Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was userfy to User:James500/Don't bold your !votes per WP:Policies and guidelines: "Essays... that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace," cited by several contributors. Since consensus is that this should not be in Wikipedia space, I am deleting, rather than retargeting, the shortcut from WP:DONTBOLD. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Closer's note: userfied page subsequently deleted WP:CSD at user's request. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't bold your !votes


Bad advice, even for an "essay". Full of misinformation and crank opinions. If someone wants to have this in their own userspace as their own crackpot opinion, fine, but it does not belong on Wikipedia namespace. Delete or userfy. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. - Essays are opinions, I don't agree with the advice in it either but it is just an opinion. HighInBC 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reconsidering this position after reading Policies and guidelines which says Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. What remains to be determined is does it contradict a widespread consensus. As far as I know bolding has been done willy nilly and I don't know of any consensus that it should be done a certain way. HighInBC 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a widespread consensus to bold !votes in any venue on Wikipedia. I have rarely seen any !voting or polling anywhere, on any page, noticeboard, XfD, or committee venue, where all of the !votes were not bolded, except occasionally those attempted !votes by absolute newcomers. Especially when a !vote is expressed mid-sentence rather than as the first word of a user's opinion, the bolding is essential to differentiate between the simple use of a word and the expression of it as the user's actual !vote. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that lots of people do something does not create consensus, because consensus is not a vote: it depends on the merit of arguments, not the number of people who advance them. Bolding is not needed to differentiate between the simple use of a word in the middle of a sentence and the expression of it as the user's actual !vote as the meaning of English word depends on their context, that is to say, the words around them, not the typeface that is used. Anyone who needs bold text to understand the meaning of a sentence is someone who can't speak English. A sentence like "Blah, blah, blah ... and therefore I think we should keep this article for that reason" is clearly a !vote to keep, and anyone who can't recognise that without bold text lacks the linguistic competence to contribute to this project and should leave. James500 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I support essays that could potentially be a guideline or reflect a growing common practice in WP. This one really just expresses one user's opinion who has been very very resistent to bolding he's decided to create an essay and sneakily try to link into the AfD guideline here.  With rather ludicrous reasons for not bolding like The burden of bolding !votes is not merely an additional burden on the time, finances[6] and physical and mental stamina of individual editors (some of whom may have much less to give, in all or any of these respects, than other editors). If many editors bold their !votes this represents a diversion of effort across the entire project, that could otherwise be directed towards a useful purpose, such as writing encyclopedia articles.  At best this should be in userspace. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that AFDFORMAT/DISCUSSAFD is not a guideline. Please replace that word with "essay" in your comment above. James500 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or at least, as an absolute last resort, userfy. This essay does not contradict any widespread consensus. There is no consensus that bolding !votes is compulsory. The fact that a lot of people do something does not create consensus, because consensus is not a vote: it depends on the quality of arguments. The only way to prove that this essay does not reflect consensus is to produce convincing (ie policy/guideline based) counter arguments to the arguments it advances. Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong with the arguments in the essay, and simply asserting that they are wrong (which is all that has been done so far) does not make them so. In any event, there a lots of unbolded !votes in AfDs. The first section of the essay headed "it's not compulsory" positively reflects positive consensus, as there is positive consensus that bolding is not compulsory for the reasons explained in the essay. There can be no possible justication for moving that out of mainspace, since it IS consensus. As the second section does not contradict any policy or guideline, that does not contradict consensus either and should stay where it is. I think I should point out that LibStar has been pestering me about this for a long time, and complete deletion of the essay, as opposed to userfication, would make it a lot easier for him to obfuscate about my motives, falsely accusing me of bad faith, and so forth. See for example the sneaky lie that he tells above, falsely claiming AFDFORMAT is a guideline when it has been explained to him plenty of times that it is not. Frankly his vote for deletion instead of userfication looks like gamesmanship. James500 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * not gamemanship, you'll see many people share my concerns as reflected in this discussion. so here we have an opportunity to get consensus over this essay. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) If you bother to actually read that discussion, you will see lots of people saying "just ignore this essay and leave it in the project space", so this MfD is flogging a dead horse. (2) I did not accuse the others of gamesmanship, as they have not persistently pestered me about this, accusing me of all sorts of absurd motives I don't possess, like you have. James500 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * you said looks like gamesmanship. if that's not an accusation directed at me, I don't know what is. I was wondering how many keystrokes you'll end up using in this MfD. remember more keystrokes means more financial, physical and mental burden... LibStar (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I said "I did not accuse the others of gamesmanship" (emphasis added). You are not one of the said "others". James500 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. (1) I think I should also point out that there was no consensus in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Don't bold your !votes that this essay should be deleted or userfied either. (2) I also think that the words "contradict widespread consensus" in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines mean "contradict a policy or guideline". Because if there is no policy or guideline, there can be no widespread consensus, or, at least, there is no evidence of it. James500 (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy I think being in the Wikipedia namespace may be problematic as it may be taken as advice. I think it fine in userspace. HighInBC 03:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it would be better to re-insert the words "Consider these views with discretion" in Template:Essay, whose removal I have only just noticed and can't fathom, or perhaps insert even stronger words, if we really think that the warnings that the essay is not a policy or guideline, and may reflect a minority viewpoint are not enough. James500 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. My goodness, was there nothing better to do with the time spent on this nomination? VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy- rambling, badly-written essays full of bizarre wrong-headed advice and ludicrous arguments should not be in the main wikipedia space, but editors should be free to be as wrong as they like as loudly as they like in their own user space. Reyk  YO!  08:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it" is not a valid grounds for deleting anything, indeed, it is one of the arguments to avoid (WP:ATA) and that is what your !vote amounts to since you make no effort to explain why the essay is allegedly "bizarre", "wrong" or "ludicrous". The quality of writing is irrelevant as long as the essay is comprehensible, though you make no attempt to explain what is allegedly wrong with that either. James500 (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You assert that "I don't like it" is not a valid grounds for deleting anything". As I have not, in fact, advocated deleting it, I fail to see the relevance. (You do understand the distinction between userfication and deletion, right?) Yet another factual error from a long-winded, perpetually offended, editor who seems to be inevitably wrong on every issue. Your essay is too long, repetitious, full of bizarre reasoning like "bolding votes is a mental, physical and financial strain" and "there's no evidence that most people bold their votes" when it's clear to anyone with eyes in their head that bolding is in fact the norm. You keep referring to "the author of this essay", proving that you consider it your property, instead of an essay that anyone can edit. That being the case, it belongs in your user space where you can treat it like your own personal property. Reyk  YO!  09:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * totally agree with Reyk. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reyk, the reference to "deletion" instead of "userfication" was simply an accident. I'm sure that you must have made mistakes in the past. So, let me rephrase that: "I don't like it" is not a grounds for userfying anything either, for the same reasons. The length of an essay is not a grounds for userfication. The essay is not repetitious. Even if there was a problem in either of those respects, it could be fixed by very straightforward editing. The first passage from the essay you quote is quoted out of context. Simply calling it bizarre doesn't explain why you think it is bizarre. It is not clear to anyone with eyes in their head that bolding is in fact the norm, unless they have no idea what statistical significance is (ie the fact that human beings think they perceive a pattern (ie without doing something like a chi-squared hypothesis test) doesn't mean that their is one) and they have failed to consider that the vast majority of !votes may be cast by a small minority of !voters, etc etc etc. I have not asserted ownership of the essay and I am perfectly happy for anyone to edit. If you want to remove the small number of references to "the author of this essay" feel free to do so. It is only there because, when I wrote the essay, I had a limited knowledge of tools and robots in that I was not able to examine every single one that exists. If you can think of a better expression for that, please replace it. Or just provide positive confirmation that no other tools and robots exist. Your comments about my judgement are irrelevant rubbish, and I could throw them straight back at you because I have an equally low opinion of your abilities. James500 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reyk's comments are not irrelevant rubbish but quite accurate. In fact I can already hear a 1000 character plus response being typed up now. