Meta:Requests for deletion

←Requests and proposals

Requests for deletion

Archives (current)→

This page hosts local requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Speedy deletions. Any language may be used on this page. Before commenting on this page, please read the Deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion, and the inclusion policy. Please place the template {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in an appropriate section below. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request. After at least one week, an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Images with no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived. {{Deletion requests}} can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

Pages

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Stewards/Confirm/2012/Quadell

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Quentinv57 on 28 January. Trijnstel 12:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Per author request. Not sure if this qualifies for a speedy deletion so I did not put {{delete}} there. Bencmq 14:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted per author request. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 14:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Grants:Lori_Phillips/US_GLAM_Coordinator

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Jafeluv 09:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Just an old false start that only has the empty template in it. Its presence in the grants lists is just a distraction and a time waste for those wishing to review past withdrawn/cancelled requests. This is solvable by just removing the category, but really it should just be deleted. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Unused and can be created again if user needs it. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, per nominator. It can be recreated if needed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Enwikipediathink

The following discussion is closed.

---

• It's not a happy page. Now I'm not terribly familiar with the historical context here, but I like to think I do know enough about the mediawiki to say that what it says about that, at least, is largely inaccurate. The rest just seems needlessly inflamatory, and not the sort of thing that's at all productive for random users/visitors to chance upon when the entire goal here seems to be coordination and the like, not propagating suspicion and paranoia. Granted, I thought the entire thing was a joke until I saw the author's userpage, but the person who linked me to it apparently really did take it seriously and was using it as a justification for his own actions on another site (hence why he'd linked it), so... yeah. — Isarra (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - It's an essay, and allowed on meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: normal essay, might be a bit confused but it only expresses a point of view, nor seems attacking to me (it assumes good faith, for instance). Nemo 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove meta is a place to talk about problems, not to fly-poster your personal views! This "essay" does reflect the NPOV! a×p_de^Hello! 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - no real reason to remove this essay. Rd232 01:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The article has validity and reflects levels of perception and reality, though it has issues. As an essay, it currently fails as it is an opinion piece without authorship, so there is no ability judge the reflections and biases. If it is an essay, there should be reference to supporting information. It has no date, so historical context cannot be assigned. Sitting where it is and how it is in main namespace, it carries a level of authority that overrates its importance. I feel that it can exist on wiki, but with its current flaws that it should sit in user namespace, either with or without a cross namespace redirect. billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Essays in main namespace are just the standard, Meta's main space contains opinions as one of its main purposes and this doesn't give any "level of authority". Nemo 11:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep standard content and shouldn't even be questioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• meh its insulting at best but I have seen worse --Guerillero 13:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment No strong opinion on the essay in question; seems a legitimate opinion, if somewhat dated. However, having originally come across this when reading up on meta-wiki policy (in order to contribute to the discussion directly below this one), I don't think it's very wise for the page Community, prominently linked from the main page, to link to this essay. It certainly gave me a unfortunate expectation of the reception to expect as a denizen of evil.wiki. CIreland 14:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Although not a particularly readable essay, I think some points stated there are endorsed by others here. I can definitely think of more scathing criticisms of some other language Wikipedias, so deleting this one would set a bad precedent. ASCIIn2Bme 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Kept. Jafeluv 11:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Gwen Gale

The following discussion is closed: Kept.

1. Per several comments in the discussion: the page is obviously within Inclusion policy; deletion can't be considered in isolation from other cases and clear consensus would be needed to delete such a page [individually].
2. However, among the users who commented on this, there's a consensus not to delete.
3. Despite this, many other comments about other points were made in favour or against deletion, although not necessarily related. In particular: redaction of personal attacks et similia, if any, is discussed on talk; if the page contains libel, oversight should be requested; stricter rules to publish RfC on users are being discussed on this RfC; the general RfC on a more formal and effective way to deal with dispute resolution is here.
4. There's been some complaints about canvassing from biased forums on en.wiki. While it's true that all wikimedians and even "projects" as a whole must be able to take part on Meta in discussions who affect them, and Meta can't live in isolation or be "against" some projects, this also means that this discussion is not "against en.wiki", therefore it's also wrong to suggest that "en.wiki" should have a particular voice in it. It must be noted that many users were brought to these discussions under the false assumption that "Meta" was going to attack en.wiki in some way, which is obviously false. Although this arguably falls under the definition of canvassing, it's proposed to put this aside. All !votes with valid reasons i.e. reasons based on Meta's policies, guidelines and practices, are considered.

Remembering that this is not a poll and we can't just count votes, for mere illustrative purposes, an approximate count of !votes follows to further explain the points above: (2) 4 for deletion, 8 against; (4) 14-18 valid for deletion, 9 against; and even considering everything (which is not good practice), 23-24 for deletion and 10 against, which is not a consensus strong enough.

