they all incorrect? Or which ones? Yes, you, like others, are often "no good" at guessing what a silent majority wants. However, that doesn't mean that everyone is. The proof is what happens when the majority awakens. A small-scale discussion is often wildly different from what the majority would express, if it participates. "Weighing the harm" of action vs the harm of inaction is always necessary, were you assuming that inaction was less harmful? You are correct, any action may be seen, by some, as harmful, including inaction. Wikis, in fact, depend upon responsible actors, who act according to their best understanding of wiki welfare, not on people who guess at what consensus is and then follow their guess, even if they disagree with it. When consensus is clear, we follow it (or at least stand aside). But when it is not clear, the principle is to do what you *personally* think best, and then let the community decide, because others can similarly act.

 * I don't know if you noticed, but not once in my WV custodial career, about two months total, did I wheel-war. That wasn't just because I was a probationary custodian! It was because of wikitheory. I made only a few truly controversial actions, and I believe I can justify all of them, but they were all subject to reversal by any other custodian. That's the safeguard, not trying to prevent custodians from acting!

 * But the stuff here had nothing to do with custodian actions. I didn't close any new deletes because I'm not a custodian! I was showing how a non-custodian can help clean this up, leaving more time for custodians to do stuff that requires the tools. If it's true that the community doesn't want me to do this, I assume I'll find out. How about commenting on the discussion below, if you'd like to be useful? --Abd 02:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I do not know if writing can possibly be reduced to a single meaning. I think discussions should ideally be reduced to a single meaning if humanly possible. I already explained what was incorrect. I am puzzled by your puzzlement. The word "incorrect", was followed by a comma, indicating there is still more to the thought. What follows after the comma, is the explanation as to what is incorrect, which btw included the question I was responding to rephrased in part in the form of a statement.
 * I do not know if inaction is less harmful. I err on the side of caution, with inaction being my default stance. I think Custodians acting on what they personally think is best, is not the best thing for the Wikiversity community at this time, as any discussion that may follow is likely to be fueled by emotions and ego and is unlikely to help the community decide anything productive.
 * Your mistake might be in assuming there is a universal wikitheory that appropriately applies to every wiki. There may be a difference between justification and explanation that may need to be explored elsewhere. People may also need to learn to recognize the differences between justification and explanation. I can agree that preventing custodian action is not a good safeguard, but caution may be a better safeguard than reliance on the hope reversal is enough to make everything better. If you rob a friend, deciding to return their things or someone else returning their things, is unlikely to result in reconciliation of the friendship.
 * Abd, a quick text search suggest you are the only one that mentioned custodian actions with respect to your actions. This suggests you are correct the stuff here had nothing to do with custodian action, while suggesting you either believe your actions are custodian related or you believe other people's issues with your actions are rooted in what people think is appropriate for a custodian or custodian to do. Please clarify what you are actually suggesting or implying. -- dark lama  14:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The actual closes
Now, please attend to the substance here: above, TCNSV is claiming that "four users" who have opposed my "hasty closures." Sounds bad, eh? But wait a minute. How many closures did I make? Not counting older ones, there were, mostly on Feb. 6: (One of these I just did, missed it before.)
 * 1) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection.
 * 2) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection.
 * 3) WV:Requests for deletion reverted by nominator Closed by Geoof Plourde, similar conclusion.
 * 4) WV:Requests for deletion reverted by nominator, see second try below.
 * 5) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection.
 * 6) WV:Requests for deletion reverted by TelComNasSprVen (not nom), see second try below.
 * 7) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection.
 * 8) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection
 * 9) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection
 * 10) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection.

One close was reverted, by the proposer. Because another user then redirected the page, and the proposer accepted that, I reclosed and the close stands. All the other closes stand as well. Any one of them could still be reverted by any other editor, if my closes were incorrect. Most of the closes specifically invited reversion by any registered editor other than the nominator (which doesn't mean that the nominator cannot revert, obviously, only that I disapprove of that, for reasons I've explained).

The way I see it, one user opposed, temporarily one close. Resolved. One user may oppose another, but hasn't specified which one. And two users have griped about my attitude, apparently, not about the closes.

What I'm seeing here is argument for the sake of argument and personality conflict, part of the Wikiversity Problem. I took action to start to clean up this page; many have complained about how long stuff stays here. There are some who seem prepared to attack everything I do, and others who seem to assume that if someone is protesting, there must be something wrong. What's wrong? What I did rigorously respects consensus. That I'd be, effectively, attacked for this, says a great deal about Wikiversity, why one of the most respected users I know says that he won't work here until this nonsense stops.

Mikeu and Darklama, please wake up! Wikiversity needs you. There are forces active that will tear this place apart again if we don't get it together. The RFC RFC is a great idea, please work on it. --Abd 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional closures:
 * 1) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection.
 * 2) WV:Requests for deletion archived by me without objection.
 * 3) WV:Requests for deletion archived by Mu301.
 * 4) WV:Requests for deletion second try. Archived by Mu301.
 * 5) WV:Requests for deletion second try, reverted by TeleConNasSprVen (not nom) Closed by SB_Johnny, same result (No consensus).
 * 6) WV:Requests for deletion reverted by Bilby. Closed by Geoff Plourde, same conclusion, no consensus.
 * 7) Requests_for_Deletion reverted by TCNSV, closed by Michael Billington (similar result)
 * 8) Requests_for_Deletion reverted by TCNSV, Closed by Poetlister, same conclusion.

Overall review, to date: Except for what Mikeu just did, nobody was cleaning up this page. I'd been participating in discussions, so I could not act as a purely uninvolved closer. However, I may propose closes. With low attention paid to this page, though, proposed closes often do nothing at all. It is far more efficient to actually close, and this is not offensive if the close is reasonable. I've suggested that such a proposed close be reversible by anyone not the nominator, thus to keep a page nominated for deletion would take at least one other user thinking it worth continuing to discuss. TCNSV, a frequent nominator, objected, and claimed my closes were abusive.

However, the review shows that I have, so far, not failed to anticipate consensus, where that has become clear. I closed 14 RfDs, plus three second attempts. So far, 11 requests have been archived, removed from the page, without incident. One of the second attempts stuck and was archived by Mu301. 2 RfDs remain open, without resolution. In no case was a close of mine reversed, as to eventual decision, so far. And even if every other one were to do so, nevertheless my closes would clearly have had a net effect of cleaning up the age. I don't have to be perfect, and any close can later be appealed, even if it's been archived.

However, allowing a nominator to reopen a close hasn't shown such a great record here. TCNSV reverted two RfD's that he'd filed. In one case the RfD got an additional Delete !vote after my proposed close, but this wasn't a proper RfD, it simply lists the user's contributions page, where many of the pages in that display don't have a problem. The result, with his other reopening, has been three discussions that simply remained open another month, with one of them (Perivity) gaining an additional !vote toward my first closing position. That was the only RfD that TCNSV reopened without being the nominator, but the nomination was from an experienced Wikipedian, and such often don't understand Wikiversity inclusion policy; the nominator's position appears to me to be aligned with TCNSV (but without other aspects unique to TCNSV). (Under the simple guideline I've proposed, I'd not have objected to TCNSV's reopening of that RfD, but the second re-opening, with the lapse of time and additional support for my closing position, was iffy on different grounds.)

Bilby reverted my close of A Translation of the Bible, which was procedurally proper, even under my proposed rule, though I disagree with his reason. He reopened solely because of my apparent involvement, i.e., that I'd made comments in the RfD. If he wished to comment, that would have been fine, and if he wished to close, that would have been fine. Keeping it open, when it had been open for a month, is not good practice, however. Having an open RfD may discourage development of the resource. The 10-day period for Wikipedia is probably designed to allow editors on a weekly schedule to participate, if we allow a month, that should be more than adequate. RfDs without consensus in a month should be closed as no consensus or with a result.

There is no substance to the claim that my closures were disruptive. They were reasonable attempts to express community consensus or otherwise make the RfD page more functional. --Abd 23:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The concern I expressed in relation to the closure of A Translation of the Bible was not merely procedural. Generally speaking, closing a deletion discussion where you have expressed a strong opinion one way or the other is inherently problematic, as your involvement raises questions about whether or not you can neutrally evaluate the consensus. Even if you can, the perception will remain that the closure may have been incorrect. There are exceptions, where consensus is so clear that all concerned will recognise that there was only one possible outcome, but consensus in regard to A Translation of the Bible is not in that state.
 * This is not an emergency situation - closing discussions is a good thing, and finalising them in a reasonable length of time is a good idea. But leaving a discussion open while we wait for a neutral party to close it, where there is no particularly urgent need for a resolution, is likely to do less harm than a questionable closure. - Bilby 14:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not an emergency situation. What I do claim is that there is an ongoing harm, from a deletion discussion remaining open, and that we should not routinely tolerate that harm. We should establish a maximum time for a discussion to remain open, or a clear guideline for leaving it open beyond that time. What I'm saying is that a reasonable time (a month, three times as long as the WP time unless a discussion is specifically re-opened) passed, without a delete consensus. If it's closed without prejudice, it could be re-opened; but I'm claiming that such a re-opening should be based on some actual idea that more discussion is needed. I'm not seeing any harm asserted from an "incorrect close," particularly one that asserted "no consensus." And you were able to undo the close, and under the proposed guideline, you still have been able to do that. It seems, Bilby, that you are opposed to anyone who has expressed an opinion in the RfD being a closer, and, given the realities of RfD discussions on Wikiversity, this could readily lead to very long open times! I closed as "involved," only because I'd commented. That was undoable, easily, as it was by you. But, I'm suggesting, you could have made a close yourself, the same or different, or you could have commented, and it would have been reasonable, then, to allow some more time for response. What you did instead was to object to the person of the close. If we want to have a policy that a person who has commented ("strong opinion" is subjective) shall not close, we can do it. But I'd suggest that, as a policy, it would be foolish, requiring unnecessary length of time and possible outside requests for more attention, without actually improving the quality of decisions. "Involved close" explicitly implies that it's reversible, upon objection, but the objection should be more than merely procedural.

 * I closed as I'm not seeing sufficient WV user support for deletion. Close as keep, without prejudice. Involved close (!voted). "Keep without prejudice" is a synonym for "No consensus, default is thus keep, but the page may be renominated." Given that the close may itself be reversed if someone still wants to discuss it (I've been leaving closed discussions on the RfD page for, I think, a minimum of two weeks), there was no problem with this. A future renom should cite the prior RfD, but, then, the discussion would be new, hopefully those commenting would consider the old.

 * This RfD was particularly disruptive, because arguments were immediately introduced that were irrelevant, about the author. Also a point was that there were arguments by users not familiar with WV inclusion practice. --Abd 16:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * WV:Requests for deletion has been closed as "no consensus," which was obvious when I originally closed it.... --Abd 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reopenings by TCNSV
TCNSV, with reopened three RfDs that I'd provisionally closed, with the edit summary, (since Abd wants proof of why his closures are considered controversial...)

 * Special:Contributions/Pabloruiz nominated by TCNSV
 * TCNSV removed my closing argument but added argument against it.

 * Digestive system nominated by TCNSV
 * TCNSV removed my closing argument but added argument against it.

 * Perivity nominated by Fred Bauder
 * TCNSV removed my closing argument but added argument against it, and ignored that the file had been userfied, which will normally trump deletion.

I do object to reopening by the nominator; however, as that principle has not become policy, I'll let that go for now. I will restore my closing comments as comments in the body of the RfDs, and we will see what the community does with these.

I fail to see how this could prove, either way, how my "closures are considered controversial." They were all done on February 6 and stood until the 11th. If that's controversial, it's certainly not very controversial! There were a total of 10 closures in all. --Abd 02:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that your comments should have been left in. It probably would have been better to leave them in place with a note below explaining that more discussion was desired. --mikeu talk 15:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Closure of "Inexplicable physics pages"
I closed this discussion as "No consensus," for two reasons: first, there was substantial sentiment to keep the page, but, more importantly, the circumstances had changed, this was a complex deletion discussion covering many pages, which varied in nature, and the strongest argument for deletion was "copyvio," which is normally handled by speedy deletion anyway, and could still be done in that way. The copyvio argument is weakened by the strong possibility that the "copyvio" is only the original author of the material, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, putting up his own writing, and this is the kind of thing to be worked out by a custodian, with the author. The original argument was partly based on the author being anonymous, and a claim of copyvio was made by Ottava Rima in blocking the IP editor who'd done some of the creation or editing, with a representation that if a registered editor started participating, it might be okay. This is way too complex a situation to decide with an RfD. All the original problems with the pages have been addressed, in some way or other; if copyvio is a real problem, the pages should have been deleted long ago! Copyvio should be handled with speedy tags, with each page being handled individually, and only en masse if a set of pages clearly involve the same issues.

