Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/YouTube fame

Disruption
I move that the irrelevant and inaccurate "process note" be removed from the discussion. Improving articles during AfDs is expressly encouraged and entirely appropriate, while this type of disruption is frowned upon especially from a user who has been warned repeatedly after a history of refactoring AfD discussions (as the nom no less) and other inappropriate actions such as stalking and harassment (as evidenced by their comment and their following me to this AfD). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on a second. I made one mistake refactoring an AfD discussion out of ignorance, for which I apologized. Your phrasing suggests this is a common occurrence, which is a complete misrepresentation. Furthermore, "improving" the article is not the same as renaming it in the middle of an AfD discussion, which is completely inappropriate. Moreover, I didn't "follow you" to this AfD - I monitor all AfDs routinely, and participate in any that I feel qualified to comment on. This is not harassment or stalking. Finally, I think it is beyond extraordinary that you have the audacity to call me out for "disruption", when your own editing history is replete with it. Since you are active in this AfD, I felt it prudent to remind you not to break the AfD rules again, hence the note. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's just all take a step back, catch our breaths, and keep things calm here. It's April, the worst time of year, we all have enough stress without adding this AfD to it.
 * Scjessey, I removed the diff you posted in the process note because I don't feel there's a need to single out CoM, the restriction applies equally to everybody and digging up old ground (even if it's recent old ground) isn't going to help. I don't have a problem with keeping the process note now, but to be honest, if CoM was the only person you were worried about moving the page then I think he's probably gotten the point by now.  Either way, though, it's fine, as long as we can all refrain from killing one another.  Thanks, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a rehash of prior harassment and a bogus AN thread posted by Allstrecho claiming that you're not allowed to improve articles while they're at AfD. The overwhelming consensus was that the move was entirely reasonable and appropriate. I wouldn't comment further, but there seems to be a piling on of misinformation. Article moves when appropriate are certainly allowed during AfD as was clarified in AN report which Scjessey is welcome to review. There is no prohibition on improving articles at AfD and moves can always be undone. Repeating misleading and inaccurate information isn't going to help anything and I urge some responsible party to remove Scjessey's misleading posting in the AfD as it is misleading and factually inaccurate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm gonna move that process note to the talk page, because if it stays in the AfD it'll be an unnecessary distraction from talking about the actual article. For what it's worth, I think that regardless of what the rules are it would be nice in this case not to move the article (although cleaning it up would be fine, if there is any cleanup that can be done) just so everyone participating in the discussion will be talking about the same thing. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Process comment
Now that this AfD is active, please observe the rules. Specifically:
 * Articles listed here are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

So please don't rename the article until the 7-day process is concluded, okay? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Moves are allowed. Please refrain from making false and misleading statements of this sort. If you have any questions you can ask Allstrecho about his recent AN report where the matter was clarified. This disruptive notice has no business being in the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the quote above, there is a 7-day period before things like moving are supposed to happen. This is not a disruptive notice. Moving an article during the process of an AfD is disruptive, and I wanted to make sure you didn't do it again. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, and having been told so and where to go if you want more information on the matter, I trust you won't insist on stating things that aren't true. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So what does the "after which" mean in the quote above, then? And even if you are right, it is still a stupid thing to do in the middle of an AfD. Otherwise, you end up with insanely complicated process turds like this happening. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your quote doesn't indicate a clear restriction on moving before seven days. It does indicate a restriction on how long the debate should last (which doesn't necessarily imply that the article should be static for the debate), and what should be done afterwards.
 * In fact, a blanket ban on moves seems counterproductive, as it's an unfortunate truth that people don't read all the comments and might argue for deletion based on the old name even when consensus is leaning towards a different name on the condition that it survives. The only thing that should have a blanket ban would be deletion, as that would completely prevent people from seeing what is being discussed. Improvements to the mainspace should have higher priority than clarity for the editors in the background.
 * On the other hand, while it was obviously not a disamb page, the particular name of the article wasn't decided with consensus.


 * And I don't really see a problem with notes indicating a page move. Why is it turdlike?
 * I say that unless you have a problem with the actual move, rather than process (and process which isn't unequivocally outlined in AfD or consensus), you should drop this, and do what you should've done in the first place: make a thread in the talk page about consensus on this point, instead of singling out one user.
 * And why are we using bullets here? --Raijinili (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they hurt more than colons? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno about that... --Raijinili (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)