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question for the nominator, Softlavender Can you please identify the alleged misinformation mentioned in your nomination? I can't see anything in the essay that is factually false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of order Softlavender, please stop violating the talk page guidelines by moving my comments around this page and tampering with them to make it look like they are addressed to someone other than you. James500 (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I merely moved your comment (singular) to its correct chronological placement in the discussion thread (and again when you reverted ). See: Fixing layout errors. I did not tamper with it or make it look like it was addressed to someone other than me. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy as above (but with the caveat that, unlike a typical Userfy !vote, the intention is not temporary). I don't see anything wrong with taking an unusual position in an essay, but essays in the Wikipedia namespace, though categorized similarly, are understood differently than those in the userspace. People confuse essays and guidelines all the time. There can be no such confusion in the userspace where the advice in the essay clearly conflicts with typical recommendations. If kept in the Wikipedia namespace, especially given the detailed accounts of extra characters/time/money/whatnot, it should be tagged with Template:Humor . &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In view of the clear wording of Template:Essay, I don't think such confusion is likely. People do cite essays as if they were the last word on their subject matter, but that is because those people are trying to be as persuasive as possible. I know of very experienced administrators who cite their own userspace essays that way eg "this is notable because it satisfies my standards". In this case, there are no typical recommendations. The essay is not intended to be humorous and don't see anything funny about it. James500 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In view of Rhododendrites' comment above, I suspect that my !vote should technically read "keep or move to userspace" rather than "userfy". James500 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Waiting to see the outcome of this MfD before acting on this, but there might be other essays that demand attention. It looks like James recently hijacked Trivial mentions. Whereas the essay originally extracted meaning from policies/guidelines, it now says nearly the opposite via two page-dominating "alternative views". This seems to approach disruption. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed. Now wait for the long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree too. This user is hijacking numerous essays and flooding them with long-winded, badly-written, repetitive inclusionist cheerleading. See also . Reyk  YO!  15:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Rhododendrites. The original text of WP:TRIVIAL did not extract the meaning from the guideline, it put a massive spin on the guideline, attributing to it a meaning that it does not obviously bear at all. Anyone who thinks that the guideline clearly bore a meaning that it did not state in anything resembling express words is someone who cannot speak English properly. All I did was to correct a piece of determined distortion. I think that trying to bully out all opinions one does not like by sheer brute force (note that I left alternative view 1 in the essay even though I personally strongly disagree with it, in a bid to be as neutral as possible) approaches disruption. I should point out that your post constitutes WP:CANVASSING as that essay has nothing to do with the one under discussion here, and the only purpose of posting here is to attract disproportionate attention from people hostile towards me personally. James500 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me make this very clear: if in future you want to attract attention to something like this, use a neutral venue like 3O or RfC. Don't come down here and canvass people who are already involved a dispute with me. If !voters from this MfD go to the talk page of that essay, it will be impossible to have a neutral discussion there for a long time. James500 (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that, since anyone is allowed to edit a project space essay, accusing someone of hijacking an essay amounts to an assertion of ownership. I could just as easily level the same accusation at the original author, as he is not in a privileged position, and it would be no more an appropriate accusation than the one you are levelling at me. James500 (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that those changes were not made recently, they were made a very long time ago. And in all that time, no one has made the slightest objection to that version. James500 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you generally shouldn't be reaching pages through the contributions of another editor, because is incompatible with establishing what consensus is. It makes it look like their is strong opposition to what that editor, when really it is just one person, or a small group, following him around. If you want to look for unsatisfactory essays, use the template or category, and look over all of them. James500 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "All I did was to correct a piece of determined distortion. - Wow. So we have before and after, and it's the before you're characterizing as "a piece of determined distortion" and "a massive spin"? No. Your edits to the Trivial mentions essay, like you saying you could accuse the original author of that essay of [either "hijacking" or "ownership", I can't tell] simply by virtue of being the original author, like the subject of the present MfD, and like this business about WP:CANVASSING, amounts to an exercise in wikilawyer gymnastics. You might have a point about canvassing if the cases were unrelated, but they're not. The two are examples of precisely the same problem. Perhaps ANI is a better venue than MfD for such a problem, indeed, but let's not pretend we're talking about unrelated things here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Rhododendrites: Manifest nonsense from start to finish. Since the bolding of votes clearly has nothing to do with notability, it is canvassing. Systematically targeting the work another editor is against policy as well. It seems that if I want to have peace, and not be subjected to vexatious ANI complaints, I must now retire from editing essays. Fine. I quit. I retire. I will never edit another project space essay again. If you want to rip essays to bits, I will not revert your edits, no matter how plainly erroneous or absurd they appear. You have won. You have got your own way. Now please stop violating the policy against threats. Thank you. James500 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * clear to me that James500 loves wikilawyering. even if all the extra keystrokes are a financial, mental and physical burden. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of this comment? Are you simply trying to provoke me? James500 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with the comment on wiki lawyering. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy unless the user that created it does not want it in his user-space at all and no other volunteer steps forward to have it put in his user-space. In that case, delete as a "user essay whose creator doesn't want it and which doesn't have anyone willing to 'host' it in their user-space."  Userfication is strongly preferable to deletion, but deletion is preferable to having it in Wikipedia: space.  When the practice becomes much more accepted then it can be moved into Wikipedia: space, but as long as the current widespread practice of bolding !votes exists, this should be a user-essay, not a "Wikipedia:" essay. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy - the advice goes against what is a generally held as a good practice by the community. That aside, I strongly oppose the application of Template:Humor as is conditionally suggested above, unless the author confirms it was intended as humorous. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy, same thing, get it out of main space. I agree with HighInBC's points.   D r e a m Focus  02:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. bad acvice, which will lead to confusion if anyone should follow it. Contradict a guideline can also mean contradict an established pratice. It might be possible to keep in user space, with an altered title.  DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy as bad advice unless clearly marked as humor by the creator. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. (1) As far as I am aware, an 'established practice' in the sense of 'lots of people do it' is not a guideline. As far as I am aware the only way to get a guideline is to go through the proposal process which involves an RfC. The alternative line of reasoning opens us up to essentially unverifiable claims about the existence of consensus, and more importantly, it seems to me, to the use of MfD as a means of forum shopping, whereby editors seek to obtain acceptance of a new rule equivalent to a new guideline at MfD, a venue that bears little relation to the subject matter of most essays and is not particularly well frequented. The more I think about the interpretation of the rules regarding essays being urged at this AfD, the more uneasy I become. (2) It would be helpful if editors calling the advice bad would explain why it is bad. Why is bolding !votes a good thing? (3) I am aware that there are a lot of userfy !votes above. Is there any way for me to concede the move to userspace? That is not an offer yet. (4) Would it be acceptable to turn this essay into a 'do not badger/pester the non-bolders' proposal for a guideline? That would be even better than an essay as it would solve a really serious problem. James500 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some practices are so common that they don't need to be written down. Look at it this way:  If this page did not exist and two editors each created a user essay, one titled "Don't bold your !votes" and one titled "Bold your !votes" and both were well-written essays that used non-controversial facts and sound logic to argue that people should do what the title said, and both editors started an RFC at the same time asking that their user-essay be promoted to full essay (or, for that matter, guideline) status, and an third editor linked both RFCs to WP:CENT, which do you think would get the most support?  I don't have a crystal ball, but it doesn't take a crystal ball to say that the one that says "Do bold your !votes" would get large support and the other one would fail, probably going down in flames, if only because the former is already the established practice.