If, as I recall, the objection is that edits don't properly credit the original source, that's easily fixed by crediting it!

My close was reverted by TCNSV, as he's reverted most of my closes, in spite of what can be seen above; so far, I have yet to close in a way that the community has not confirmed, ultimately, with only two pages, out of fifteen, remaining that have not been reclosed. I would not dare to make "involved closes" other than in the expectation of this. I can easily fix "the problem," stop commenting on pages to be deleted, and only close discussions.

The idea that only a custodian can close discussions is incorrect, custodians have no superior content rights; however, a "delete" close requires custodial tools, so, in the end, a custodian must sign off on a delete decision, which is the only reason why custodial closes seem to be required. If I misjudge consensus, as with a close by anyone, users are free to challenge it, but should do so carefully, because continuing discussion that has gone nowhere, for a year, with no custodian willing to close as delete, is just keeping this page a mess, which tends to suppress participation. --Abd 00:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Closure of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter
Above, I discuss the reversion of my closure of the "Inexplicable physics" RfD. When TCNSV reverted that closure, it was reclosed by a neutral administrator, User:MichaelBillington, with basically the same result. Later, I closed the Infinite hierarchical nesting RfD, because there was no substantial support for deletion. I made this closure statement: ''Involved close as Keep. Please, the nominator should not reopen this, but any other registered user may do so. --Abd 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)}}'' This has been my suggestion for an efficient procedure for non-admin closure of long-standing RfDs as keep or no-consensus, especially for an "involved close" where the closer has commented with an opinion favoring keep. If the only person who wants the RfD to remain open is the nominator, and if the closure is consistent with apparent consensus, or with apparent lack of consensus, it's clearly not going to succeed with deletion, it just keeps this page full of RfDs that have stopped attracting any comment, which then tends to suppress participation.

Should it be, in fact, desirable to delete the page, it would take a new RfD, and ending the old, dead one, is part of clearing the way for that.

TCNSV reverted my closure with (Undo revision 736049 by Abd (talk) disruptive, incoherent close; different situation; close result should be in line with WV:RFD

Sure, the situation was different, so why would TCNSV then claim that the result should be in line with the inexplicable physics articles? The situation was different because I knew that infinite hierarchical nesting is an old, notable concept, even though it's not accepted physics, it's more a metaphysical idea. And there was no support from regular Wikiversitans for deletion, only one Delete !vote from an editor who showed up, !voted in some RfDs, and disappeared, and we get votes from people accustomed to Wikipedia concepts of what can't be hosted, frequently.

No, TCNSV wrote this because he's acting consistently and tendentiously to oppose my efforts to improve the wiki. He's reverted many of my closes, see above, but in no case has the community then approved anything substantially different from my close, and almost all of my closes have since been archived without objection, either directly, or after being closed by another, with the same result. I only make an "involved close" when I believe that the result is clear and there is no value, and some harm, in keeping the RfD open. The real problem here is that TCNSV has nominated many articles or other pages or even a user's contribution history, when deletion is a measure of last resort at Wikiversity, and, when he doesn't get the result he wants, he wants the RfD to stay open. Maybe the calvary will arrive. He's creating work for editors, without benefit, and he's been disruptive in other ways as well. It's about time this be addressed. If this continues, I intend to take this to CR. Perhaps TCNSV would be willing to listen to someone else, he's surely not listening to me.

In this case, the only difference between my close here and the close of the Inexplicable physics articles is that Michael Billington elected to tag the articles, following my slow wastebasket idea. That was, in fact, an obsolete suggestion, because, since that time, the original author of the articles showed up, and is apparently an academic, and it would be very much outside of normal Wikiversity practice for these pages to now be deleted, they can be improved, questions answered, etc., and the author invited that. I have not removed the tags, but Michael did give me permission to do so.

Wikiversity is about collaboration and cooperation; it may not be for everyone. I am, in these closes, solidly with the community consensus (though there is some discomfort with the idea of an involved close ... I'm uncomfortable with it, too, which is why I'm so careful about it, why I normally disclose "involved close," explicitly, and why I invite reversion, excepting only the nominator, and I could justify that exception, I think I did, above. It's not personal, this would be about any nominator. I do not do involved closes except for an emergency situation (not normal RfD) and RfDs which have remained open a long time, they are going nowhere. This particular RfD, TNCSV just reverted open, was filed November 12, 2010. That's more than enough time to allow Delete comments, if they are going to appear. --Abd 00:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is highly off-topic, and so would more appropriately be moved elsewhere. Read this to see why these continuations of disruptive closures might warrant a CR. I'm sorry that I cannot provide a more lengthy response to this rather incivil diatribe, but I currently have more importantly things to look after. TeleComNasSprVen 20:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

TeleComNasSprVen 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This in no possible way that I can see improves the wiki anyhow. Closing a deletion request prematurely before a consensus interpretation is given cuts off discussions abruptly without giving any possible explanation for why such treads were closed in the first place. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is even worse than this page because it is not speedy at all — deletion requests for the tags can stay in that category for a month or more, and I've seen it when I tried to help before. Furthermore, you've given no reason as to why the clause that nominators ought not reopen their own requests should be added. There are two scenarios that I can see to any discussion closed early: Someone has nominated to delete a page, leaves for a month, and returns to find a bunch of keep !votes not within policy, but closed as "no consensus" anyway, and the situation has changed; say, he found a copy of the page on an external website and wants to respond to the deletion request, but cannot do so because the big red banner at the top of the thread says "The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it." The second situation would be where a deletion request results in delete but the creator has not been allowed enough time to properly respond to delete !votes, and is angry to find his work thrown in the trash. Either way, there's significance as to why threads should not be closed prematurely.
 * Added to that, such closes are, as you noted above, "involved", when there are a perfectly acceptable number of uninvolved custodians or even other uninvolved editors no less ready to close a nomination if you would just message them. Rather than revert warring with me, and giving you yet a biased approach towards my nominations, there are several different routes you could have taken. Your other claims also go without evidence. I've seen nothing to prove that having deletion requests open here suppresses participation on the particular page at hand; because actually I have seen quite a few requests stay here for a month or longer and decided to use this page anyway, to its fullest potential. You've broken just that idea, because it gives people less incentive to use a page designed specifically for deletion when it is filled with keep closes. TeleComNasSprVen 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Abd, you can stop your personal attacks in that rant above. It's not necessary, and in fact disruptive.

 * Well, you have a point about a page full of Keep closes. I'll fix that. Normally, I'd wait at least a week before moving anything to the archive, but I'll archive closed discussions now. On the other hand, if you would get a better sense of what Wikiversity wants to allow and not, you might not create so many Keep closes. If you think that requests should stay open an indefinite time, you are free to attempt to get the proposed policy page to say that. I don't recommend wasting time on it. --Abd 02:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Why are pages kept? Because you close them as "keep", saying "no consensus" instead. It doesn't particularly matter, because the pages are still visible in the archives, if anybody wants to look at them, and I've brought many pages which I believed would qualify for deletion, if not specifically within the scope of WV:SPEEDY. Yet discussion and consensus has not been reached yet, and would probably have resulted in "delete" for a number of pages if not for your early closures, if more custodians are willing to spend their previous volunteer time taking better care of the threads.
 * Furthermore, you've failed to respond to the multiple other points I've stated above. TeleComNasSprVen 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 * No, TCNSV, pages are kept because there is no consensus to delete them, not because I closed with the obvious. There was sufficient discussion in this case and in many others similarly closed, and the community consensus appears to be -- it's not 100% clear -- that there should be a decision within a month, leaving deletion discussions open is positively harmful in a number of ways. You have an option, if you believe that a non-deletion close is inappropriate, and you are following it, though not correctly. You renominate. You won't see any objection from me to a renomination unless it is blatantly improper. Renomination creates a new discussion that is far more likely to attract new comment than an old discussion sitting orphaned up above, until and unless we get this page down to much smaller. Even then, people look at watchlists and Recent Changes, they don't necessarily look at old discussions. You claim that my closures are early, but, in fact, that is preposterous. It is only because you demand a consensus before a close, whereas custom on other wikis -- which is soundly applied here as well -- is that deletion discussions require a fixed maximum period, and if you disagree, the place to work this would would be Wikiversity talk:Deletion policy, where the current text of the proposed policy reads "a month." Or sooner, if comment has stopped!

 * So far, you have reversed many closes, and none of these have resulted in any change, they have merely kept the discussions open for longer, keeping this page at a larger than necessary size, with practically no benefit. Where you are correct, where being open longer would actually result in deletion, you have reasonable process to pursue, that I have clearly accepted and have facilitated, renomination. But pages like the Inexplicable physics pages or this one, Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, which confront differences common among editors as to the mission of Wikiversity and inclusion policy, with new editors commonly not understanding how a university will have far broader interests than an encyclopedia, say, or a set of textbooks, are not going to find consensus to delete, except erratically and occasionally. It's a complex issue, not only a matter of actual page content, but also whether or not there are interested registered editors willing to watch the pages is also an issue. In the case of this page, we now have a physicist involved, the author of papers on the subject, as a registered editor. That the "theory" or "conceptual approach" is not apparently mainstream is not important to us. What is important is that the page can be educational, and especially discussions among those taking an interest in the page can be educational.

 * Each one of the closes is a separate issue, but you treat them all as if the issue were me, the fact that I was the one who closed, and you have done this whether the close was "involved" or not. That's why, I suggest, you revert many closes with a single edit (which also makes it more difficult, from my end, to treat your reversions individually, it more or less forces me to do a single revert of your single reversion. If you will look, you will see that I have then gone back and have done what I could to address your concerns. With your "renominations," I've archived the original close and have then taken your renomination to a new section at the end. Please do that yourself in the future! That is, in fact, more likely to attract the attention that you believe will help find a consensus for deletion. However, see a argument that I will add in a moment to the renomination of Template:Uw-pinfo, and please be careful. --Abd 21:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A matter of time-length for discussion has always been extended to accommodate deletion discussions sitting around for days (c.f. w:Template:Relist). If as you say the purpose of renominations is to generate new discussions, what would be the point of renominating Clinical Practice to begin with when there has been absolutely no discussion at all in a prior nomination? Renominating would be pointless, because there is no new material to work from, and it is the same as relocating a particular section. You've also failed to demonstrate to me exactly what this "harm" is that you're referring to in keeping a discussion open. TeleComNasSprVen 21:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TCNSV, please stop assuming (are you?) that practices from Wikipedia are appropriate here. Yes, Wikipedia AfD discussions can be extended, though I've seen this be problematic, given that AfD often floods with initial delete comments from deletionists who preferentially monitor AfD. Almost always, a re-opening is to allow more people familiar with the article and subject, who might want to Keep it, time to notice. Further, AfD is a 7-day process on Wikipedia. We are now allowing, here, a month. If we were to shorten the time to 7 days, yes, an extension might be quite in order.! WV is not Wikipedia, we have very different conditions. You gain up to an extra month by renominating, per the present draft policy, total two months, with even the possibility of more. So your problem is?
 * There are a number of harms from keeping a discussion open. I've stated them before.
 * Once a discussion stops attracting new comment, additional comments become very rare.
 * People see discussions most often, probably, from watchlists, so they notice an initial nomination. If they even see an RfD that's old, for whatever reason, they tend to stay away. The longer the original discussion, as well, the less likely become new comments. People don't want to read long discussions, frequently.
 * The existence of old nominations on the RfD page creates an impression that Wikiversity is not taking care of business, that it's been abandoned. In fact, there may be a shortage of people who will handle RfDs, it's not the most exciting job in the world. Generally, Wikiversity is short of custodial help, but that problem will be addressed, I'm sure. Meanwhile, those of us who are not custodians can take on some part of the burden. Expecting custodians to do what does not require custodial tools is needlessly adding to the custodial burden. Non-administrators not uncommonly close AfD on Wikipedia, when the close is not Delete. In one case I was familiar with and involved with, this was done by an ex-administrator, who had the experience to know what the community will accept and what not. Ahem!
 * Once an RfD is not attracting comment, and if the result is not clear, closing it and allowing renomination, if someone still thinks a page should be deleted, creates fresh traffic; and if this is at the bottom of the page, with a fresh date, people are far more likely to see it and comment. The archived prior nomination should be referenced, as I've been doing. I wouldn't suggest, though, nominating more than twice, unless the deletion reason is really clear, and in that case, there is no limit to the time a speedy deletion tag can be up! Eventually, a custodian will get to it and either accept the tag or remove it. Efficient. Just not always so "speedy." When you've been an administrator for a while, you may understand why, it's about marginal cases. Really obvious speedy-tagged pages get deleted quickly, normally. Sometimes it takes longer, but if deleting a page is actually an emergency, I'd suggest RCA and/or IRC. For transparency, I'd suggest both.
 * While sometimes RfD attracts page improvement, it can also suppress it. I know that I learned, the hard way, on Wikipedia, to not work on pages under AfD, because much of the time I was wasting the effort. I'd improve a page, find reliable sources, etc., and still the page would be deleted because of the weight of Delete votes based on the condition of the page before the improvements! Sure, I could then go for DRV, but when I didn't really care that much? And most users won't even think of DRV. I did, in one case, find a source for a page that had been deleted, and I went to the closing admin and requested reconsideration. The admin undeleted, renominated the page (that admin was, my opinion, being more cautious than necessary, but it was okay), and it was then kept in the new discussion.... I cared that much because the deletion nomination was, in fact, from a sock of a blocked user, who had made a lot of trouble.... I used to care about that. Most common editors (not regular Wikipedians), I believe, are scared away by an AfD tag, and I assume something similar operates at Wikiversity.
 * Enough? In the end, TCNSV, it's not about your opinion or my opinion, but what the community wants. --Abd 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ethics/Moulton, JWSchmidt's investigation
The following comments were added. This RfD was closed, see Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/11. Moved to Talk accordingly. I have removed the dr template from the page, which had been left after the RfD closed. --Abd 01:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)]]
 * Keep. I am for keeping moulton information around mainly because of the historical effect he had on the Wv, but also because I think that whatever is "up" with him is psychologically interesting.--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this important and related to studies of the WP community and flaws in the WP system. Devourer09  ( t · c ) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I intend to move these comments to the archive, placed below the archived section, if there are no objections. This is so that anyone researching this in the future will see these comments. Here, they will not be found. Just being tidy. --Abd 14:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives to deletion discussions
If a resource is causing no harm, as it is, and if there has been no argument over keeping a resource, creating a Request for Deletion can waste the time of many users. There are alternatives: Please don't just jump to an RfD if it is not necessary. —Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there has been no significant investment of time in creating a page, a speedy deletion tag can be used. ( . If that is removed, then a discussion may be needed, but it may start as a one to one discussion between the user tagging and the user removing the tag. If no agreement can be found, then RfD.
 * If a resource might be improved, there is, which is used to set up ultimate deletion if there is no improvement.
 * If there is significant work involved in a page, but the page is considered inappropriate for Wikiversity, and if the page existing in user space would do no harm, the page may be moved to user space. If this can be anticipated to be controversial, it may be discussed with involved users. If there are no links to the page, the redirect created may be speedy deleted. (This page will show up in the creator's watchlist and contributions under the user space name, so the user may be able to find their work. It is also a courtesy to notify the user of such moves, as well as deletion discussions, on their user talk page.)

