User talk:Kim Bruning

• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 1
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 2
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 3
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 4
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 5
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 6
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 7

Hello! Please append your message at the end of the page.

---

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Discussion on Jimbos page

I am awake and waiting for your counterarguments. Prandr 11:09 CEST, 14 May 2007

Super datatool!!!

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptautoren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloquence (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian Kim Bruning,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day.

Carlosguitar

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

Putting redirects over page history

You said at WT:CSD, "Some people don't use redirects right, or put redirects over page history."

Is it wrong to put redirects over page history? I've wondered about that. The instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages seem to suggest that that's the normal (or only?) way of merging pages. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Global Consensus?

At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Thenetcentinell, User:Cheeser1 and I got into a pretty heated argument so I'm stepping back, but in the discussion, Cheeser1 said at 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC) inter alia:

I will also point out that, as you're well aware, this is not a vote or a place to form some local consensus. It's a discussion about how we interpret relevant policies (for AfDs, usually WP:N, but here we're talking about WP:USER), which represent a global consensus on the relevant issue(s).

(underlining added)

I understand that WP:CON says: Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. But, I think about trying to apply this to article editing and the discussions we've had a WP:BRD particularly relating to WP:SILENCE (which is incorporated into the lead of WP:CON as well), and it seems to be a pretty lame argument at best: "Well, you don't agree with me and you are correctly certain that nobody else here will either but what we're really talking about is whether all of Wikipedia as documented in their policies, would agree with me - so the fact that you and everyone else here don't agree is irrelevant". I know this may make some feel good, but at an XfD where everyone is presumably there because he or she is interested in policy to begin with, does such an argument make sense - and of course WP:IAR is policy too (and arguably higher up the food chain than WP:CON - WP:CON is not part of the Trifecta). I could care less about the specific case referenced above, but I did think this brought up an interesting question of Wikiphilosophy that you were more than a little likely to have some thoughts on.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi, I noticed your name on the "buddy system" list on the Mediation Cabal suggestions page, and I noticed that you like, and I quote, "really tricksy cases." Those are exactly the kinds of cases I'd be interested in being a part of, mediation-wise. I was wondering if you could help me start off, maybe get in touch with me and give me some pointers? Much obliged, Dr. Extreme (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

Undue weight, it makes sense. But how can we achieve consensus on the exact weight a particular view should be given, and especially: the inclusion of facts; when a majority of editors is pushing view A so hard, that they think view A is equal to neutrality, and view B is equal to violating the guidelines?

In other words: do you know any examples of succesful consensus in tough debates? Or is there just a majority victory and a perennial debate?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Off

Kim, I took some time off from WP. I'm back to a certain extent, but may not be immediately responsive here, but we can chat again by email. I'd like to understand more about your concerns and share mine etc. I hope that all is well with you. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not retired.

Yeah, I've decided to edit Wikipedia.

But I don't expect to accomplish anything.

See User:Zenwhat/Stay sane.

Also, I'd still like that webspace if you still have it. Not for ranting about Wikipedia, mind you, just for a variety of stuff. For essays on Wikipedia policy (which I think would be difficult to put here, for obvious reasons), for some remarks about Buddhism, for my fictional book about Wikipedia (still working on that), and recently I had an idea to write a book on philosophy on what it means to be human.

It occurred to me that Vulcans are a good role model for ideal human behavior and proper dharma practice. A Theravada monk I spoke with remarked:

I have long thought that Mr. Spock is the best popular icon we have for the Abhidhammic arahant: a person without a self, who, prompted by functional consciousnesses (kriya-citta), responds rationally and disinterestedly, and yet at the same time, virtuously and (when appropriate) compassionately, to all situations.

This inspired me to realize more clearly what it means to be human: Across many cultures, there is the idea of the "superior man." There are some differences between the different conceptions, but also striking similarities.

Specifically, I'm talking about:

• The Junzi of Confucianism
• Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Arhats of Buddhism
• Saints of various religions.
• Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch
• The archetype of the Wise old man (aka "sage")

With a synthesis of these ideas, it seems to be that what separates humans above animals is rational and disenchanted altruism, which can be achieved through meditation, the same as Vulcans themselves achieved this in Star Trek.

The superstitious, religious elements, are nonsense, though, of course, and likely overlaid upon the histories of "great men," after the fact. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Joy. It seems to have actually worked. Someone finally made the change. They finally accomplished getting Template:User transwiki'd.

