I want to raise one specific and one general issue for discussion: 1) A recently created article about a newly appointed bishop in the Church of Norway was nominated by a self-described "disiplined deletionist" for speedy deletion. The nomination was subsequently defended on the basis that our standards for notability don't say anything about Norwegian bishops. Indeed, the standards don't say anything about religious leaders at all, but I have to imagine that common sense would lead a reasonable person to appreciate that one of the 11 top clergy of the official state church of Norway is notable. Should we either update the guidelines for biographical notability or impose some standard of common sense, to preempt this kind of zealotry? 2) I am known to take a broad definition of vandalism. I think it's any act that disrupts Wikipedia, perpetrated by someone who knows better. So when a seasoned editor creates a lot of work for a lot of other people on an issue that will surely go one way or another; or plays games with rules; or hides behind AGF, then we should be allowed to assume they're up to no good. Perhaps we should define bad behavior that falls short of vandalism but is still unacceptable. I nominate KNAVERY as the right term, as it goes to the saying "he's either a fool or a knave." And happy holidays and a great, productive Gregorian new year to everyone! Leif