 * I have, in the past, speedy deleted pages that were not in English, solely for that reason. However, deletion policy does not list this as a reason for speedy deletion, and it is now obvious to me why: the resource could simply be translated! (This provides educational opportunities galore, and, in fact, I intend to start a translation project to organize this.) If there is nothing in the resource worth translating, that, then, could suggest deletion -- or moving the page to user space, but the reason is not that it is not in English.

 * In the other direction, if a page obviously fits the criteria for speedy deletion at Deletions, or if consensus to delete can be anticipated, then do not start a deletion discussion here as a first step, but tag the page for speedy deletion. The deletion policy page suggests, as well, using Template:Proposed deletion to queue a page for ultimate deletion if it is not improved. So if a speedy deletion tag is removed, the page may be proposed for deletion, or one may start with a proposed deletion tag. We should write policy for proposed deletion tag removal, it could be a bit more sophisticated. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion policy
There is no deletion policy. There never was a policy, but a proposed policy. A relatively stable version was. That talked to some extent about grounds for deletion, but the community never established something clear. We punted, avoided the question. Without a clear policy, there is no way for users to predict whether or not their work will be kept as openly accessible. Having a page one has worked on, a little or a lot, is disconcerting, to say the least.

As a community, we have learned to avoid deletion, for the most part. There are exceptions, and they are generally covered by speedy deletion guidelines. The proposed policy I linked to focuses on "educational intent."
 * Pages that are obviously not intended to educate and share knowledge may at any time be deleted without prior discussion (speedy deletion).

Yet we have always tolerated, and rarely have deleted, certain pages that don't have that intention, and these are our user pages. Users may generally create their own user page with a high degree of freedom. They can simply put a joke on the user page. They may complain bitterly about what a useless place Wikiversity is, and may "noisily" Retire. We don't touch the pages, we have a number of them.

The present guideline page does not specify grounds for deletion or keep. It focuses almost entirely on speedy deletion process, i.e., the obvious cases. This, then, provides no guidance for deletion discussions at RFD, nor for custodians closing such discussions. They become entirely ad hoc. We are considering this on Wikiversity talk:Deletions. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus
In a current RFD, permanent link, we see a number of complaints that a request has not been closed, in spite of, allegedly, consensus being shown. This is worth looking at.
 * Crosswiki-spam is a self-evident damaging action. I don't want to use common sense as a deus ex-machina but, matter of fact, fighting promotion is a common sense task for admins. I cannot figure out your pro/con evaluation which is obviously opposite to mine but also you evaluation of users' consensus which goes clearly for deletion and which shouldn't anyway be overriden. [username redacted] 13:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ... why are you ignoring consensus for deletion? [Username redacted] 19:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ... I believe that currently there exists a consensus to delete the page ... [username redacted] 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC

The custodian who filed the RFD is seeking a policy basis for deletion, and has requested that such a basis be explained -- or that policy be established to clarify the matter. Is a policy basis required? Deletions does not currently state that, it does not actually provide guidance for custodians on how to close discussions. However, wiki traditions are strong that decisions are based on consensus as shown in arguments, not in numbers of votes. On Wikipedia, deletion policy establishes that closes are not based on head counts. w:Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators is explicit:
 * Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

Our custodians have generally, and historically, followed this Wikipedia guideline. In the present discussion, alleged "facts" were presented, as the basis for a Delete vote, that were not fact, that were clearly error. Opinions were presented, i.e., conclusions, rather than the underlying facts that would support the conclusions. No policy-based (or "defacto policy" based) arguments were made, other than referring to a practice that is not a policy, but a heuristic used by antispammers, i.e., they "fight promotion." However, promotion is not prohibited, generally, see w:Wikipedia:User pages which prohibits, not all "self promotion," but only "excessive unrelated content," explained as to promotion as
 * Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).
 * Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.

Key: "Extensive." For a photographer's user page to point to a photo by the photographer can certainly be thought of as promotion, but it could also be thought of as a personal introduction. It does not violate Conflict of interest policy, because any possible COI is self-disclosed through the user name (in this case). (Yes, "paid editing" is also allowed, with disclosure.)

So do we have a "consensus for delete"? So far, the following users have commented, with my interpretation of their comments:
 * 1) Dave Braunschweig Nominator. Presumably Delete, or inclined that way.
 * 2) Wim b tagged the file for speedy deletion. But no explicit vote.
 * 3) Vituzzu presented opinion on this account or experience re spambots, but explicitly denied voting.
 * 4) Goldenburg111 Delete as "cross-wiki spambot."
 * 5) Rschen7754 Delete.
 * 6) PiRSquared17 has not voted, but has countered some delete arguments.
 * 7) Abd Keep.
 * 8) TeleComNasSprVen Delete.
 * 9) Marshallsumter Keep.
 * 10) Cirt Delete.
 * 11) Sidelight12 Delete.

By head count, there is currently, roughly, Delete/Keep/Other of 6/2/3. However, then, there are other considerations. Globally, the effort to delete these user pages involved two stewards, (Vituzzu and Rschen7754), one global sysop (Wim b), and one regular user (TeleComNasSprVen) who does a great deal of antispam work, and who participated in the global tagging. None of these are active on Wikiversity to create or improve content, only, for the first three, to support us by identifying and tagging spam, and the other is here "to enforce the Resolution:Licensing policy Wikimedia-wide." And, apparently, to enforce a prohibition of "promotion."

All four of these users have commented in this RfD, two for Delete and the others to "inform" us about "spambot" and "paid editing." All of these users certainly have the right to express their opinions and especially to provide us with information we might otherwise miss. I have requested that Vituzzu, for example, provide us with evidence of paid editing, or sock puppetry, which he has also claimed. It has not been provided. Unfortunately, we were provided with false, misleading information on the "spambot" issue. Dave has commented on that, with a mixed judgment, but I've spend more than a week with the direct evidence and consider "spambot" to be very unlikely. This was merely a very unusual decision by a user to create a user page on many wikis (possibly aiming for all), and could easily have been done manually, and, so far, no evidence has been developed showing otherwise (such as high rate sustained without breaks -- a human can run 10 edits per minute, if they are simple and repetitive, feeding off a list of links, which I demonstrated, and could sustain 6 edits per minute for a hour. The actual edit rate, AFAIK at this point, was under 1 per minute.)

So ... if we set aside the "special interest group," that leaves us with 4/2/1. It isn't nearly as obvious as some might have thought. Key will be the arguments. There will also be a possible issue of who can close this discussion, since both of our active administrators have voted. I've covered this issue in the past. The filer or someone who commented may close adverse to their original position. Anyone may close if consensus is clear, such that objection is unlikely. That's not likely to happen here, but we can't be sure. We are working on policy, and the result of the policy discussions may trump the discussion here, making the conclusion obvious.

We have no rush to close this discussion. Policy suggests leaving the discussion open until consensus is clear. The page is doing no harm sitting there, one of a few remaining WMF world-wide, after being massively deleted by the global sysop and the two stewards who commented here, as well as by a few local administrators, most of whom cited "cross-wiki spambot" in the deletion reason. A fair number removed the tag. In one case, a local user removed the tag and a steward (a different steward, and also a local administrator) deleted the page anyway. So much for speedy deletion policy! (That was fr.wikipedia, I don't know what the local policy is, and the user was a newbie, apparently. Probably read the tag saying "any user can remove this" and believed it.)

We may be closer to consensus than some might think. Essentially, the goal of our policy discussions will be to create policy that will
 * Facilitate antispam work; time wasted in controversy is time that cannot be devoted to either building content or fighting spam.
 * Protect Wikiversity and keep it a safe place to work on education (one's own or that of others), for anyone who is willing to respect community norms, and even many who don't, as long as they don't grossly violate policy, or continue in violation after warning. We have users who had to be trained to respect policy and community norms, and we have actually succeeded in that. We don't do it by simply deleting their pages!
 * Make speedy deletion decisions easy, and how to handle spam easy, partly by a clearer definition of spam that does not prohibit allowed self-promotion.
 * We are close to agreement, I suggest. Or at least I hope! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tagged for speedy deletion, my implicit vote is "delete" (repeated also in discussion)--Wim b 22:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: this is only a opinion, because for respect the active user to this project, I don't voted explicitly, but I write only my idea of this.--Wim b 22:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Yes, I think my report reflected that. When I look at what you argued, setting aside the personal comments that don't really have to do with the page or the history, you argued that

 * From the times shown in CentralAuth, this must have been a bot.

 * From the pages being edited in alphabetical order, it must have been a bot.

 * A photo taken by a professional photographer, hosted on Commons, is spam if placed on his user page.

 * Incoherently talking about babelfish and sock puppets. I know what you were talking about, and may have explained some of it, but it wasn't relevant to this page. We have no evidence that Augusto De Luca was involved in creating the articles. Maybe. Maybe not. "Overlinking" refers to an idea of Vituzzu that, when a photo is used in an article is credited, there is something "promotional" in linking the name of the photographer to a local article on the photographer if one exists. I never saw the term "overlinking" in that regard before. Crediting the photographer is normal, and wikilinking is also normal.

 * As part of that post, you mentioned fact: Elvira Pisante and Ferdinando Castaldo, the primary creators of cross-wiki articles on Augusto De Luca, bear some resemblance. That is, they both have user pages with a single photo and no other content, and they both are single-purpose accounts (SPAs), you called those "monotematic," i.e., single-themed, or monothematic.

 * This would be enough on en.wiki to accuse them of being sock puppets, but not enough to establish it, because, easily, if they were simply users independently interested in the photographer, one of them might do something, and another thinks it's cool and imitates it, and, in fact, Augusto De Luca may have picked up the idea from Castaldo or Pisante, but, De Luca being clearly COI, did not edit the articles but only created the user pages. All this is interesting speculation but is irrelevant to page deletion. We are not going to punish one user for what others did (and we don't punish at all, we only prevent or repair actual harm). If Castaldo and Pisante were paid editors, nevertheless, that would not be grounds to ban De Luca. Indeed, we would want Luca to come out into the open and edit openly, wouldn't we?

 * (On en.wiki, I once handled communications with the President of a school that had employed genuine Nigerian SEOs. When he appeared to edit, personally, along the same lines, he was reverted, but communication opened up, a page on his school web site -- which had been globally blacklisted from the SEO activity -- was whitelisted so it could be used, and problems disappeared. He helped find some genuine sources for the article. He was not punished for having hired spammers. The attention also led to some critical sources. The ultimate result was a deeper and better sourced article.)