This:

*{{User|Jimbo Wales|en}} - English Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|fr}} - French Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|ja}} - Japanese Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|nl}} - Dutch Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|es}} - Spanish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|sv}} - Swedish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|pt}} - Portugese Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|it}} - Italian Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|pl}} - Polish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|de}} - German Wikipedia

Generates this:

• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - English Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - French Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - Japanese Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - Dutch Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - Spanish Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - Swedish Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - Portugese Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - Italian Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - Polish Wikipedia
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) - German Wikipedia

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Two trolls.

Two trolls I dealt with in the past were apparently indef-blocked not too long ago. I didn't notice, though, because I don't wiki-stalk people I have issues with.

The two people in question:

• UnclePaco: Pushing some kind of bizarre Caribbean racism or ethnic nationalism
• User:Sarsaparilla: Pushing Libertarian politics, regularly engaging in particularly contentious editing. He mentions your name in this edit, a typo but a pretty funny one. [1]

My initial complaints about these people were totally ignored. For instance, when Sarsaparilla offered to sell his account in WP:VPM, I complained and people told me, "Oh no, he's probably just joking," and in both cases I was told, "Single-purpose accounts aren't necessarily against the rules!"

It's only been after considerable effort that they've been outed and blocked, and now we have to review their contributions very, very carefully to see all the damage that has been done.

In the case of Sarsaparilla, he was very good at generating POV content forks with long lists of sources which, at this point, are certainly questionable. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Please consider undoing your closure of the page, per these statements. From [[2]], and I quote: "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive it can be nominated for deletion." and [[3]]. This proposal WAS created to be intentionally disruptive, and as such has no merit. The MFD was perfectly appropriate and should not be closed preemptively as such... Please consider reopening it. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't want to cause any more wiki-drama, but I think there may be a WP:COI consideration regarding the DP essay. Given the evident sock WP:SHENANIGANS that went into creating the page and the fact that MfD prerequisites don't seem to anticipate this type of behavior (i.e. backdoor for promotion of fringe ideas), perhaps the closure was premature? I'm not fussed one way or the other but I thought I should mention it. Ronnotel (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the correct course of action in all cases is to mark as rejected anyway, right? Is there a compelling reason not to mark as rejected, and/or is there a compelling reason why merely rejecting would be insufficient? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reject is clearly the consensus. However, there is a concern that the proponents of the proposal have a vested, off-wiki interest in pushing the term Delegatable Proxy for whatever reason. There is also the suspicion that this was an attempt to create a real-world laboratory to try out this idea. I think there is a definite taint of promotion at work here. An article with a similar title would almost certainly be considered for AfD. Ronnotel (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would be :-) : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delegable_proxy --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did check for that before my post, but I used the wrong spelling. Thanks for the pointer. Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I first thought like you, Kim, but I must admit that considering the sockpuppettry involved here, I think the deletion is appropriate. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, also see [4] where the sockpuppets are the only ones voting keep for teh article on Delegable proxy. The project space essay was created specifically by a sockfarm and specifically to be disruptive. This has no purpose even to exist. Even existing with the rejected label is not what consensus was at the MFD; the consensus was clearly to delete, and the MFD#Prerequisites clearly allows for disuptive essays to be deleted by consensus... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This will all come out in the wash, but... the above claim about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delegable_proxy is not only false, it's irrelevant. Wikipedia can try something new. We can, and frequently do, coin neologisms for our own use. As to sock puppets, there are none involved in this case, to my knowledge, unless Yellowbeard is a sock (he is an obvious SPA who appears with substantial knowledge in 2006, only nominates and participates in AfDs until I rained on that parade, when he turned himself exclusively to attempts to disrupt processes involving me or someone cooperating with me on projects, in this case Absidy, and is clearly disruptive). There is one user, Absidy, who twice abandoned an account (apparently scrambling the password), was very open about what he was doing, did not vote twice, did not hold a conversation between socks, and the only possible source for a charge of sock puppetry would be that what initially came from one account, with frequent edits, came later from another, with frequent edits. In Talk. If he was inappropriately operating sock puppets, he was not warned about it, and was not blocked for it. There was an attempt made to connect me with him, and checkuser showed no connection. (And, in fact, review of edit histories confirmed that as well.)