The page has been courtesy blanked and such/different redaction must be discussed on talk.

New closure by uninvolved (as in non-voting) administrator as requested below, Nemo 11:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Remove English Wikipedia has robust dispute resolution processes. A banned editor has brought a vendetta here in the form of this page. It is an attack page complaining about long ago matters long ago settled. No discussion here will have any weight on the English Wikipedia's handling of these matters. On the English Wikipedia ArbCom has the final say in matters related to administrators. As such, the page serves no legitimate purpose and should be deleted to spare the subject from needless stress and embarassment, and to deter banned users from misusing this wiki for defamation and harassment. Jehochman 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Meta is coordination project of all wikis, also en.wiki. RfC here is the only possibility for banned users to be heard by the worldwide community and where stewards can act (if there is a need) in such matters, or to contact the local ArbCom and ask them for consideration on that matter. Such requests will not be deleted. I can´t see any harrasement in this request, just links provided to public logs and talks. Already the first request for deletion was rejected because of that, so please stop posting it over and over again. Thanks. --WizardOfOz ^talk 07:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  ArbCom heard and rejected Mbz1's appeal. This discussion needs to continue. Don't try to impose your individual view on the community by closing the discussion prematurely. Jehochman 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and strongly per WizardOfOz. I have no views on the right or wrong of the case but that is one of the functions of Meta to allow folk a voice if required. In addition I object strongly to sundry folk coming along and not accepted the fact that two Meta admins have now removed the tag and I agree with their actions. If a Meta admin wishes to remove the tag again I will support them - this is Meta business not en wp. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove Per reasons given here. This is allowing a user in bad standing to abuse of a poorly designed and seldom-trafficked part of the WMF. Tarc 13:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Under the current Meta-wiki RfC rules, this page is unfortunately allowed. Which doesn't imply that it's a good idea. I have started a RfC to tighten the rules for these meta-wiki RfC/Us; see Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. Now for the RfC/U at hand here, assume for a moment that Stewards rule in Mbz1's favor. In that hypothetical scenario, what are they going to do in practical terms? Desysop the entire en.wp ArbCom? Or maybe fire them from their Arb seats? That would be a first. Or maybe go over the heads of the en.wp Arbs and desysop the admin in question? That would probably be a first too. What if a local en.wp crat resysops Gwen after that. Is there going to be a cross-wiki wheel war? ASCIIn2Bme 14:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stewards can do none of the above actions. They would immediately lose their access if they did for blatant abuse. Every process can be abused by bad faith users. Damn the rules. If they didn't anticipate an abuse, the abuse should be stopped. We are under no obligation to follow rules when they produce a stupid result. Jehochman 17:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove per local guideline WM:NOT, points 9, 10 and 11. CIreland 15:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove per WM:NOT 11. Sven Manguard 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove per WM:NOT 11 as cited by CIreland and Sven Manguard, and because the keep statements are based on a mistaken conception of what Meta is about. Contrary to what WizardOfOz says above, Meta is not an appellate court for individual disputes on individual projects. It is not a place for "banned users to be heard by the worldwide community", and the role of its own administration and stewards is not to act as super-judges in such matters. The coordinating role of Meta is something different. A Meta-RfC would make sense if a case were being made about a general, systemic problem pervading an individual project (e.g. a project's admin corps systematically refusing to enforce foundation policy in some way), or conceivably if there were a case of an individual dispute of a strongly cross-project nature. Neither of these is the case here. It's an individual dispute within the jurisdiction of an individual project, period. The very suggestion hinted at by WizardOfOz, that stewards might overrule a dispute resolution outcome from en-wiki in such a matter, even just as a theoretical possibility, is, frankly, disturbing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove Per Future Perfects well stated comment above, such RFCs have no teeth, and serve only to inflame a situation that has already been dealt with at the local level. Beeblebrox 19:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just for information, the next RFD tag on the RfC will end with block. This is not a threat, but promise. There is no deletion of a RfC here. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are an absolute disgrace of an admin. I put it back. You gonna block me now? Do you have no shame? I can't say I'm super familiar with how adminship works here but the way you are acting, using your admin status as a lever to try and bully other users in a conversation you have participated in, is disgusting and I'd be thrilled to be blocked by you because it will haten the day when you are desysopped here. Beeblebrox 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic in the RfC itself if you wish to comment. Nemo 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• This close is against consensus and policy. Your actions will be reviewed by WMF, I guarantee it. Jehochman 19:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Nemo bis seems to have inadvertently closed this with "not within deletion policy" despite the fact that the policy simply says "Any user can propose that a page be deleted at Meta:Requests for deletion for any stated reason". I have, therefore, taken the liberty of undoing an edit which seems to have been based on a bizarre contradiction of policy. (I freely admit that I'm not familiar with all meta's policies, so if there's another policy which this RfD contravenes, I welcome correction). There are valid reasons for discussing deletion; for those who refer to focus on concretely worded rules rather than on preventing drama/bullying or on enabling disruptive editors, point 11 of WM:NOT is probably most relevant. Bobrayner 23:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Comment: Nemo bis just "archived"† this thread, without addressing the problem, and introducing a new problem: The notion that this discussion is resolved here, another thread which Nemo bis has hastily closed with "This is not the page where to discuss deletion.". Where, then, is the place to discuss deletion? Surely it's here, at Requests for deletion. Nemo, could you help? You seem to be very sure that this discussion is against policy; which policy? Feel free to explain. I really mean "explain" instead of "close and hide some more threads that you don't like". Bobrayner 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