 * But I don't think Castaldo and Pisante were paid, just as I think that De Luca's daughter was not paid. I think that what she appears to be is exactly what she was, that is, his daughter, and I presume you read her user talk page traffic, right? About how she stopped editing with respect to her father when asked to do so? Don't you feel a little hesitation, at least, about her account being locked for no cross-wiki offense at all?

 * In any case, thanks for all the work that you do identifying and stopping spammers. At some point I would appreciate it if you would correct the obvious error that you made about CA account attachment times being proof of "bot." It would give me more confidence in your future work. If you don't think that's an error, if you need further explanation, let me know, my talk page is open. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Abd: IMHO this is a bot, it has many characteristics of this. btw, here isn't a good page for talk about "is a bot or not?". The decision about the policies is a job for the active community. My edits in delete page were for mostrate another point of view, if here this POV isn't shared, isn't my deal.--Wim b 07:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is a good page to talk about what is a bot or not?
 * I did not ask you to retract your opinion that it was a bot, that is a separate matter. I asked you to retract your false claim, that is, that the CentralAuth data showed an editing rate in excess of 6 per minute. To refresh your memory, here it is, it's the first comment in the RFD, and it obviously influenced subsequent voting:
 * From Special:CentralAuth/Augusto De Luca (sorted by date):
 * en.wikipedia.org 17:03, 23 mar 2014
 * en.wikibooks.org 17:03, 23 mar 2014
 * en.wikiquote.org 17:03, 23 mar 2014
 * en.wikisource.org 17:03, 23 mar 2014
 * en.wikiversity.org 17:03, 23 mar 2014
 * en.wiktionary.org 17:03, 23 mar 2014 ...
 * 6 edits in 1 minute, after, 2 (on average) edit in 1 minute for 13 hours (from 6:53 on ace.wikipedia.org, to 19:39 on zh-min-nan.wiktionary.org) in a alphabetical order. The day after from ar.wikisource.org (08:18, 25 mar 2014) to vi.wikibooks.org (14:11, 25 mar 2014), project by proget, in alphabetical order. This isn't a bot in your opinion? --Wim b 23:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First, granted, the editing by Augusto De Luca was unusual. It looked like a bot, then, because it was many actions, 557 of them, repeated, though in sections, i.e, the image file was changed.
 * However, you made a number of errors, and, as well, considered what was irrelevant.
 * The times from CentralAuth are not edit times. They are automatic SUL account creation times. While sometimes these times reflect edit times, they always precede edits and the pattern you showed (en. accounts) I also saw in User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Claims/Test. The en.wiki accounts for Special:CentralAuth/!proxy were created with no action at all on my part. I did not load those to even look at them, except I was editing en.wikiversity. However, they do not show identical times, and that may merely reflect server load.
 * I showed, in that test, CA attachment times of 15:25 for seven wikis. With no edits.
 * In the previous test, creating my own user pages on wiki, I showed an edit rate in excess of ten edits per minute, and when the time to reload a new set of wikis was included, sustained editing was about six edits per minute. No script was used. This was manual editing. It was simply highly repetitive, that's all, set up by using a list of links derived from CentralAuth.
 * You believed that it was significant that the edits were in alphabetical order. That only shows that the activity was derived from a list. CentralAuth conveniently provides the list, in alphabetical order.
 * You then made a significant math error. You stated 2 edits per minute average for 13 hours, which went through the list (but skipped wikis). That would be 120 edits per hour, or 1560 edits. You were operating off of account creation times, not edit times, but assuming that those were edit times, as you did, you have greatly overestimated edits per minute.
 * There were various *major* sessions of activity. What I see, by the way, is not characteristic of bot editing. A bot would have completed it all in two sessions, perhpas in about 90 minutes each (unless stopped, are there global flooding restrictions?) The first session would have created the accounts by logging in to each wiki, which is guaranteed to create an account immediately, if it hasn't already happened automatically.
 * There is information here that you could use in spam-fighting.
 * The second session would have made the edits themselves. That is faster than creating the accounts, apparently. There is an attached account on 564 wikis.
 * The first session, 23 March, shown in CA, created accounts on 10 wikis, starting with the home wiki, it.wikipedia, and including login.wikimedia. I notice in that session that all the en.wiki sites attached at the same time. This is similar to behavior I saw. I doubt that the user even looked at, say, en.wikiversity, in the first session. So your conclusion of "bot" was correct. The bot, however, was not the user, it was the WMF server, automatically attaching accounts without direct user action.
 * The next long session, 24 March, began at ab.wikipedia at 05:53, and ran to zh-min-nan.wiktionary at 06:39, a time span of 43 minutes, creating 423 accounts in that time. That is almost 10 accounts per minute average.
 * However, this session can be seen to be broken into segments with higher attachment rate.
 * Looking at the data, I now see what Dave referred to. There are sections with high rate, with breaks. I now have a much better idea of what happened and why the user did what he did.
 * I was relying on your statement, previously, of 13 hours being the time to make all 557 edits. That was, quite simply, an error. I don't yet know the actual edit rate for creating the user accounts, but your figure of 13 hours, if it had been 557 edits in that time, would have been 1.4 minutes per edit, very far from what you wrote. I and many others were misled by the errors you posted.
 * I will continue my study, but what I see, so far, is completely consistent with a user who made a decision to create a user page, first on all the wikipedias, and then decided to create user pages on all the wikis. The user then simply did this, manually, using techniques obvious to anyone reasonably familiar with how to use computers. We don't write a bot to make 557 edits, unless we already have one handy that would do it. I've had to do many repetitive tasks, as an administrator, and you figure out how to set it up and then just do it. 90 minutes, I figured, to do what Augusto De Luca did. I wouldn't do it all in one session, probably, i.e., there would be breaks. What you think of as bot editing is just what a human would do. I've also watched bot behavior. It looks quite different.
 * I suspect that much of the spam you find that you think is "spambot" is not automated. But there is no way to tell, without the kind of study I'm doing, and it's not worth it, because "bot" is actually irrelevant. For spam, the issue is spamming, and, in particular mass spamming.
 * In this case, CA evidence if not examined carefully, knowing what one was seeing, looked like "spambot," and you will notice that when this was pointed to, pages were readily deleted locally. Without that, many admins looked at the page and wrote "this isn't spam." It happened here on Wikiversity, the user was welcomed. We don't welcome spammers, unless their first edit isn't spam.
 * I'm fully aware of how the global antispam work is done. It occasionally slams a non-spammer, someone who does what looks, at first glance, to be spam, but that actually isn't. I.e., it's all legitimate, or at least arguably so. And, I've found, the antispam workers are strangely unconcerned. They don't mind blacklisting a highly useful web site, actually reliable source for articles, because someone connected with the web site in some way (possibly as a volunteer, possibly not authorized to do it) posted links cross-wiki, having posted many for months, and then ramped up activity, obviously thinking this was acceptable and helping the projects, catching the attention of antispammers. Blocked and site blacklisted *without warning*. In fact, in the case I have in mind, the user *stopped* when warned and started to remove the links. Then gave up, simply stopped, made very few edits afterwards, obviously discouraged. It took years to get that site off of the blacklist.
 * All the edits were legitimate. So the antispammer edits reverting them were vandalism. (Not in intention, but in effect.)
 * In this case, the daughter of Augusto De Luca was globally locked by Vituzzu when she hadn't edited for more than two years, and she had not edited cross-wiki, and she had been locally warned about conflict of interest editing *and had stopped*. And then made more regular edits. The other editors globally locked were not warned. Global antispammers do not warn. We don't either. Not for spam. The page here was not spam, the possible promotional intention does not make an edit "spam."
 * I will bring this to meta, but I'm still studying it, and waiting for the dust to settle. Just as the local RFD is exposing some things missing from our policy, this affair is also exposing some things missing from global policy. That can, and will, I predict, be fixed, possibly by RfC.
 * What is relevant here is that "spambot" is not only irrelevant, but probably wrong, but inflammatory. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your exercise of wikilawyering will likely be included in next Worlds records book as the lengthiest.
 * Nicely rhetorical since you put the "strong" claims in the upper part, leaving the most confused alleged evidences for the second part. Also this invective is full of ridiculous theories about spamfighting dictated by a clear lack of knowledge about how spammers and antispammers work.
 * So, setting apart from all this bombast what is your summary? We are dealing with an incredible series of coincidences? Yes, it's pretty logical: we have several OTRSes, at least 7 *single-purpose* accounts and at least three of them having the same so common behaviour (massively creating hundreds of similar userpages) shared also by the ones with less edits.
 * The most "valuable" part of the spam cluster is being removed by the different communities though the crappiest part will rest on our live pages in order to remember us we are not ready to face more refined promo-attacks.
 * Since it has become a matter of pride and "wiki-politics" for you and some of your enablers so I don't want to waste more time on it but I'm afraid of seeing a community being victim of such disruptive logic.
 * --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Vituzzu, your usage of "wikilawyering" is uncivil. Just sayin'.
 * I may well have more experience studying and addressing -- and supporting -- the antispam efforts than any other user not actually regularly involved in them. You have not been specific in what "theories" you are talking about. Instead, your own responses are empty rhetoric, with the only virtue being brevity.
 * Now, there is no "incredible series of coincidences." There is ordinary human behavior, quite understandable. I am not finished with my study, but a pattern is emerging based on my spending far more time with the evidence than you have, Vituzzu. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but my sense is that your time fighting spam has damaged your perceptions, and it has done this with many administrators, who have confided in me about it. You don't realize it yet, I suspect. That doesn't mean you are wrong. It means that if you spend much of your time fighting X, you will start to see X everywhere. You might even be very good at seeing X, much better than others. You will see X when nobody else can see it.
 * And I mean really see it. But you will also, if you are a normal human being, sometimes see X when it isn't there.
 * You saw "promotional intent." That is probably correct. I.e, but was that the only intention? You think that "promotional intention" is prohibited. You have promotional intention linked in your mind with spam, because spam, you think, is based on promotional intention. It's actually a defective concept. Spam is sensibly defined by what it actually is, not by what the intention was, because the intention can never be known with accuracy. We can't read minds, not actually.
 * You want to know my summary. I understand that. But I don't have a summary yet. I haven't completely a review of the evidence. I am not operating from some "desired conclusion." My training is in the sciences. I'm trying to understand what happened before then moving to conclusions, and that we often skip that step is exactly what causes so many long-term problems.
 * You note, correctly, that "we are not ready to face" promo-attacks. Part of the problem, Vituzzu, is that you have targeted the wrong enemy. Promotion is not the enemy, and you might notice that paid editing is not being prohibited, rather, it is to be regulated. Promotional intention is behind many ordinary and common editing. "Paid" is a red herring. People edit to promote their favorite topics, their points of view, all of that. And, yes, it is a problem, but the problem does not go away by banning it, it goes away by channelling it. That is, what might seem to be a problem can become a source of valuable content.
 * There was a problem with the Augusto De Luca family of articles. Basically, they were poorly written, unskillfully sourced. While it's possible they were poorly sourced because there are no sources, it is far more likely, from what I know, that the editors were simply unskilled, as one would expect from SPAs with their low level of experience.
 * My goal here is this:
 * Wikiversity is a safe place, a refuge for users who may work on educational resources and "learning by doing," unmolested and unafraid, including users who have made mistakes elsewhere, or who have been blocked and banned, elsewhere, without regard to whether or not those blocks and bans were proper. We don't care. If users behave here, they are welcome here.
 * Wikiversity is easy to administer. We know how to handle content disputes nondisruptively, and we have clear standards for what pages are kept and what are deleted, so that people can anticipate whether or not their work will be deleted. We use user space as an almost totally safe place for work. That's why this user page, the apex of user space, is so important. We allow a level of promotion to exist on user pages, we always have, and so does Wikipedia.
 * "Easy to administer" means that clear and sensible policies are in place. If situations develop that are not well-covered by policy, instead of just deciding the situations and leaving it at that, we develop the policy, to make it cover the new situation. That takes deliberation, not merely Keep or Delete votes.
 * And for meta, the locked users violated no meta policy. There were policies violated in the response. I am not saying this was wrong. Rather, perhaps the policy was not well developed -- so the users had no notice that their behavior was improper -- or the administrators involved need to be educated by the community. If they are willing to be educated.
 * My concern is administrators who have moved beyond educability. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Please consider my stance as "not enough information to make a complete judgement on the issue", but would prefer to keep per Assume Good Faith (BTW don't see anything that I would immediately classify as "vandalism, sockpuppetry, and [or] other clear instances of intentional deceit") and Please do not bite the newcomers. If it comes down to a vote count, I guess I would say "keep based on the information I have seen and Abd's analysis". I don't want to jump to conclusions about the motivations behind this except for "AGF", but I do not think it violates any policy. I don't think "No educational objectives or discussion in history" was ever meant to include userpages, especially when the "welcome" is a lock. PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When all is said and done, this is just a discussion about deleting a userpage with a pretty picture on it. PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PRS. Your comment here is not likely to be considered in the RFD. However, your position is the same as mine, on every point you mention. What is important to me here is policy, not policy as fixing what we can and cannot do, but as guidance. The implications are important here. If policy is defective, fix the policy. If action is defective, fix the action. If a user is ignorant, makes a mistake, educate the user. Etc. This is Wikiversity, our goal is actually education and content ("educational resources") is only part of it for us. The other wikis, generally, are content oriented, purely. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Abd Don't are 6 edit per minute? And «after, 2 (on average) edit in 1 minute for 13 hours». I don't retract anything, this is real... you don't take advantage of language barriers, please.--Wim b 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wim b, I am not "taking advantage" of language barriers, I'm frustrated by them. You are repeating your errors without understanding what has been said to you. You showed CentralAuth data, which does not show edit timing, at all. So where did you get "6 edits per minute" from? And 2 edits in 1 minute for 13 hours would be 1,560 edits, whereas there were only 557 edits. And the 13 hour figure is bogus, you weren't looking at edit times, but CentralAuth.
 * CentralAuth data doesn't show edit timing at all. It shows 6 accounts created (generally automatically) in 1 minute, and I have shown that the en.wikis -- which is what you showed -- seem to be automatically attached together, even without any edits. See Special:CentralAuth/!proxy. The only English wiki I looked at, even touched, there, as User:!proxy was this one, en.wikiversity.
 * This is an important error, because many votes for deletion are based on the claim that this was a "spambot." Spam Bad, Spambot Very Bad. Maybe the page looks harmless, but if we believe that it was created by a SPAMBOT, it suddenly looks Awful. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1,560 edits? 2 (ON AVERAGE) edit in 1 minute for 13 hours isn't 2 edits per minute, YOU are repeating your errors without understanding what has been said to you... BTW, CA's page is public, who wants to see it can see it--Wim b 09:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Progress. I've not only seen the global CA page (the local version doesn't show full data), I've looked at every single wiki of the 557 with an edit, and I've copied volumes of data to the study pages here. The following is what I see, so far, responding to Wim b. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