Keep votes on the AfD came from Absidy the only active account in this series at the time, openly a continuation of prior accounts, explicitly acknowledged with the account creation, and Jossi (an administrator!). I only commented, being a COI editor in this case. Another user initially voted Delete, but changed to Neutral, and merge and redirect was also suggested (which I'd support if I had a vote). I never claimed that DP was sufficiently notable to warrant an article here. When I originally created Liquid democracy, as a stub, I thought it notable, personally, but had never read notability guidelines and was totally unaware of COI rules. And then I never touched the article again, all work on it was done by others. They, apparently, thought it notable enough to work on, but, as I'm sure you are aware, Kim, the likelihood is high that they aren't even aware of the AfD. In my view, the notability is at this point marginal, there is independent source, for starters. My goal here has been to do what I can to help keep rejection or deletion from being based on false assumptions. Not to prevent rejection or deletion, those are admin decisions, in theory, or, often, in practice, decisions by the participating community.--Abd (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that the delete supermajority -- that's what it is -- was based on a claim that we don't vote on Wikipedia, rather, it is cogency of argument that prevails. Yet, here, there is a complaint that the administrator applied independent judgment, contrary to "consensus" -- i.e., vote count. The rejected proposal, again and again, stated that vote count was not what it was about, that it involved no policy or procedural change, that proxies would not be voting on behalf of clients, that decisions would remain as they are, the judgement of the one making the decision with the power to implement it, etc. Yet the MfD was a chorus of "No Voting Here!". The unstated part, "Unless We are the Ones Voting!" Enough. This is indeed disruptive, some editors are clearly seriously exercised about this, enough to put, for example, serious effort into trying to exhaustively find sock puppets and connected IP edits, when no disruption is taking place through any such action, and, more darkly, there has appeared some level of threat of blocking for daring to question administrative decisions in a civil manner, and not persisting beyond consent. The only possible exception about my claim of "no disruption" from Absidy being what was quite openly a single user, acting within guidelines - though sometimes at the edge, never far enough to be actually warned, except for his final suicidal actions which took place only on Talk pages (of ArbComm members, a couple of administrators, and very few others). The disruption, at this point, is coming from users who, quite plainly, want to eliminate as much trace of the actual proposal as possible. Yes. Interesting. And not to be discussed extensively at this point outside of specific user Talk pages and dispute resolution process, where, hopefully, the light will outshine the heat.--Abd (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

People occasionally make the mistake of trying to delete project pages like this one using MFD. Just because people are all saying 'delete', doesn't suddenly change the laws of physics or the way wikipedia pages are stored. You state that you *explicitly* would like to see this page permanently removed from the public record?

I understand that you are angry now, but by deleting the page, you are creating a catch 22: you might find it hard to find future support for:

• A permanent ban of the puppetmaster
• future documentation/ guidelines/ best practices prohibiting such behaviour.

Are you sure that that is what you want? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, not a huge deal either way. However, this has a taint of fringe promotion about it that is distasteful. I urge you to reconsider but this is the last I feel the need to say on the subject. Ronnotel (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah, I'm getting some really odd vibes off of this, it's not cut-and-dried... I won't be adamant if someone comes with a well reasoned alternate plan. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not angry. The only thing to get angry over is if someone tries to assign emotions to you when the clearly have no right to do so (how's THAT for a catch-22). However, the process page you specifically cited as the reason you preemptively closed the debate says, and I quote, "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive it can be nominated for deletion". This proposal clearly meets that criteria, and is eligible to be deleted. To sum up:

1. Not angry about the proposal being closed
2. Am angry that you called be angry for the propsal being closed.
3. Nomination for deletion was perfectly legal per [5], because, to quote that policy page, "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive it can be nominated for deletion".

That is all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness you aren't angry :-)... or weren't at least. :-/

It's a bit ironic to state that the MFD was "legal". The proposal was nominated in part due to its excessive legalism. ;-) Also, what one person finds disruptive, another person might find useful, so using that particular exception is a tad iffy. It'd have to be pretty obvious disruption, I reckon, else I could nominate WP:NPOV next time it makes my editing difficult ;-).