† On most wikis, "archive" means moving a copy of an old discussion to another page. Here it appears to mean deleting an ongoing discussion.

Remove - much of the debate about this can't really be resolved without settling wider policy issues. So let's take it on it's own terms, and look at the Desired Outcomes (Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale#Desired_outcome):

1. I'd like Gwen Gale to acknowledge that some of the blocks she posts violate Wikipedia policies in particular about canvassing and about involved administrator.
2. I'd like Gwen Gale to acknowledge that talk page access should not be removed routinely as she is doing this now all the time.
3. I'd like Gwen Gale to stop being a bully administrator, and, if for some reason she cannot do it, stop being administrator at all.

Now, all of these are addressed as requests to a user on another wiki, in relation to actions on another wiki. Regardless of what the exact relation between Meta and other WMF wikis is in terms of appealing decisions made elsewhere, this isn't an appeal. It's effectively either (i) an attempt to communicate with a user through an inappropriate medium (if we assume good faith) or (ii) an attempt to voice complaint in a somewhat vengeful way, knowing the complaint can achieve nothing but discomfort to the subject, who cannot reasonably be expected to respond as requested (if we don't assume good faith). Either way, even within the rather limited restrictions seemingly placed on RFC/U on meta, it seems a clear misuse of RFC/U. Therefore, it should be deleted. The user remains able to repost their complaint offwiki, but there is no reason for WMF to host what is in effect a glorified blog post. (Note: none of this has any bearing on the substance of the complaint, so let me briefly add: the user has apparently exhausted all possible avenues for pursuing these complaints, and seeking out impossible ones helps no-one. A more constructive response would be to discuss the complaint-handling mechanisms themselves with a view to improving them.) Rd232 03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this page should used to create a wider policy. All RfC contain criticism of other users, it can't be different: you're not explaining why for the first time this RfC should be deleted rather than closed. Only because (some part of) en.wiki community is not able to understand the process and let it go rather than canvassing, spreading drama and making accusations to the whole Meta? Nemo 10:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect, that's an odd response. I've precisely tried to avoid arguments that require us to resolve ambiguities of inter- and intra-community policy, and focus on the purpose of the RFC/U on its own terms. Rd232 01:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're asking action on a single page while claiming to make points of general validity. I agree that we should consider such cases as a whole, but you don't bring elements to that purpose, you only consider a narrow perspective generalising what you think about this page. So your suggestion is not useful for the specific nor for the general case, because it doesn't address either. Nemo 11:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion... and an oddly incoherent one, I have to say. Rd232 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[RHETORICAL FLAG] A common (and improper) rhetorical ploy (often seen in bullying interrogations, e.g., at AN/I) is to imply the speaker is not making sense. If the response is not such a rhetorical ploy, then it may be a sign of lack of reading comprehension skills and/or a lack of courtesy. If one truly cannot follow the logic of someone's argument, they should focus on a particular point of confusion to clarify, rather than a communication in the style above. (In my own experience, when I hit a logic loop wall in discussion, I tend to shift genres, e.g., write a rhetorical sonnet about it -- the rhyme requirement slowing down my response, and forcing me to consider other ways of saying it that rhyme. Thereby broadening my perspective in random ways that may lead to a solution to logic loop. :-) Dear Rd232, see my edit summary for this message. Cheers.-- Proofreader77 23:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rd, you wrote: "knowing the complaint can achieve nothing but discomfort to the subject, who cannot reasonably be expected to respond as requested". What prohibits the subject from the responding, if I may ask please? Thanks.--Mbz1 15:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  "cannot reasonably be expected to " has nothing to do with "unable to" or "prohibited from". Given the failure of your previous attempts to resolve this, you must have known that this RFC could not conceivably achieve any of the Desired Outcomes. It's like having tried to resolve an argument with your neighbour face-to-face, then discovered that you can't get them to agree with you nor legally force them to do what you want, so taking out a full-page advert in the local paper voicing your complaint about a "bullying" neighbour and asking your neighbour to be reasonable and please come round for a cup of tea and explain to you how he's now going to give in, since you've now fully explained the error of his ways. The ad may well have consequences, but achieving your objective is not going to be among them. Rd232 01:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove The process for managing the (de)adminship of an admin clearly lies with its community, and it has to as it is their admin, doing their work, as long as it is within the provisions of the scope of WMF. That the wiki clearly has a functioning ArbCom gives that community the ability and confidence to have their community to review and decide. Meta has a position of review most definitely, and for this circumstance the closest that we could have gone would have been the provision of natural justice between the complainant and enWP ArbCom. Anyway, the matter has been discussed, and concluded. As that is not how it is raised and that the complainant clearly raised what I consider irrelevant xwiki issues. Meta is not and should not be a place used to impugn a reputation, especially where there is no illegality, nor to have evidence of that, which is what gets me to my decision to delete. I see no need for any permanent record, though I could concede that all the conversation could be completely deleted, and replaced with a summary of the closing comment "no consensus, broad discussion occurred that indicates that a resolution for issues surrounding administrators primarily lies within the originating community." billinghurst sDrewth 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  Reflecting on an interpretation, can I say that my reason for deletion is separate from the RfC, so it is not an exact representation of my opinion. I believe that the RfC is the RfC, and that either demonstrates its merit or it does not. Either way, it has been undertaken, and it has been closed. This is a case of what to do with the RfC afterwards, keep it forever, or not. My vote for deletion is not based on WM:NOT, it is based on the deletion policy, which states "Any user can propose that a page be deleted at Meta:Requests for deletion for any stated reason," further into that policy it states the objectives to be considered by all users. Then it follows that the closing admin should, among other things "Meta-Wiki's rules in terms of content are not as clear as those of other Foundation projects, so it is less clear what is welcome and what is not."