To bot or not to bot, that is the question

 * The CA page begins, if placed in date order, with something highly misleading, and Wim b showed only that data, from March 24, at the top of the RFD, the first comment, and claimed that it showed 6 edits in a minute. The initial CA date is based on the SUL server behavior, and I've shown that conclusively. For automatic registration, CA doesn't show edit times, it shows the time that the local account was attached to the SUL account.

 * Someone explain to Wim b what "2 (on average) edits in 1 minute for 13 hours" means in English. The emphasis on ON AVERAGE makes it, to an English speaker, extremely clear. It means that if one divides the complete elapsed time by the number of edits total, one would get a number close to 2. In 13 hours there are 780 minutes. If there are a total of 557 edits, over a period of 13 hours, there are, then, about 0.7 edits per minute average, not 2. But there aren't. There were fewer than 557 edits in the period. Below, I will show that Wim b has reversed the rate, it is not 2 edits in 1 minute, it is 2 minutes (roughly) in 1 edit.

 * Does Wim b know what the limit is on "bot editing" per meta policy? Bot editing is not completely prohibited, but the policy isn't totally clear, and itself can be misleading. The policy states that bot editing below 1 edit per minute is not prohibited, but doesn't state the method of calculation. If a user makes two edits in one minute, is the user to be considered a bot? No, I'm sure, not. The rate of more than one per minute would need to be sustained. For how long? Not stated.

 * We will look, as part of the study, at the rate at which pages were deleted, because that is all public data. Did the global sysop and stewards exceed 1 edit per minute? I have not studied that data yet. And I am not claiming that they broke any policy if they exceeded 1 edit per minute. And if they did, perhaps the policy should be changed.

 * Wim b has thought that my comments are "personal," and has talked about "spite." I'm interested in evidence and fact. What is happening here is that the antispammers jumped to conclusions, which is normal for someone "fighting." However, what is not necessary is to be attached to the conclusions, and defend them endlessly. When we are fighting we make inferences from shallow evidence, and we often make mistakes. Real-life wars continue because of this, if we become attached to our conclusions.

 * I still do not know if a bot or script was used. However, the evidence cited by Wim b, at the beginning of his participation in the RFD, was misleading, because SUL account attachment times do not necessarily show edit times, and the Wikiversity page, still undeleted, obviously, shows this clearly. Sorting the CA data by date, as Wim b did, we see a burst of attachment times the first day. I saw the same when I tested SUL attachment behavior. The English projects were attached very rapidly without my even looking at the wikis, much less editing them. (Sometimes SUL attachments occur from looking at wiki while logged in to another. Not always.)

 * For the remaining files, undeleted as of last night, I show SUL attachment times and edit times, at User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/List of user pages, and the data shown there shows something quite interesting.

 * Dave Braunschweig pointed out on my talk page that most of the SUL attachments and edit times agree within 1 minute, excepting 2 out of 53. Those 2 are among the 6 edits attachment times shown by Wim b as supposedly proving a 6 edit per minute rate. The rest are for deleted files where I cannot see the attachment times.

 * Because I was first only looking at the error Wim b made, I assumed -- incorrectly -- that the SUL data cannot be used to show edit rate, so I didn't give that priority in my study.

 * What is still possible is to infer the edit rate, from a sample. I can assume that the remaining undeleted pages are a fair sample of the entire set, the attachment times and edit times will likely agree within a minute, if I set aside the first day attachments. If I've calculated correctly, the total elapsed time for these was from 05:53, 24 March 2014 to 13:11, 25 March 2014. That is a total period of 31 hours, 19 minutes, or a total of 1879 minutes, for 548 attachments, or about 3.4 minutes per attachment, average.

 * But Wim b wrote about "13 hours (from 6:53 on ace.wikipedia.org, to 19:39 on zh-min-nan.wiktionary.org)" How many edits in that period? He hasn't said, all he told us was "2 (on average) edit in 1 minute for 13 hours." The meaning of that in English is not ambiguous, and, as stated, it would require a total of 1,560 edits. So we must conclude that Wim b is not expressing what he knows correctly in English, and he has, above, explicitly denied that this is his meaning, confirming this. But what is his meaning? Or, better, what is the fact?

 * Wim b started with ace.wikipedia, but the ab.wikipedia attachment was at the same time.

 * For that period, the total elapsed time is 12 hours, 47 minutes, or 767 minutes. The total number of account attachments in that time was 416. This was, then, 1.84 minutes per attachment, not "2 (on average) edit in 1 min". He has reversed the ratio. It is roughly "2 minutes (on average) for 1 edit for 13 hours." This is below the cutoff for bot authorization, if it was a bot.

 * However, that is still misleading. As Dave pointed out, the behavior isn't steady, and a steady rate of 2 minutes per edit, sustained for 13 hours, would actually indicate a bot. A human would not edit like this, or it would be a very unusual human, it would actually be difficult to do it. A human would edit in bursts, with rests. A human will eat and relieve himself, etc. A bot will just continue, "mindlessly," as Telecom mentioned.

 * What does the actual behavior show? Dave has summarized it, but I will back up his summary with specific data. That will take time. For now, it's clear, the editing occurred in bursts. He described it as a "mixture of human and bot." I would describe it differently, because human beings are bots. That is, we can program ourselves to perform repetitive tasks at a bot-like rate, we "act like a robot." The "bot" issue is actually whether or not a human button push is necessary for each edit, a possible choice. The Wikipedia bot policy does into some detail on this.

 * I tested, the other day (User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Claims/Test) how I would create user pages, starting with a list of wikis and page names, trivial to create. Extrapolating from what I did, I estimate that I could manually create 557 user pages in about 90 minutes of intense work. There would be a regular break, the way I did it, every 20 edits, to reload. I'd probably take other breaks, so it would take a bit longer. It would be the breaks that would distinguish my behavior from a bot. A bot wouldn't take breaks like that, except to be reprogrammed. What does the actual editing show?

 * Wim b doesn't, I think, realize that my approach is as a scientist. Following the scientific method, I attempt to prove I'm wrong, not that I'm right. In reality, I still don't know what actually happened. I know pieces of it, I know that what Wim b presented, as if it were proof of "bot," wasn't that.

 * From this, I infer that he had formed a conclusion and was writing to support his conclusion, instead of simply to share evidence, neutrally gathered, as scientists do. He is not expected to be a scientist, he's a global sysop, and a "spam fighter." That's a kind of police officer. We do want police officers to become skilled at investigation, but those would be "detectives," not line officers on the street, who may indeed act based on impressions, as long as they don't shoot anyone without necessity! They may arrest on suspicion, and they will not be faulted for this if they act according to policies, i.e., if the suspicion was reasonable. However, when a police officer becomes attached to his opinions, and later presents testimony in court, no longer on the street, that is wrong, due to carelessness, the officer's job may be on the line.

 * So, very important in police and sysops: an ability to step back and understand criticism, to be able to listen to criticism and discuss it without making it personal, and even to listen to upset, irate citizens claiming they are vicious evil monsters, without becoming attached and angry themselves, and, especially, an ability to learn from one's own errors. Welcome to Wikiversity, Wim b, where we learn by doing. I have had occasion to interact with police who did become angry, and, yet, they were professionals. As soon as they realized that they were becoming angry themselves, they stopped themselves. Anger is actually disabling, martial artists know that. One will shoot more accurately if one is not angry, and, I suggest, one will "fight spam" more effectively in the same way. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, ok... so now you became convinced and you do not even care what other users say, I wont't even read what you write. bye. --Wim b 18:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wim b never did read what I wrote, apparently. Or if he did, he did so without understanding. I'm going to drop a note on his user page. It could be helpful if someone -- anyone -- would explain the above to him. I have responded directly to every issue he raised. If not, please ask me on my user page. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RFD -> Consensus -> Policy
From Community page: ''It's worth reiterating here that policy follows consensus, not the other way around. Although concerns that keep/delete votes don't cite policy might be valid, for the interests of the assessing administrator, if a consensus decision here is to delete such a page, we could use the example as precedent for changing the policy. Right now, we are trying to justify the deletion by shoehorning a contrived reason into the policy, rather than using the deletion itself to justify consensus, and then consensus into policy. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)''