I shan't do procedure for procedure's sake of course, but that said, is there any reason to suppose that the page as it stands -with a clear "rejected" tag-, would still cause (further) disruption?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim - I may quibble about your decision to close the MfD without deleting Wikipedia:Delegable proxy, but I have a different issue. I believe that this proposal has been so firmly rejected that the subpages of that proposal [6] do actually need to be deleted. Mangojuice^talk 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have copies and have no objection. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Actually, they should remain. If there is some reasonable fear that the project will be disrupted if someone actually edits them (some do seem to fear this), they could be protected. The Table currently contains two proxy pages transcluded, and only one is currently visible because one of them has been administratively deleted: mine, without notice to me, which is merely one more little anomaly about this whole affair. That "odd vibes" is a sound intuition. But what it all really means is for the future to determine.--Abd (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Kim. Brilliant. Seriously. You have actually shown what has been argued all along, votes don't count, but cogency of arguments. By existing process and precedent, the proposal -- whatever it was, the MfD was really about something other than the actual proposal -- was rejected, and whether I or Absidy/Ron Duvall/Sarsaparilla (legal account continuations, though odd) don't like that is irrelevant. When I removed your initial rejected tag, it was because the proposal had not been considered, it had not attracted enough attention to merit a rejection tag, and the fact that you anticipated rejection (based on analogy which does actually apply, but not in outward resemblance) was not, in my view, sufficient to allow placement of the tag. In my view, it was still improper when later placed, but moot because of the rapid filing of the MfD. But given the MfD, it becomes totally appropriate. Contrary to the above, there were several votes who suggested closure as you closed, and certainly I did not object to that. Abisdy is a brilliant political strategist, in fact, one who knows Wikipedia like the palm of his hand, even though he's very young, and his goals are very long-term. He's now working off-wiki, and it's not about Wikipedia, and certainly not about disrupting Wikipedia, au contraire; rather, he actually saw that, if this were tested, and then used -- a separate step --, it would solve many tenacious problems here, including some that have manifested in connection with this situation. As to the "odd vibes," your intuition is correct. Very odd, yet very predictable. I'm glad to have had a chance to see some of your work. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you're probably right Kim. Preserving the page, at least as an example for what NOT to do at Wikipedia, is for the best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is probably the least disruptive closure. A true delete closure would possibly have triggered dispute resolution (in this case deletion review) from me, simply putting a rejected tag on it leaves me with nothing to contest. It's blatantly true that, by current standards, this proposal was rejected. I may think that what was rejected wasn't what was proposed, but that is not strong enough to warrant any further fuss about the MfD itself, nor about the project page. There are other aspects of this, such as all the charges of sock puppetry (actually false), all the WP:ABF claims, the indef block of the proposer, Absidy (last active name) for what would have been a minor offense (24 hour block if that), arguably done improperly in violation of block policy, that may lead to further wikifuss, but this particular piece of it is closed off by this decision. However, it could still be disruptive, if users continue to contend with it, which is improbable. I hope. At least I can't be blamed for that! --Abd (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that its a good thing that Kim decided to do it "your" way, because if she didn't you were going to do your best to be disruptive. Well, THAT'S a productive attitude to have. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is above. AGF, please. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim, about your questions here:

Is there a compelling reason not to mark as rejected, and/or is there a compelling reason why merely rejecting would be insufficient?

is there any reason to suppose that the page as it stands -with a clear "rejected" tag-, would still cause (further) disruption?

Please see WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

The statements at the policy you cited contradict that. Policy proposals, essays, etc., even if they are not going to be disruptive in the future, should still be deleted.

Technically, if I made a page containing blatantly attacking Jimbo, at some point in the distant future it will be "old news" and cease to be disruptive, but that is an absurd argument for keeping such an article because it's the fact that it's created in bad-faith that matters. Particular bureaucratic policies and guidelines don't trump the quality of the encyclopedia or the intentions of the editors.