  So my argument is that a page has been identified by the community that falls outside of the prime objectives, that this process is recommending for deletion, and the closing administrator needs to consider the desire of the wide community in the deletion, and one of those. The RfC ran its process and has reached a conclusion (no consensus), and the community is able to decide that the paperwork can be discarded. billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Many Meta RfC are posted without serious ground for them to be effective, so what? We just close them, it's part of the RfC itself. Most of your rationale above is just a comment on the RfC and should be moved there, wasn't it redundant as the RfC is already closed. Nemo 10:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove, per jehochman. This isn't some last-ditch appeal by an underdog; the RFC is being used by a banned en.wiki editor to pursue a vendetta against an en.wiki editor in good standing. (Even if there were a real problem that needed addressing, the RfC would have no authority to fix it). Get rid of the attack page. Bobrayner 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - clearly within Meta standards. Heavily canvassed from en.wikipedia. None of the delete rationales are based on Meta practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: should this RfC be deleted, I will subsequently nominate all other RfC/U's which contain controversial statements about individuals. Seb az86556 04:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific? Is this promised action going to come against Meta RfCs or En.wiki's RfCs? Tarc 06:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly can. The main argument here seems to be that such statements about individual users should not be kept in meta's archives; if this applies to users of en.wiki and accusations against them for the sake of their presumed protection from harassment, then what's good for the protection and sanity of en-wiki users must apply to everybody else as well. Therefore, if similar accusations and statements can be found about other users in or from Russian, German, Swahili, etc., these must also be deleted from meta. Does that answer your question? Seb az86556 06:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think I can agree with this. If you see any such RfC written in Spanish, I could take a look at it and ask eswiki admins about it. --Enric Naval 13:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove as per WM:NOT # 11. This page is a vile disgrace and has no value to anyone. Night Ranger 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove. Meta is an ill-suited location for such an RfC as explained quite well by billinghurst above. 28bytes 06:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Based on the discussion above, it does seem that WM:NOT # 11 ("Meta is not a forum for continued attacks against other users. Do not report on other users' past misdeeds here.") and the stated goals of meta-wiki RFCs ("a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed.") aren't completely compatible. WM:NOT # 11, which seems to have prior consensus, limits what topics are valid for a meta-wiki RFC more than the RFC page header says. Perhaps it should be updated with a reminder of WM:NOT # 11. I think the main issue in this particular deletion request is whether the dispute is resolved or not. I see little evidence in this RFC that dispute resolution was attempted on enwiki, besides mbz1's failed attempt to launch a private ArbCom case, which was rejected, and mbz1 was nudged by ArbCom to disengage from commenting on Gwen. That's analogous to a civil case being dismissed with w:prejudice (legal procedure). So, it does seem to me that the dispute between mbz1 and Gwen was resolved as far as enwiki is concerned. Parenthetically, I should note that the enwiki ArbCom has banned other users who pursued cross-wiki grudges, most recently in this case. ASCIIn2Bme 06:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  Do you mean the user was banned for violating his interaction ban imposed on English wikipedia in another place? Which place that is? I have no time to read it.--Mbz1 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's not incompatible, you're just misreading WM:NOT. Nemo 10:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  How do you read it? ASCIIn2Bme 13:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  Give a look at past RfD and speedy deletions to find out. Nemo 11:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've looked the RfD archives for 2008-2011, and I don't see a similar discussion. There were quite a few discussion where participants opined if a page was in scope or not, but these were generally made without specific reference to points in WM:NOT. I don't see another deletion discussion of a RfC (be it on users or something else) in that time frame, nor do I see a discussion about the specific points in WM:NOT (9, 10, 11) invoked in the present RfD being invoked in other RfDs. So, if this page is to be kept by precedent, you should be more specific about the precedent invoked, because I can't find it myself. ASCIIn2Bme 12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, we've never deleted an RfC via RfD. But I said also to look at speedy deletions, that will give you some more insight. Nemo 14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove per WM:NOT #11. Jarkeld 07:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Remove I don't agree with the RfC and I think it should be closed. However, that's different to saying the record of the RfC should be deleted (which is what this RfD is about). There's no reason to remove the record of a failed RfC IMO Now the RfC has "developed" it is into the realms of grossly offensive. Remove. QU ^TalkQu 13:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• KeepPer WizardOfOz, and also agree with Ottava Rima. Users of English wikipedia must stop canvassing on their project. They use numbers to impose their will on the global community, because the English wikipedia is the largest of all projects, but they are not above the global community. If they can do what they want here, than we don't need Meta. Close this project.--Wikit 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The evidences presented in this request should be examined. Deleting it without such examination will look as a trying to hide the truth. So far the evinces presented there were neither discussed nor even read. Yesterday a member of arbcom wrote:"At the same time, if these allegations about behaviour on en:Wikipedia have not been examined before, I merely ask if they should be examined now. Is this something of concern to the community?". This statement proves that the evidences were not examined before even by arbcom.--Mbz1 15:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• delete without prejudice for it being recreated by someone other than Mbz1. I believe that it is quite possible that it might make sense to make an RfC about Gwen Gale. I also believe that it is counterproductive for such an rfC to be initiated or participated in by MbZ1 who has made it painfully clear that she is incapable of any attempt at an objective treatment of that issue, and is simply on a personal crusade. The RfC should be deleted but anyone who is not Mbz1 should be allowed to create a new RfC at any time. Maunus 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  Maunus, the RFC I created is closed. Nobody could add to it anymore. Why it should be deleted? If I spoken lies, who cares about lies. If I've spoken truths, respond to it, do not hide it. If there are some specific matters of concern in this RFC, it could be edited and/or deleted, but why to delete the whole thing? Nobody would have the time to recreate it ever again. You write:"I also believe that it is counterproductive for such an rfC to be initiated or participated in by MbZ1 who has made it painfully clear that she is incapable of any attempt at an objective treatment of that issue, and is simply on a personal crusade." OK, Let's say I am "on a personal crusade". Is this wrong to be on a personal crusade against an admin, who I am sure, hurting Wikipedians? If I failed to be objective in my "crusade" it is a different matter.I am more than willing to respond any specific concern about me lacking objectivity, and fix it, but just saying I was not objective is not going to change a thing. --Mbz1 16:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No wikipedia project is a battleground. More detailed answers to your concerns and questions can be found here.Maunus 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and my RFC has nothing to do with a battleground. I am not on a crusade against Gwen Gale, I am speaking up for her victims, and for all other victims of bullying on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 19:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Remove (see below in green) I believe it is clear that what is pertinent here are the Meta policies and guidelines, not the EnWiki policies and guidelines. So, what is the purpose of an RfC on Meta? According to Requests for comment it is to (emphasis added is my own) "Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed." The question then becomes what is the appropriate definition of "unresolved"? Does unresolved mean that the process on the other project has been deadlocked and another step needs to be taken, or does it mean that one of the parties in a conflict is unhappy with the result of the conflict resolution and wants another venue in which to plead their case. My understanding of the Meta policies and guidelines is that what is predominantly meant is the former. On a project with a healthy and robust conflict resolution system, as DeWiki, EnWiki, and the Commons, when a decision or ruling is rendered, or a consensus is reached, that is a "resolution" and the conflict is now "resolved". It is the nature of most conflicts to have one or more parties unhappy with the resolution, but that does not mean that there is no resolution. So, in the main, I believe that this RfC does not meet the Meta requirements, at least the letter of the law. However, as has been noted above, Meta has also come to be viewed as the "project of last resort". We have, in the past, allowed users who have been indef blocked or banned on other projects to have some say here and to be able to plead their cases here. It is not the place of Meta to dictate actions to other projects—Meta is certainly not "one wiki to rule them all", it is more like "one wiki to serve them all". Although, if a project has violated foundation-level policies and guidelines, stewards and/or staff may need step in. So while not enshrined in policy, allowing people one last area to plead their case is a useful safety valve against bureaucracy run amok. With these ideas in mind, I would summarize my thoughts as follows:
  • The RfC as it stands was not in accordance with Meta policy, as it did not deal with an unresolved conflict on another project.
  • Wikimedians should have the ability to bring what they believe is an abuse of process or power by the highest authority on a local project to Meta's attention. At best, the complainant will be told "the process was valid and you must abide by the judgment." At worst, abuse of process will be exposed and the local project's community can be informed that they should look into some kind of change at their head.
  • In this particular case, on the one hand, we have WM:NOT 11, which reads "Meta is not a forum for continued attacks against other users." On the other hand, this is not so much an attack as it is an RfC that should have been brought on EnWiki, and not Meta.
• I am ambivalent on the actual deletion of the page. One the one hand, I believe that the RfC does not conform to Meta policies, but I do not want to see a precedent set against local project members being prevented from making their pleas on Meta—even if those pleas are met with "They are right; you are wrong; drop it now." I would suggest, that we either"
  1. Discuss and adjust the Meta RfC policy to allow this (not my personal first choice)
  2. Clarify that this kind of RfC is not allowed (one where there was a resolution on another project) and clarify what procedure to use when making a plea against perceived abuse on a local project.
• In this case, if a compromise is needed, I would suggest the application of something we call "courtesy blanking" on EnWiki, wherein the history remains, but the current page is blanked as a courtesy to participants to both prevent google/search engine scraping and prevent the page from being used as a "scarlet letter" against the participants.
• As relates to the claims of "canvassing", on that I must respectfully disagree. Meta is not supposed to be its own walled-garden project, but the project which supports and serves all the projects by hosting discussions that affect the entire Wikimedia, not one specific project. As such, it is the right of every wikimedian, from every project, to be informed about discussions that relate to them or the projects in which they contribute. Think about it, if Meta is its own project, separate from the others, then there is no right for anyone to complain about any other project here. I can't bring an RfC against a Commons user on ItWiki, can I? I can't bring a request for an unblock from DeWiki to PtWikisource, can I? Meta's purposes mean that we all have access to it and rights to be heard on it, and users on every project have the right to be informed of discussions that address their project(s), in my opinion. -- Avi 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Being that the RfC is flawed according to Meta's own policies, as I have discussed elsewhere, I think the better option would be to delete it as it serves as an attack page, in violation of WM:NOT. Courtesy blanking would be a secondary choice. I am no longer concerned that deleting this RfC will cause other people to be afraid of voicing their issues here. -- Avi 08:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