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The only answer that I can give is that no sound logic or non-controversial facts have been presented in favour of the alternative proposition being a good idea, and I am fairly certain that none exist. The only substantial argument there seems to be is 'lots of people do it' which is based on a severe misconception that consensus is a majority vote. If I was closing this MfD (which I am not), I would not accord any weight to that type of argument. I cannot predict what would happen if an essay promoting the bolding of votes was created. I don't think there is much point in continuing to discuss the essay, as I think it is clear that this essay will be userfied when this MfD is closed, as a result of the number of votes for that result. Frankly, I would simply like this MfD to end as soon as possible, as I am finding it very difficult to do anything, including article improvement and maintenance, because of it. I don't really want to reply here again. James500 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * but you keep replying. Isn't there a mental, physical and financial strain on all those keystrokes spent responding? LibStar (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to provoke me. James500 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's your choice whether or not you reply but you keep arguing against obvious consensus. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't argue against anything, I asked you to stop trying to belittle me. James500 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's all be WP:CIVIL, but while I agree with fighting the good fight, it may be time to wave the white flag. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a test. Interested to see if you stop responding. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy: Misleading essay; only a very tiny minority (I'm talking 0.1-0.5%) would chide bolding of votes. It rightly belongs in userspace, not Wikipedia space. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 05:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - until the nominator can articulate why he/she believes that the essay is . Ottawahitech (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
 * That's self-evident from just skimming it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Those advancing such arguments without further explanation possibly cannot articulate that because they are possibly just mud slinging. (2) The word "skimming" normally means not reading something properly. James500 (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A proper read of what I actually said is the clear implication "and if you keep reading it, it becomes even more apparent." The misinformative nature of the piece has already been detailed in various ways by other commenters, and it wouldn't add much to the discussion to parrot them. The observation of a fault is based on reasoning, not the popularity of calling the fault out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy per WP:POLICY's "Essays that ... are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Note that the rationale that runs along the lines "It's not contradicting an actual guideline so it's not contradicting consensus" is basically nonsense, since consensus is not determined by guidelines, but by actual practice, which is then (when we bother) annotated in guidelines. And the instructional material at core process page like WP:AFD has at least as much consensus buy-in as any guideline anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) No, my argument is that consensus is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments advanced by both sides, and that looking at "actual practice" amounts to taking a majority !vote, which is not correct. Please don't put words into my mouth. If we looked at "actual practice", there would be consensus for the creation of massive numbers of spectacularly non-notable articles, including lots of advertising. That is an instance of the majority being wrong in creating those things. (2) The material at WP:AFD includes a failed proposal, and the rest of it has no more consensus than a high profile essay. Frankly, its content looks a mess. And nothing in the DONTBOLD essay contradicts that page anyway. James500 (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actual practice at AfD, the process by which we determine whether to keep articles, trumps actual practice, mostly by noobs, of creating junk articles, by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy (or delete) per comments above. Having !votes in bold is very helpful when skimming deletion discussions (e.g. when looking for XFDs that might be NACable). The Wp namespace redirects should also be deleted or changed to point to somewhere in Wp namespace. DexDor(talk) 15:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In view of how plainly invalid the previous anti-keep arguments have generally been, I am tempted to thank you for advancing one that is not. However, I doubt that bolding makes much difference to skimming for many people (it certainly makes none at all for me); skimming is normally A Very Bad Thing, especially when closers count !votes instead of reading them; forcing people to read more carefully in all cases is arguably a good thing; and I think that any advantages gained for and by skimming in a few instances are clearly outweighed by all the disadvantages identified in the essay and the previous talk page thread; at least they are not important enough to take the essay out of the project space. I don't understand why you want to remove the project space redirect. Other user space essays have them, and I don't recall a policy or guideline against such redirects. That said, I don't care about them. James500 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please indent; your comments are hard to follow. If I was the closer and wanted to see all your responses to make sure you did not actually make a valid point, I would likely miss some of them unless I searched your signature and read backward. The point you miss in this comment is that if the closer finds the delete nomination reason to be valid on its face, then he is only going to closely read the keep opinions. If not highlighted, then he will likely miss some as he skims for Keep !votes. He only needs to read the deletes closely if the keeps make valid points. So advocating not bolding is in fact A Very Bad Thing. Anyone who follows your advice may miss out on having their opinion taken into account. Dreaming that closers are going to read every single word closely in nominations which can go on for many pages (some novella length) is foolhardy at best. Essays should only offer good advice which helps people make their points in debates and helps them make better article edits. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can hear Don't indent your replies being typed up right now. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  06:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * and imagine all those extra keystrokes expended indenting. It would cause financial, mental and physical burden over a lifetime. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And on that note, I wonder if we aren't all falling for an April Fools style hoax? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the closer finds the delete nomination reason to be valid on its face, he is also required to closely read the replies to delete !votes, as entirely new arguments for some outcome other than deletion are often advanced in such replies. He will also be obliged to read all "comments" that are not expressed to be delete !votes for the same reason (one sees lots of comments that begin with the word "comment"). In other words he is obliged to read closely any comment that is indented or that starts with a non-indented bullet point and is not followed by the word "delete". If he fails to do this, he has not closed the AfD properly and is a good candidate for desysopping. He is very unlikely to miss a non-indented bullet point. Frankly, he would have to be totally blind to miss it. So he is not likely to miss a keep !vote just because it isn't bolded. The non-indented bullet point prevents that. Furthermore, as the closer knows perfectly well that there is no guarantee whatsoever that !votes will be bolded regardless of what advice is given (especially by editors with relatively low edit counts), he should not be skimming for that purpose (unlike the purpose that DexDor suggested above, which is just scanning sorting lists for potential snowballs). If he does skim for that purpose, he has failed to close the AfD properly and is a good candidate for desysopping. QED. If you know of any admins who pull that kind of stunt, please take steps to have them desysopped at once. That is the solution to that problem. I hope there are very few such admins. Those admins who discussed this at the previous thread at WT:AFD insisted that they did not skim for that purpose. James500 (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment while we're on the point of essays. Anyone see WP:BLUDGEON occurring here? LibStar (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Translation into English: LibStar thinks that his side are losing the argument, because the other side's arguments are better, so he has decided to try to derail the discussion by making irrelevant off topic comments in a bid to change the subject of the discussion to something that has nothing to do with what this MfD is supposed to be about (the merits of the essay), and thereby hopefully distract everyone's attention from the fact that his side are losing the argument, because the other side's arguments are better. James500 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How many more days until it becomes WP:DROPTHESTICK? VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious which side is losing the argument (hint: not Libstar's). You seem to have mistaken pointed criticism of the essay's content for derailment. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  11:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we please indent. I am getting really confused. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Reyk: I don't see how the content of the essay WP:DONTBOLD can be WP:BLUDGEON, if that really is what LibStar was trying to say. Otherwise his comment is just off topic. James500 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he hit the bullseye. WP:BLUDGEON refers strictly to editors. The editor in question here should be self-obvious. It might help if you step away for a bit and WP:DOGGY. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I could only answer this by repeating what I said to LibStar. That essay is a cynical guideline infringing debating tactic that should have been MfD'd some time ago. I'm not going to respond further on that subject on this page. I don't wish to respond here again for any reason. James500 (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON would easily survive a MfD. And what's better is it so accurately describes other editors. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Request for closure - There is clear consensus that the perspective put forward in this essay is not in line with consensus procedure per Wikipedia policies and guidelines and that it needs to leave the Wikipedia namespace. Meanwhile, we're going off on tangents and stuck in a cycle of provocation and response with nothing to show for it but a fascinating case study for first-year wikilawyer students. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is now clear consensus but I do wonder if some editors will accept the outcome. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to go to WP:DRV at this time, regardless of the merits of the closer's rationale, even if, for example, he counts the majority vote. The last thing I want is for this discussion to continue in any form. James500 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.