 * This is a valid point. I'd like to take the discussion a step further, though.  RFD leads to consensus.  Consensus should then lead to policy, or at least accepted procedure.  Do we just accept that based on the RFD, that is consensus for procedure/policy going forward, or should there be additional discussion?  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Perhaps further discussion is not necessary. If there is consensus in an RfD to keep or delete then the case is closed.  The only difficulty comes in deciding when/if consensus has been reached.  If we want to go a step further and decide general proceedures so we don't need to repeat RfD's in the future, that is certainly possible when there is very clear consensus.  For contentious issues, it is probably best to handle them in RfDs on a case by case basis, but thankfully these cases are usually rare. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I guess being cautiously optimistic, I think that before a consensus can be a clear indication of procedure/policy a specific and concrete pattern should emerge that given similar concerns similar consensus will be reached, this then also helps to demonstrate that reasonable objections are unlikely, and what solicitation really means at Wikiversity. -- dark lama  15:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I was planning to add to TeleComNasSprVen's comment before it was closed, I guess I can do that here instead now because I think we could go a step further in the future to keep discussion productive. I think when "we need to change policy first" comes up, I think there is a need to recognize this involves a red herring and circular argument because one of the steps involved in creating or changing policy is to come to a shared understanding on what needs to change which involves the sort of discussion that is already taking place. In the past when we have failed to recognize that we are already in the process of trying to come to a shared understanding, the result has been a fracturing of discussion, and I think that disrupts any attempt to come to a shared understanding of community expectations, and also disrupts the ability to actually change procedure/policy in a meaningful way as different understandings of community expectations emerged. I think when people suggest policy change instead of starting a new discussion to change policy, maybe we should seek to understand better what specifically the person thinks needs clarified, and whether it relates at all to the current discussion. I have seen that solution used elsewhere and it brought about better outcomes. -- dark lama  15:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * There is a fundamental and unaddressed problem here. Policy represents prior consensus. A specific discussion reflects the views of those who see the discussion and participate in it. That is why, on Wikipedia, the guideline is that closes are not based on majority, but on rough consensus, and closers are guided to consider the relation of arguments and evidence presented with respect to established policy and guidelines. This case, User:Augusto De Luca, tests how this community responds to new and idiosyncratic users. Do we welcome them or do we treat them as unwelcome, outsiders, based on assumptions of bad faith? This close is diagnostic, to me, of where Wikiversity is headed, and I won't continue to push upstream, since I can see where the current is going. I did request global unlock,, (as they now stand). I spent two weeks researching this case, and a steward closed both requests in a couple of minutes (for De Luca, and much more outrageously, for five users whose "spam-only" was being Single Purpose Accounts. Now, if I want to influence policy, I know what to do next, it's RfC. The effective shift in global policy that those closes represent (especially the close with the inactive accounts, where policy had been very, very clear) means that, if this stands, the global community is no longer a general consensus community, but is dominated by the functionaries, who become governors, not servants. That's always been true to a degree, but policies were generally respected, and exceptions were very difficult cases. This was not a difficult case.
 * Here is how it goes, globally, and this also happens locally. The lock tool is known and understood to be dangerous. This tool is generated and allowed because, the community is assured, it will only be used against spam and vandalism. But give a man a tool, he finds a way to use it for other things than the design. Some of those might be fine. But others may represent exactly what the community feared would be the use. The community believed that the steward community would never agree on an abusive use of tools. That's wiki theory.
 * Wiki reality can be quite different. Here is the problem I face. I might file that meta RfC, and they and their supporters will pile in -- these are the people who watch the "meta drama," and it may well close as no consensus. Or even if it closes with consensus, that simply would establish policy, perhaps. But we have just seen that stewards will easily and casually violate policy. So they will ignore it. That is what I saw on Wikipedia, and confronted. The administrators abusing policy lost before ArbCom and won in the end, because administrators routinely ignore ArbCom, and usually get away with it. Filing an ArbCom case is an enormous amount of work, and one risks one's wikihealth. They almost always win.
 * We see the argument here, it's very common. "Policy should follow practice, not practice follow policy." That makes sense at a certain stage of development, but the more effort that a community puts into developing policy, the more that policy represents the considered judgment of the entire community, whereas actual practice is piecemeal, case-by-case, and is strongly affected by participation bias.
 * And once a core of users develops that likes the freedom for itself of no restraint by policy, it becomes very difficult to establish or clarify policy, and that, we have seen here on Wikiversity, for years. In the real world, outside of wikis, organizations that go this way, into oligachical control, sow the seeds of their own eventual weakness (see Iron law of oligarchy. they ultimately become isolated and bleed members, and they lead to the formation of competitive organizations. On the wikis, there is a pool, still, of new users who don't realize the problem and only see the promise. So it can go on for a long time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The close of User:Augusto De Luca
I'm not challenging this, at this time, because it would be disruptive, but the close of this RFD has two problems. One is that it was an involved close and that was not disclosed (I've been around and around this here, because I did make involved closes. I always disclosed the involvement and invited reopening by anyone considering that the involvement would cause damage as to the outcome.

The other problem is that it effectively "legislates" an alleged fact.
 * Closed as delete. Consensus is that this was solicitation. As solicitation, it may be deleted under existing policy. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Very clever. Yes, "solicitations" may be deleted under policy. That has a specific reference, to common situations that do not resemble what was on the page, User:Augusto De Luca. What was actually alleged and discussed was "spam" and "promotion." Not "solicitation." Since solicitation was not alleged, counterarguments were not presented. Dave, you were the nominator, and you made up a new argument to fit policy, to allow you to do what you proposed to do from the beginning.

There is no solicitation without something on offer. Further, the something on offer must be something that is not related to WMF activity.

We do not consider a user representing their professional expertise, or any expertise, on their user page, to be a "solicitation." It is the kind of mild promotion -- "information" -- that is allowed on user pages, cross-wiki.

You introduced the word "solicitation" in your own discussion.

 * I see this coming down to two points. 1) The activity is way beyond the norm of good faith editors on individual wikis. There is no reason to believe any individual intends to contribute to 557 wikis in dozens of languages based on a single picture. The motivation must be external. It could be solicitation, name recognition, search engine optimization, whatever. But it seems extremely unlikely that the edits are for the benefit of each local wiki.

It's 555, by the way, not that it matters.

That proposed intention "seems unlikely," which is highly subjective. Users are not required, here, to demonstrate "benefit" to Wikiversity. They may be here for selfish purposes, such as wanting to learn something for themselves, or teach something from a particular point of view. or just to have fun. We welcome them, if they cause no harm, and sometimes we go out of our way to educate them about "harm." Few go on to "benefit" the wiki.

Yes, if the activity here is self-interested in such a way that harm develops, we will stop it. We still don't delete the user page! Try this user. The problem with him was that he set up courses on Wikiversity, but when people actually signed up, they were referred off-wiki to something elsewhere, a commercial site, if I'm correct. (If that page is considered unacceptable promotion, it would be blanked, and a notice placed that the user is blocked. That's a good example of where to do that. We need to not delete things like this to keep our history transparent.) The user was blocked, even though he did not continue problem behavior after warning. That was, in my view, an error.

 * This is what I've inferred about the motive of Augusto De Luca, and it is also speculative: He saw that he had an article on almost every wikipedia. He had not created those articles, and no disruption had appeared over them. As a typical non-Wikipedian, he had no idea they would be at risk. And that, in fact, is obvious, unless he had a really devious plan, i.e, to provoke the antispammers to take massive action against him, thus raising awareness of his work. That actually happened, but I very much doubt it is what he planned.

So he decided to make himself available. Those user page photos would not show up unless someone was already searching for him, and what they would find would be, most visibly and notably, the Commons images. Not our user page.

 * If this was "solicitation," what was solicited, and was it harmful? User:Darklama has, on his user page, "This user is a C programming mentor." So if I need some C programming, perhaps I should contact Darklama? That is as much solicitation -- or more -- than what De Luca did. There is no sign that he was seeking clients, or trying to sell photographs, specifically. Very few people would have seen the page if not for the massive antispam effort. The likely benefit to De Luca would be small. No, he had another purpose, and it's substantiated by his first creating user accounts on the wikipedias, where there was an article. He intended to make himself available to the community. He doesn't need Wikipedia, he is clearly an established and successful photographer, that's obvious. The idea that he would do so much work (or pay for it) for so little gain is preposterous. Look at De Luca, his pictures. He did this for fun. Because it was there. He is that kind of artist. Once he was doing that, he noticed that there were pages with his images on other wikis, such as Wikisource. So he decided to complete the mix. Nobody warned him or stopped him, until the Spamish Inquisition hit, after he was apparently done.

 * If this guy was eager to sell photos, he's singularly hard to reach. If his purpose was to communicate with users, and once someone pointed this out to him, he'd have enabled email. That would be a big task all its own, for 555 wikis. We don't know what he would have done. The lock prevented him from taking his next step, whatever that would have been. Global locks are to prevent damage. What damage? And we delete pages to prevent harm to the wiki, either the direct harm from something offensive, or the indirect harm of, say, cluttering up mainspace. Here, now, we have a talk page which presumably we will not delete, I assume, until and unless we move into concealing history more than we have. All that has happened, as to the wiki itself, is that user page is hidden. Why?

 * What did we gain? I know what I gained. I gained an understanding that Wikiversity is probably hopeless, unsafe for a long time. It seemed there was an opportunity to realize the original vision. That's unlikely now. Wikiversity is not safe.

 * Back to the main point, you raised "solicitation," and that, specifically, was not discussed. You then closed with your own opinion as if it were consensus. You had, just before closing, asked for the policy basis for deletion. It was not provided, but you then closed under "solicitation" policy.

 * First of all, it's obvious, there was no real consensus there. Arguments varied. And this is a classic problem with deletion discussions, people come in at various points with various arguments. The only general agreement is "Delete." Participation in the DR was quite strange. People showed up to vote who have never participated in local process like this on Wikiversity. Custodians showed up to vote who had been inactive for a very long time. What, precisely, was so important here? I suspect what it is, but it's not stated.

 * There is one other argument you raised, Dave, which you did not address, and I'd given up by that time. You wrote:

 * Harm to Wikimedia is harm to Wikiversity. The hours stewards invested in having to clean up this mess is harm to Wikimedia and therefore harm to us. The debate you insist on dragging all of the rest of us through is harm to Wikiversity directly.

 * You were correct, however, you have misidentified the source of the harm. Augusto De Luca, had he known what would happen, could be considered to have created harm. But it's very unlikely that he knew that. The steward, seeing these page created, and it was a done deal by that time, had choices. He actually took the simplest choices first, to stop further problems, he locked the user and created a title blacklist entry for the user page, preventing any more user pages from being created. He could have then unlocked the user and warned him that further action without community consent would lead to re-lock. But stewards never negotiate or warn spammers. They assume that a spammer is an evil person who knows that what they are doing is harmful, so why waste time warning them?

 * Now, what "mess" needed to be cleaned up? Was that "cleanup" necessary? Why? The gain to the wikis from that deletion activity was minute, if it existed at all. Tagging a large pile of pages for deletion caused sysop attention to those pages, again for no gain.

 * He also deleted 75 wikipedia articles, without discussion or notice. He could do that only on wikis that had permitted such intervention, trusting that it would not be abused. To delete those articles, he had to be following a conclusion that they could not possibly be legitimate articles. On what would he have based that? The deletion discussions on it.wikipedia and en.wikipedia (he started the first, but did not wait for a conclusion before going cross-wiki with deletions, and he did not disclose that he had done that. The second discussion, actually closed first, was on en.wikipedia, closed as delete with practically no participation. Of course there was little participation, he had locked most of the possible participants! That second AfD actually mentioned that many such pages had been deleted, but did not mention that this was all the work of one user, the steward.

 * Yes, there has been a "cost" to the response to Augusto De Luca. But that cost was a choice on the part of the antispammers. They then rationalize, in the future, drastic action against similar accounts based on how difficult it is to "clean up." That could all be easily fixed, with global discussion and the use of bots to implement them, but the user pages were treated as if they were an emergency. They must be deleted immediately or we will be overrun with spammers. And they don't develop policy, to make it clear to themselves and the world what they are doing, and how they will do it.

 * Dave, you started this RfD. Had you simply undeleted, as requested, you could have waited for someone else to file an RfD. That actually has not happened anywhere, not like that. A fair number of deletion tags have been removed and the result was ... nothing. Essentially, Dave, you created this train wreck. Would someone else have created it? Very possibly not. If they did, then they would have been responsible. As it is, you are.

 * Your real reason for deletion, as far as I can tell, was the global lock. You are accepting a global lock as a reason for local sanction. I sacrificed my adminship on Wikiversity, before, standing for the principle that, no, we did not sanction users based on what happened elsewhere. At that time, global ban policy had not been clarified. There had been a discussion on meta, closed with a ban, but that discussion had not followed safeguards that the later ban policy established. Would the result have been different? Maybe, maybe not.

 * You essentially took the position of SB Johnny in the prior flap over Poetlister1. That position was never clarified in policy, as with many policy issues. Indeed, SB Johnny, when I was finally blocked by him, was supporting a change to policy that, then, stood, largely because I was blocked, and I was one of the few users paying any attention to policy, I'd requested custodian attention to the activity on the policy page, demoting a clearly long-standing policy, accepted for years, to a proposed policy, to weaken it. The policy itself was not changed, but ... it could now be more cheerfully ignored by administrators.

 * You've been distracted by the arguments over practice vs. policy, which neglect that policy is established by consensus, and is demonstrated by actual practice, if that practice is routinely accepted. That is why guidelines suggest that deletion discussions refer to policy. If a deletion is needed, and policy doesn't cover the situation, sure, necessity trumps policy. But that is precisely what was never shown, a sane reason the deletion of that user page was "needed." (The best arguments were that it was "useless," since the user was locked.) The antispammers have a reason: spam must be punished. They really do think that way. It doesn't work. The real spammers, for some strange reason, don't take that lying down. They don't stop. And then some users, who were not spammers, but who were caught in the antispam net, become trolls and vandals. Brilliant, eh? One thing is obvious about the game of Whac-a-mole: except for a short time for a juvenile player swinging the hammer, the game is much more fun for the mole, who quickly discovers that the hammer doesn't hurt at all.

 * By losing sight of the goal and the established community restraints, the antispammers make their own task more difficult, and then blame spammers for that, or anyone who looks like a spammer to them, and, of course, users who question their practices. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry I wasted everyone's time by giving you the benefit of doubt. I'll try not to let it happen again.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave, you followed policy by undeleting the page. You chose to file the RfD. It had nothing to do with "giving me the benefit of the doubt." What doubt? What action manifested this benefit? Undeletion? I'd have considered filing for undeletion had you violated clear precedent by not undeleting a speedy-deleted page on request (absent clear harm). I don't see that you did me any favors here.
 * I knew that the RFD would be a train wreck, I would not have preferred the issue to be confronted when it was. I was, however, surprised by the depth of what arose. Nevertheless, it's been important to me to discover what I discovered and learned in this process. I'm disappointed, to be sure, to find that Wikiversity is unlikely to be a place for me to work, as far as creating the project as a whole. I'll be saving everything off-wiki. I can be, and have been, the target of efforts to wipe out my work. I see no protection at all, just some hopeful moments.
 * Globally, the fist under the glove is being revealed. Sad. It looks to me like the old wiki spirit is nearly dead. It's been burned out, crushed, torn to pieces by Lilliputians. Sane users leave. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues on Wikiversity
A page was created to collect data on accusations being made about a public figure. I saw the page, and tagged it for speedy deletion based on lack of ethical standards on Wikiversity for handling issues like this, and I also blanked the page. The author accepted the blanking, but filed an RfD to obtain consensus. I made the following comment, and also pointed to a problem with one of the allegations on the list, that it was not as had commonly been presented in the media. The author then decided to replace the speedy deletion tags with author request tags, and blanked the RfD. Because my comments are of general application, relevant to Wikiversity policy, I am placing them here. Portions have been redacted to prevent revealing the subject of the study or the author.