    Could you please point out what specific criticism contained there is a personal attack or defamation worth redaction? If there isn't anything we should redact, I can hardly see how one can ask blanking (not to mention deletion). I've asked this question other times and nobody has been able to answer apparently. Nemo 11:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I will respond. The entire page is defamatory, and more specifically each sentence that mentions or refers to Gwen Gale and it does not make sense that Meta retain a page that says: "Mbz1 [redacted] Gwen Gale." Alanscottwalker 12:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an absurd statement. Gwen Gale is not above critique, and I supported every statement, and every conclusion I made with differences while you failed to provide any.--Mbz1 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know this is a banned User but to explain. The RfC was closed by consensus. No one can add diff's there. The diff's don't make any of it not defamatory. It's the asserted conclusions from the diff's that are in their nature defamatory. But the closure means none of that is relevant to this Project. Gwen Gale is not above criticism. I'm sure she gets allot of it, given here job, some of it deserved. But like any User she is entitled to consideration. And having these closed allegations remain on these pages is inappropriate for this Project -- it is defamatory. Alanscottwalker 12:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The closure means only what is says. Nemo 14:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And that's what I read there, closed because the consensus is that it asks for nothing that this site can provide. If you interpret it another way, you are welcome to it but I think that's the ordinary meaning of those words. Alanscottwalker 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right; what's wrong is to automatically infer that you're not even allowed to ask. Nemo 09:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant and defamatory and therefore should be removed. Alanscottwalker 11:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nemo. Alan's quote is enough. Furthermore, an RfC that is not in accord with our own guidelines on RfC, and is replete with statements calling the judgment and character of someone into constant disreputr; for which there is no purpose on meta other than to disparage its target (as the RfC is not allowed according to our own guidelines) is something that can most definitely be construed as an attack and should be deleted. -- Avi 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi, as I explained elsewhere English is not my native language. The language could and should be fixed, but there's no need to delete the whole thing.Each and every statement is supported by the differences.--Mbz1 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That does not change my opinion that this page both 1) is not in accordance with Meta's policies on RfP 2) serves solely to disparage another wikimedian and so should not be retained on Meta. You disagree, which is fine. This is why we have the RfD process, which is one of Meta's dispute resolution processes. A consensus one way or the other will emerge, hopefully, and we will have a resolution to the dispute. -- Avi 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic, unrelated and gratuitous personal attacks from now-blocked user