On second thought, though, yes, I guess it would be good to document, in case this puppeteer returns (and they always do). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I am continuously amazed by your ability to do so, but you missed the link to the actual relevant documentation on the very MFD page itself. :-)[7] . Your reference to Jimbo is completely out of thin air. Your "on second thought" is the only relevant thought you had. Would you please consider thinking your statements through in future? At least those you make to me? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it contradicts the MFD text. And I'm saying that I think WP:V's lead > some obscure section of WP:MfD. That was my original argument, but yes, on second thought I think you're right. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Do you see? Verifiability and Misc for deletion refer to different namespaces. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this one for the life of me. As pointed out above, disruptive proposals can be deleted. This thing is still being pushed on the talk page, so there's obviously an obvious reason for deleting it - namely to stop people from pushing a patently bad idea. There was an overwhelming consensus to delete and the reasoning was that the proposal was disruptive (a procedurally correct reason to delete a proposal). An early close and a close against consensus is inappropriate. I have requested that this action be overturned at deletion review. --B (talk) 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WIKIDRAMA Thespian Seagull (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to be open for review

I'm extremely troubled by this, Kim. Your interpretation of MfD policy is that this proposal cannot be deleted. However, there is certainly wording in the policy people have pointed to that make deletion appropriate. Feel free to endorse your own closure and explain yourself; the community may agree with you or they may not. But closing down the DRV of your own action is inappropriate: at the very least, you should let someone else call the DRV inappropriate, but I really don't think it is inappropriate to review your decision. Mangojuice^talk 15:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and as per WP:DRV: After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. You didn't wait five days, and you're not an administrator. Added to the fact that you closed the original MfD, I think this was done out of process. Ronnotel (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kim, I've generally agreed with you on this issue - and pretty much everything else - but I really think you shouldn't have closed the DRV when you were the closer on the MfD; I think you should re-open it to allow someone else to close it so there's no appearance of conflict of interest.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is highly irregular. No user should be able to use policy to circumvent process. The MfD close may have been wrong, the DRV one was worse.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not right. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. People don't get to pick and choose which policies are most convenient (or those which cause the most wikidrama when combined ;-) ). But that said, I believe I've followed process fairly closely, see also below where I explain how. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Kim's closure of the original MFD may have been in good faith, but I find the closure of the subsequent DRV highly irregular and not at all in keeping with process. I have started an ANI discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict of interest at DRV to seek additional input on this most unusual sequence of events. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

*scratching head*. I'm a bit confused as to why people are confused. I've been completely consistent in this, afaict.

MFD does not allow deletion of proposal pages. All "delete" opinions are typically counted as "reject" in such a case. (note that you are actually not allowed to reject a page per MFD either, but there have been exceptions, and my interpreting as "reject" is actually just me being nice!)

Technically on DRV, your options are "endorse", "relist" and "overturn" ("list" does not count here). In this case "endorse" would leave the page as rejected, "relist" would relist it on mfd, and "overturn" would unreject the page.

As B wants the page rejected anyway (or so I assume), going to DRV is a little strange.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was writing this when, damn, I realized you were actually right:

Kim, you were right about the odd feeling you were having. My opinion is that it was incorrect for you to close the DRV -- I haven't even looked at it, so what I'm saying is pure process consideration. Whether or not you are an administrator is irrelevant, the tools can't be used to promote one view or other, but only in service of consensus and policy. You can be right as rain, right as the sun shining, but a user may not close a process where they have a conflict of interest, and when there is a deletion review based on an allegedly incorrect decision to close, the one whose decision is being appealed may not close it. There are indeed severe process issues involved in all this, but there is WP:DR to follow over all of it. It will happen anyway, I believe, but you should withdraw your closure of the DRV. It was incorrect, not matter how totally correct you were in closing the MfD.

And why have I now concluded that you were right? Your closure is an ordinary editorial decision. They may revert it if they like, but they cannot demand that you revert it or withdraw your opinion. I assume you will not edit war, but, if you care, pursue dispute resolution. Being correct -- as I believe you are, though I have not reviewed your actual decision here, so I could be wrong about that -- is no reason to edit war. Let them edit war if they like. If I look at the case and decide to intervene, by, say, reverting a reversion of your closure, it will be as a totally independent decision, and, under current conditions, I'd say that we are under 1RR conditions. Maybe tighter than that.

I've been waiting for the smoke to clear before addressing the myriads of issues that have arisen here, one at a time, in an orderly fashion. While I could say, "it's beyond me why they want to make so much fuss," it actually isn't. I do understand it, and it does not require ABF. Rather, it requires understanding that there are unwritten rules, and violation of the unwritten rules is punishable by deletion and blocking. There is, in fact, oblique reference to this in the written rules. "Thou shalt not mention that the emperor has no clothes, it may cause a riot," isn't there, but "disruption" and "trolling" are prohibited, and trolling, quite specifically, is defined to cover violation of unwritten rules. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)