[original title of page]
I think this page should be kept as a resource. It's been blanked for now, so to have a look at the prior version -- [redacted]

 * Page was requested for speedy deletion by, bringing here instead to have wider community discussion.
 * 1) The page is quite well sourced to secondary sources throughout for every single entry, and also includes response statements to show counter-view.
 * 2) None of it is framed as fact, but rather attributed as statements made by the individuals who believe [redacted] and the page states it is their accusations.
 * 3) In addition, there are [other resources on the internet on this issue]

Thank you, [signature of author]
 * Bringing here for community discussion, and I'll respectfully defer to consensus from the community. Thank you, -- [signature of author]

 * Delete. Wikiversity is not prepared to handle major w:WP:BLP issues. There are controversial "hot topics" which we have discouraged here that had higher relevance to our educational mission (such as "pedophilia" issues, or, very recently, a resource on suicide methods), based on lack of ethical guidelines and a process for enforcing them. I have created "wiki studies," but avoided any specific singling out of other users. The goal was understanding wiki process, not "exposing" individuals.
 * While this compilation might appear to be neutral, a major news story, the first one I looked at as a source, and source for many names in the list, was just published [about two weeks ago] Handling this story with balance is beyond the capacity of Wikiversity, where most users work in relative isolation, very much unlike Wikipedia, where there are many guardians of site neutrality, and active enforcement of BLP policy.
 * What is the "educational goal" here? The mainspace resource [redacted] was created just to cover the subpage. Do we have a resource on [the overall topic, the subject of the allegations] If we did, would this be featured? (Closest thing I could find was [redacted]. This resource would not be a part of that, it would be irrelevant to it.
 * We do not generally have mainspace resources on public figures, biographies. Exceptions exist, and have generally been pushed to subspace, to allow students to work on writing biographies, which serves our mission. This resource does not fit that model.
 * While I have voted for deletion, this page could be allowed on Wikiversity in this way: the pages are moved to [redacted] user space, the titles are changed to titles that do not reveal the name of the accused, and the pages are blanked and maintained so (except transiently to update them). There should be no_index tags on the pages, as well, so that these pages do not show up in Google searches. Any reference to the pages should be oblique. And I'm *still* uncomfortable with this idea. What is the educational purpose?
 * A Wikiversity page like this could exist more openly, under ethical guidelines, as a place to study an issue in depth, connected with the Wikipedia article and/or with Wikinews. For that purpose, though, the photo of [the accused individual] (the worst I've ever seen) would be irrelevant. It is this for which we are unprepared.
 * I thank [the author] for allowing the blanking to remain, making this less of an emergency. I'm still concerned about the raw title.
 * The page is titled "Case study," but case of what general class? [redacted] Then it would be under a [redacted] resource, studying the general topic, including the whole issue of [common problems with the general topic]. An example based heavily on recent news, where there is no resolution, would be a poor contribution to that study. This is breathless scandal. A page focusing on the alleged crimes or misdemeanors of an individual is very much out of place on Wikiversity, absent very careful preparation and maintenance of balance. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment. At least one of the allegations listed on the page appears to be greatly distorted. A page like this, if it is to be allowed, must be presented as the personal responsibility of the author (until and unless there is community maintenance as neutral). See [talk page, I expect this will be deleted]. I have no intention to do this kind of research on each allegation. We avoid this necessity on Wikiversity by using attributed essays and studies, making the author purely responsible. And with something like this, it should normally be disallowed entirely. How about I write articles raking living critics of cold fusion over the coals, bringing out every possible error in what they have written, and alleging some conflict of interest? I could do that! Not a great idea, I'd say. Each point may be covered in a resource where it is specifically relevant, but overall condemnation of persons (or collections of allegations) are not appropriate here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion requests
The following was added to the page without discussion:
 * "If the article was speedy-deleted without a discussion, please first request that the deleting administrator undelete it. Only bring it here for discussion if dissatisfied with that outcome or the deleting administrator does not respond within a few days (best to allow a week)."

Do we want this? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Experience has shown that this can generate ill will (see Requests_for_Deletion). In this case the User (incidently the same user who added the porposed alteration without discussion) brought it here after three days, rather than waiting the full seven days they had themselves suggested. This opens up custodians who delete pages up to vexatious requests, and hence creates a disincentive to carry out speedy deletions. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no experience cited showing that
 * The suggestion will "open up" custodians to "vexatious requests." If it did, this would not be standard on en.wiki. A week was suggested as "best," but that was a general statement, keeping the boilerplate simple. It clearly allowed a shorter period, plus, this was not an obligation. No request would be refused here because that request was not made. "If a custodian is subject to "vexatious requests," the custodian may ignore them, revert them, even ask the user to stay off their talk page (that's an extreme measure for a custodian, but it should stop vexatious requests) or, if a problem continues, ask for support on WV:RCA.
 * The language ever "generated ill will." How did the original request in the case cited, to the deleting custodian "generate ill will"? It was linked. Here it is again: . Where is the "generation of ill will there"? I'd see it very differently. This could be seen as presenting an opportunity for cooperation. It was simply not taken, that's all, for whatever reason or no reason at all. No Bad. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That a disincentive would be created to speedy deleting. Speedy deletion is quick. I hope that We will be taking away the need to request undeletion here or by the deleting admin, so this will become moot (I predict). However, handling such requests, for a single page? Including saying "I don't care to," or nothing? This is hard? No custodian would ever be desysopped for not responding to such a request. This is a fantasy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * We don't need the language because a user always has the right to request that an individual Custodian do something. Removing the unnecessary language gives gives us more flexibility and simplifies the rules.  Rules should be both simple, as well as flexible.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The language was not a "necessity," nor was it stated as a "rule," it was part of a long-term effort to keep usage of this page to a minimum. This is a central discussion page for deletion issues. As such, it will be watchlisted by many users (101, currently, though most are probably inactive). Unnecessary traffic on this page depresses participation. However, there is a better way. We have gotten most of the obvious deletion requests off this page, by using the deletion and proposed deletion templates. It's a small step to using an undeletion template, see Template talk:Undelete, to allow uncontroversial undeletion. Speedy deletion is designed to quickly accomplish uncontroversial deletion, and the vast majority of speedy deletions are, in fact, not controversial. When they are, any user may remove the templates, stopping that process. A speedy undeletion process will simply balance this. It will not create substantial extra work for custodians. (If it is work, if the issue is controversial, discussion is needed.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Creates unnecessary drama by isolating individual custodians into a potentially adversarial situation. Also exemplifies why we need to discuss policy and procedure changes before they are added.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It merely allows the custodian an opportunity, not a requirement, that they handle the request. I'm happy dumping it. However, as to "discussing policy and procedure changes before they are added," this is a complete departure from what has been standard on Wikiversity since it was founded. This is currently under a request for discussion at Colloquium. This has almost never been done. It's far from the wiki way. I have no idea if anyone noticed the change here, but I do know that some users here have -- or should have -- the DR page on their watchlist. However, Leutha's reversion of an undiscussed change that he disagreed with, right or wrong, was proper. So the problem with undiscussed changes is? I did not make the request of Leutha because of that change, I made that change out of an understanding of optimal wiki process that goes back to en.wiki, where I very successfully used it. It never created a problem, and it's common practice there. I'll explain in a comment below. The en.wiki "suggestion" is much stronger. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * but for very different reasons. Notice that there is a lack of consensus in the above comments, as to the issue or problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, we can do much better. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

 * Oppose voting before a proposal is stated with argument and some support. Setting up a poll without discussion first and with no argument for the proposal is very poor process, leading to knee-jerk comments (votes) in a vacuum, no argument for the proposal.
 * I did add that language, 24 April 2015. This was part of a long-term project to remove non-controversial deletions and requests from this page. A simple undeletion request to a deleting administrator is standard process on en.wiki, and avoids wheel-warring, and discussion here should be necessary only if the deleting admin refuses to undelete or ignores the request. This was not a policy change at all. It was explaining standard process, and was only a suggestion, as was the delay. "A week" was in case the admin was busy elsewhere. This is being personalized, which is a serious problem. In the specific case -- which is not relevant to the change, arose long after -- I knew that the custodian had very likely seen the request. I noted the lack of response in the request here because I did not want to appear to not be following the suggestion (which clearly allowed a request sooner than a week). No custodian is ever obligated to do anything. The suggestion was merely to avoid what will normally be unnecessary cluttering of this page, and resulting waste of user time.
 * Leutha just reverted that edit, five months after the edit, and started this poll. A simple reversion would have been enough. Then, if I or anyone else objected, we would have a discussion and if there is persistent disagreement, then' we'd have a poll to assess rough consensus. But there is no persistent disagreement. In fact, my effort is to make this language moot, and for "speedy undeletions" to be handled very similarly to speedy deletions. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The equivalents to the undeletion section of this page, on en.wiki, are two: w:WP:Deletion_review and w:WP:Requests for undeletion.
 * From the first of these:
 * Deletion Review should not be used: [...] when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
 * Before listing a review request, please: [...] discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review....

 * The second page boilerplate refers to Deletion Review in certain cases. The request discussed here, would, on enwiki, possibly be made on that page (no error was alleged), but could also, user choice, be raised with the deleting admin. We could create a separate Undeletion discussion page (that does not allege error), but the request is rare enough that I oppose it for now. However, there is:
 * If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly.

 * --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Userfying
I have requested that Topic:Topics by userfied to User:Michael_Ten/Topics so I can learn from it and potentially evaluate it to potentially request undeletion if appropriate. Thank you!! Cheers. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Closure of cold fusion request
Mu301, having asked for a cool-down -- which would tend to suppress discussion -- then fast-closed based on an argument that is not at all policy-based, that was not actually discussed. "Causes disruption." This was not the case in reality, there has been very little disruption from the resource until this request, and, over the years, there had been high participation. No evidence was presented for this "disruption," this was simply an impression stirred by the vehemence of the deletion arguments, made by users with very little familiarity with Wikiversity, with, as Mu301 noted, irrelevant arguments. There was no history of attempts to neutralize the alleged bias, frustrated by tendentious editing. There had never before been a deletion request. The resource actually stimulated real-world research to answer questions that arose in the extensive discussions. This was Wikiversity at its best. And then the janitor comes in and complains about the mess and hauls all the papers off to the dump.

And at its best, it was quite incomplete, needing more attention to fully develop. It needed more students to show up. That happened from time to time, but they were unaware of this deletion request, I'm sure. They don't follow RfD. Who showed up? It's obvious.

He also argued that it was a mess that would be difficult to fix. "Messy" is not a policy-based reason for deletion, because messes can be blanked, archived to history. The request was for deletion, not fixing. The resource is about 130 pages, of varying quality. Some are stubs, placeholders for future research projects, such as studies of individual peer-reviewed papers. Is Cold_fusion/Recent_sources page a mess? This is directly a learning material, useful for study, useful, indeed, if someone wants to attempt to balance the Wikipedia article or this resource, using the highest-quality sources. Attempts to delete resources that would be "difficult to clean up" in the past have generally failed. There are procedures for handling dispute over content like that, that lead to actual consensus, instead of failing to defend Wikiversity neutrality.

Mike is violating some of the deepest Wikiversity traditions, unfortunately, based on what? Regardless, if this decision is not reversed, it is the clear end of my efforts, already largely suppressed and abandoned, to improve Wikiversity resources. I have much better places to work, much less hassle, far easier. I could file a Community Review over this, but ... it is too much work, and I won't do it on my own initiative. Generally, wikis are proving to be a lost cause, exactly because of administrative decisions like Mu301's, evidence-free, personal opinion, ignoring history and expertise. I will document the history elsewhere, not here. That has already been proven unsafe.

There had been no disruption over Cold fusion, that is a complete error. People have accused me of this or that, on occasion, that's about it. The more extended attack was on Parapsychology.