What "consensus" are you talking about? Is it "consensus" of some of the most abusive wikipedia admins, who responded to canvassing, and came here to vote to delete the valid RFC because they are afraid they could become a subject of the next RFCs?--Mbz1 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC) The consensus of those responding here. And all wikimedians are welcome on Meta, Meta is the project that serves all projects. If not, then even the concept of an RfC about a non-Meta local project is as ridiculous as hosting an RfC about Italian Wikiquote on Swahili Wikisource. Furthermore, do you think that calling all those who disagree with you, including myself, "abusive", is helpful? There are more opinions than just yours in the world, and people have every right to hold their own, even if they do not conform to yours. Lumping all those who disagree with you into a class called "abusive" only serves to inform others of the extent of your ability to compromise and work with others who may disagree with you. -- Avi 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I did not mean you are an abusive admin who came from English wikipedia because you often contribute to Meta.It has nothing to do with disagreements. There are many users on Wikipedia I disagree with, but respect them. About others, I said what I said. Look at their behavior here. It forced two great people to leave the project. Maybe you know another word to call such kind of behavior, but I do not.--Mbz1 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • To Nemo's question: in a harassment situation, it is often not just individual statements that are offensive. It's the overall pattern, the sum total of negative attention channelled against an individual. When a harasser has established a pattern of this sort, then after a while any statement by him about his victim will have the abusive effect, because it is part of a pattern designed to cause the victim stress. This is the case here. We know that Mbz has abused several external websites for throwing dirt at GG, trying to damage her public reputation under her real name, in the most callous and repulsive ways imaginable. She is now misusing this project for continuing her campaign in similar ways, using Meta's tolerance as a safe haven for what she is no longer able to do elsewhere on Wikimedia projects. In this situation, I don't ask about whether this or that individual claim is defamatory or insulting. The very fact that Mbz still has a forum for talking about GG in any way at all is offensive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

    You're not answering at all. Moreover, your argument is moot, because the RfC itself was quite calm and anyway is closed now; the abuse of the project is the drama spread everywhere on other RfC, RFH and RfD, and (by defintion of ForestFire) it's hard to find a responsible for that. Nemo 09:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with all of what Avi says except his conclusion, thus far. I note that the WM:DP only requires any reasonable argument be given for deletion. The page was closed because it was found not to ask for anything relevant or possible on Meta. It therefore does not to meet the objectives of the Project and for that reason alone it should be deleted. In addition, because of such closure, it should be deleted under WM:NOT number 9: This is not a place to dump stuff on. Moreover, the page primarily discusses a user on another wiki, including various allegations of malfeasance and misfeasance. It is thus in its nature meant to be defamatory. While truth can be a defense to defamation, it has already been determined by the closure that this forum is not the place to try to establish that. The page also violates WM:NOT, number 10 (this is not a battleground) and No. 11, (this is not the place to continue personal attacks). For all these reasons it should be removed. Alanscottwalker 02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove as a dedicated attack page, and clear harassment. Meta is no place for that. There is nothing wrong with a terse, clear RfC if process seems broken on another wiki. But this page is not actually asking for Meta-help at all - as Alan note above it is just a new forum for what seems to be a years-old fixation. We should take care to give those who have been silenced a voice, but we should take equal care not to give a platform to those who set out to harass others. –SJ talk | translate   08:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove (Please delete also User_talk:Mbz1/sandbox). Per comments made by Avi and by billinghurst[1]. Mbz1 has not pursued the resolution disputes mechanisms available at English wikipedia: en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale is a red link, and there is no arbcom case that I know of. I'll note that Gwen Gale's block of Mbz1 was reviewed and endorsed. This RfC is not helping to solve anything, and it only serves to enshrine a series of complaints that were individually rejected at the local community. --Enric Naval 09:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, many of bad blocks made by Gwen were endorsed,but you made your conclusion before learning your subject. One of admins who endorsed it admitted later Gwen was responding to canvassing, and a sitting arbitrator administrator AGK found neither the block nor the agreed bans to be warranted Here's what h wrote: "Your input as an editor who had had negative interactions with Daedalus was of value. Daedalus' complaint about your comment, presuming that my assumption in point #4 is correct, was therefore without merit." — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbz1 (talk)