I will be moving the material to another wiki, which will take a little time, so I thank Mu301 for allowing time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft ns discussion
I have been pointed here more times recently, but where can I disucuss the topic, if these discussions where closed?--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I suspect the place to discuss will be a new Drafts or Draft namespace or similar. But you've opened a new discussion. Please discuss. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 * The earlier discussion is at Requests_for_Deletion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, I havent studied the programe to the depth, but it started with lectures. I havent find out, why lectures in main ns are problem. Thats why, we have categories to sort them out, or sort them as lectures. So I can just guess, what was the problem with lectures. If the problem is that they occupy certain page name, there are more solutions, how to fix it. The solution of its own namespace, should be used as the last one. It important to notice, that if something recive new namespace, we can set a special property to that namespace. e.g. on Czech Wikipedia we also have lectures and the creater created for them two different skins, or modes: presentation and desktop. Desktop mode is the normal look of wiki page, presentation mode is the look as PowerPoint presentation. The disadvantage is, that every person, who would like to use presentation mod, should firstly copy to his namespace the script, which handle such mod. So if cs.wv would have ns for lectures, its ns could have an advance characteristic mods for special way of presenting/display.
 * But maybe it was all about the completition status of the lecture pages, but I havent find out more about it. Just a link to Wikipedia and what it does with Wikiversity. Non completed pages are all around, why it is a problem now?--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Both lectures Sciences and Fringe sciences have the template on them. Fringe sciences was moved to Draft:Fringe sciences. Are they within the scope of Wikiversity?

 * No one wanted them deleted. Peer review is mandatory by the opinions and voting at Requests_for_Deletion to remove Fringe sciences from Draft:Fringe sciences. Two outside reviewers mentioned the title "Fringe sciences" was like a pun but found no fault with the lecture. If you agree I would like to remove it from draft ns. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 * The Scope template on Draft:Fringe sciences reads "An editor has expressed concern that this article may not fit into the scope of Wikiversity." User Juandev's comments above do not echo this concern about any Main Page "Lectures", which includes Draft:Fringe sciences. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

From reading user Juandev's comments above, there is no support for a mandatory move of any (Resource) Main Page "Lectures" to Draft: namespace. I would like to ask each user who voted for a mandatory move to Draft ns to reconsider and support a voluntary move to Draft namespace. With Juandev's comments above only 63 % agree with a mandatory move to Draft ns. What do you think? ,, , , , ,.
 * voluntary Draft ns since Dave has already had the Draft ns created here, as proposer. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * -- It is not clear whether the proposal is asking about Draft space in general or Draft space for the resources covered by Requests_for_Deletion. The community has not made any decisions regarding Draft space in general, and this is not the place to discuss it. However, the consensus of the community is quite clear regarding Main Page "Lectures". They cannot stay as main page resources. I have had many other things to work on recently, and I was hoping User:Marshallsumter would take the initiative to move these resources on his own, as he did with Philosophy/Sciences. However, my work on Special:LintErrors is almost done, and I will prioritize the movement of these resources to Draft namespace, since they haven't found another home. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * At 6:5 there is no consensus for moving Main Page "Lectures" to Draft: ns! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree with the above that this proposal needs clarification. Any decision to disallow a page in main space is independent of whether or not a draft space exists.  For that reason, any discussion  of "mandatory draft space" would refer to a decision by the community to publish an article in draft space against author's objection.  In this scenario, the author would prefer deletion, while the community wants it kept, but in draft space.  This is not a good case for such a discussion because nobody is demanding that the resource be placed in draft space.
 * I deliberately placed a submission to the WikiJournal of Science in "draft" space, in part due to a misconception: I saw a number of WikiJournal submissions in draft space and assumed that is where submissions routinely go.  But after I posted it there, I found that Google "finds" the article if I search (without quotation marks) using the key words: {Bell's theorem card game loopholes}.  Perhaps I have "trained" google to look there from our university servers, but it suggests that draft space not entirely invisible to Google.  It would be interesting to see if others can reproduce this same result by searching from their own computers (using the same keywords.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I deliberately placed a submission to the WikiJournal of Science in "draft" space, in part due to a misconception: I saw a number of WikiJournal submissions in draft space and assumed that is where submissions routinely go.  But after I posted it there, I found that Google "finds" the article if I search (without quotation marks) using the key words: {Bell's theorem card game loopholes}.  Perhaps I have "trained" google to look there from our university servers, but it suggests that draft space not entirely invisible to Google.  It would be interesting to see if others can reproduce this same result by searching from their own computers (using the same keywords.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * when Dave moved Fringe sciences or Fringe science to Draft:Fringe science no redirect was left. Google has/had "Wikiversity Fringe science" which then sent to a "does not exist" template but some 496 have found Draft:Fringe sciences since 25 February 2018 anyway. WikiJournal of Medicine often puts topic manuscripts in Draft ns until they are developed and peer reviewed for acceptance into the journal, but I don't believe it is mandatory. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 * actually consensus deleted "do nothing" and "delete all", potential options is an open phrase. One option is to let them continue to be developed. This option does not include mandatory moves to Draft namespace. There is no consensus for mandatory moving mainspace lectures to Draft ns! Please undo your bot implemented moves. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if you misunderstood the point of the Draft namespace discussion, but it was as the destination for these pages. Others clearly understood it that way. That's why User:Atcovi asked that DNA be moved to Draft: space at . And, I have to say, the more I reviewed the pages today in preparation for moving them, the more clear it was that they do not belong as main space landing pages. As per Help:Lecture, lectures are neither main space landing pages, nor intended to be the final design for a resource. Lectures are subpages, and should become lessons so that there is active learning involved. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Help:Lecture never received consensus approval! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * All the resources I've created or contributed to here regarding astronomy, I was invited to do "I'm most interested, myself, in encouraging you to build resources connected with Topic:Astronomy, if you are willing.". The community can call them anything they want. All the others outside my research projects were done to help me learn and for Wikiversity. The community can name them anything they want as well. The Draft:Biology, for example, was started in 19 March 2008 by user:Remi, but I am the principal recent contributor. If the community wants them in Draft ns, not a problem. FYI: With the exception of conference presentations, all the lectures I've attended were from one or more schools, as part of one or more courses, each had its own title. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 * FYI: "Components / stand-alone resources: Lessons - Articles - Lesson plans - Discussions - Events - Essays - Glossaries - Lectures - Papers - Quizzes - Blogs - Media" From the template "Things you can make on Wikiversity" included in Help:Lecture. Also in Help:Lecture is "Use a subpage for your lecture - i.e. entitle your lecture "name of course/name of lecture" or "name of course/lecture 1" (with a slash in the middle)." But, Help:Lecture is included in the Category:Consensus requested so apparently it never received consensus. There is no consensus restricting lectures to a subpage.  has been contributed to by four suggesting consensus approval of that template without exception and two more on its Discuss page with comment on its title: "Rtnav". --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 * FYI - 1: the lecture Lecture was last contributed to at 12:05, 10 September 2008. It is in the Category:Lecture.
 * FYI - 2: the lecture Lecture 2.0 was last contributed to at 06:25, 28 September 2012. It is also in the Category:Lecture. Both of these are mainspace lectures!
 * FYI - 3: The only requirement for creating a page on Wikipedia is clicking the "edit" or "create" tab. The same thing applies to draft space and w:WP:AfC: they're optional.
 * FYI - 4: On 30 December 2015 Agriculture named as Featured resource for Portal:Agriculture by User:Dave Braunschweig while it was in the Category:Lectures and Category:Dominant group/Lectures.
 * FYI - 5: On 6 March 2016 Archaeology named as Featured resource for Portal:Archaeology by User:Dave Braunschweig while it was in the Category:Lectures and Category:Dominant group/Lectures.
 * FYI - 6: On 16 January 2017, Mikael Häggström moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure to WikiJournal of Medicine/Eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene structure: Publishing.
 * FYI - 7: On 14 March 2017, Evolution and evolvability redirected Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Peer reviewers to WikiJournal of Medicine/Peer reviewers.
 * FYI - 8: On 15 June 2017, Stevenfruitsmaak moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Vitamin D as an adjunct for acute community-acquired pneumonia among infants and children: systematic review and meta-analysis to WikiJournal of Medicine/Vitamin D as an adjunct for acute community-acquired pneumonia among infants and children: systematic review and meta-analysis.
 * FYI - 9: On 1 August 2017, user:Mikael Häggström moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Acute gastrointestinal bleeding from a chronic cause: a teaching case report to WikiJournal of Medicine/Acute gastrointestinal bleeding from a chronic cause: a teaching case report: Accepted.
 * FYI - 10: On 11 November 2017, Evolution and evolvability moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Rotavirus to WikiJournal of Medicine/Rotavirus: Manuscript accepted - move to mainspace.
 * FYI - 11: On 20 December 2017, user:Mikael Häggström moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Cell disassembly during apoptosis to WikiJournal of Medicine/Cell disassembly during apoptosis: Accepted.
 * FYI - 12: On 8 January 2018, Evolution and evolvability moved page Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Endometrial cancer to Endometrial cancer: Other drafts currently being held in mainspace. 14 January 2018, Mikael Häggström moved page Endometrial cancer to WikiJournal of Medicine/Endometrial cancer: Making automatic links work.
 * FYI - 13: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Standard-candles astronomy to Draft:Standard-candles astronomy without leaving a redirect: Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 14: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Journalism to Draft:Journalism without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 15: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Agriculture to Draft:Agriculture without leaving a redirect (Per [[Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Main Page "Lectures")
 * FYI - 16: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Archaeology to Draft:Archaeology without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 17: On 21 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot| moved page Gene transcriptions to Draft:Gene transcriptions without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 18: On 22 March 2018 User:Michael Ten moved page Draft:Futurism to Futurism (it looks like a bot did this. was moving it to the draft namespace a mistake? if not, i guess put it as a draft if it should be.)
 * FYI - 19: On 23 March 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Journalism to Journalism (It's a resource.)
 * FYI - 20: On 23 March 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Agriculture to Agriculture (It's a resource.)
 * FYI - 21: On 23 March 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Gene transcriptions to Gene transcriptions (It's a resource.)
 * FYI - 22: On 24 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Journalism to Draft:Journalism over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 23: On 24 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Agriculture to Draft:Agriculture over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 24: On 24 March 2018 User:MaintenanceBot moved page Gene transcriptions to Draft:Gene transcriptions over a redirect without leaving a redirect (Per Requests for Deletion)
 * FYI - 25: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Intensity astronomy to Radiation astronomy/Intensities without leaving a redirect (Subpage)
 * FYI - 26: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Synchrotron radiation to Radiation astronomy/Synchrotrons without leaving a redirect (Subpage)
 * FYI - 27: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Standard-candles astronomy to Radiation astronomy/Standard-candles without leaving a redirect (Subpage)
 * FYI - 28: On 1 April 2018 User:Marshallsumter moved page Draft:Standard-candles astronomy to Radiation astronomy/Standard-candles without leaving a redirect: Subpage)
 * FYI - 29: On 10 April 2018 User:Guy vandegrift moved page CHSH inequality to Draft:CHSH inequality, on 20 April 2018 user:Guy vandegrift deleted page Draft:CHSH inequality.
 * FYI - 30: On 22 April 2018 User:Michael Ten moved page Draft:Psychiatry to Psychiatry (appears to have been moved by a bot without a clear reason. please move back to draft namespace if that is where this should be.)
 * FYI - 31: On 29 April 2018 User:Dave Braunschweig moved page Draft:Applications of data structures to Data structures/Applications without leaving a redirect: Moving under learning project)
 * FYI - 32: On 7 May 2018 user:Atcovi moved page Draft:The Cell Membrane to The Cell Membrane without leaving a redirect: Finished article.
 * FYI - 33: On 7 May 2018 User:Atcovi moved page Draft:Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules to Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules without leaving a redirect: not a draft... why was this moved in "draft" in the first place?
 * FYI - 34: On 12 May 2018 User:Michael Ten moved page Draft:Art to Art (seemed to be moved by a bot without clear rational. move to wherever appropriate if necessary. good luck.)
 * FYI - 35: On 12 May 2018 User:Michael Ten stated: "The Draft namespace had a lot of pages from the main namespace moved to it by MaintenanceBot. Was this intentional? It seems a lot of the pages that were in the main namespace seemed just fine in the main namespace. Is it the consensus that these are better moved to draft namespace? Should most or all of them be bulk moved back into the main namespace? What do you think?" from Colloquium. The MediWiki site notice ran from 3-15 January 2018. User:Michael Ten was here only at 04:57, 7 January 2018 for the site notice period. On 3 January 2018 the site notice stated: "Discuss and vote on Main Page "Lectures" request." On 4-13 January 2018, the site notice stated: "Discuss and vote on Main Page "Lectures"." On 13-15 January 2018, the site notice stated: "Discuss and vote on Draft Namespace."
 * FYI - 36: On 16 May 2018 User:Guy vandegrift moved page Draft:A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes to A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes (next step for wikiJournalScience) --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)