  I don't know, Black Kite appears to be saying that some other admin should have blocked you, not that you shouldn't have been blocked. And AGK's disapproval is subject to assumption #4, that you hadn't recently violated the interaction ban with Daedalus. It seems true that you hadn't violated that interaction ban. But two months ago you were violating an interaction ban with someone else[2]. Six months before you had violated a topic ban (6 June 2010 entry in your block log) Eight months before you were blocked three times, apparently for violations of topic bans and interaction bans (April entries in block log). None of these blocks were made by Gwen Gale. I don't know, man, you appear to have dug yourself a quite deep hole. Trying to keep this RfC is not helping you. Couldn't you just disengage and go work in another project for a few months? --Enric Naval 13:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Minor correction. Per permission given here, we can now formally disclose the contents of the email from ArbCom to Mbz1. So, the dispute followed all possible steps on en.wiki. As Avi said above, not getting the result someone wants is not the same as unresolved. ASCIIn2Bme 10:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you very much. I've moved the quotation where it was originally. This is particularly useful as that was the only content of the talk which previously needed redaction and possibly deletion. Nemo 11:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removeper Tarc above. Meta has no remit to review en.wiki ArbCom decisions. Beyond My Ken 09:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment By the way, if you look up "Gwen Gale" on w:Encyclopedia Dramatica, you'll see an article using similar charges to this one, e.g. "bully administrator", recycling the same quotes e.g. the one starting with "Truth be told," and even having a structure somewhat similar to this meta RFC, albeit less developed with respect to recent events. The ED article was largely edited by the single-purpose account Lyuba in September 2011. While searching for a phrase from this RFC via google (namely "Gwen Gale is dishonest and untruthful"), I found that besides Encyclopedia Dramatica, yet another wiki called w:MyWikiBiz hosts a page nearly identical to this RFC, a page create by a SPA called "Kolobok". That page was built up gradually through numerous edits between 11 December 2011 and 1 February 2012. The WikiBiz page also contains the heading "Gwen Gale - a bully administrator" which is also found in the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry as well. If the campaign of defamation is not obvious by now, I don't know what else to say. Whoever thinks this RFC page is a good faith attempt at dispute resolution needs to hit google some more. ASCIIn2Bme 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  You forgot this page, in which the word "bully" was also attached to name "Gwen Gale". Please stop coming up with unconfirmed conspiracy theories, and unconfirmed claims of deformation.There's none. The RFC was examined by a few admins, and here's what one of them wrote:"I've skimmed it again and couldn't find anything to remove." And about "a good faith attempt at dispute resolution". Of course it was "a good faith attempt at dispute resolution", or better yet - "a good faith attempt to fight bullying", but it ended up in me becoming a victim of bullying myself. And, no, I do not say Proofreader77 wrote anything. I am only saying that the words "bully" and "gwen gale" were said together at a public talk page. --Mbz1 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  The heading phrases in question are more elaborate than a single word. I might provide additional similarity analysis on a sub-page in my user space later, but an admin here already thinks I'm posting too much in this discussion, so I'll leave others to opine whether the three pages mentioned are likely written by the same person or not. ASCIIn2Bme 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove as a clear attack page. -Djsasso 15:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Everything is supported by the differences. It cannot be called an attack page.--Mbz1 15:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Diffs don't suddenly make something immune from being an attack. You can still be attacking and harassing someone even if you have diffs. See WM:NOT #11 as so kindly pointed out by the next couple of comments. -Djsasso 19:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove per WM:NOT # 11. --SarekOfVulcan 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove per WM:NOT #11 and the fact that meta shouldn't go down the same path as Wikiversity and become an echo chamber for en.wiki banned users to try to refight their battles they lost there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove as per Sarek, Blade, et. al. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove per WM:NOT 7, 9 10, & 11. I don't mention #7 here just to pile-on. Reviewing the banned/blocked enwiki supporters of the most recent RFC/U supports this. Count them and give the percentage of supporters there if you disagree. They are using you. NOT9 is obvious given the wall of text and diffs supplied in the RFC. NOT10 is met pretty obvious when reading the RFC. I don't know how the RFC could be read without feeling the hatred and bitterness from the OP. NOT11 is met per previous discussion of NOT10. - UnbelievableError 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  «I don't know how the RFC could be read without feeling the hatred and bitterness from the OP.» Indeed, so how can it be a danger? :) Nemo 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  This argument is just cynical. Please remove that smilie; it is highly inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's not cynical, it just means that I know better than you how to deal with RfC here on Meta because I've seen more. Nemo 09:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The RfC is closed and this is probably a good decision. However, I really think that such things should not be deleted. mickit 17:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly within Meta scope. No proper hearing took place on the local wiki. Guido den Broeder 21:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  That is complete BS and you know it; "fair trial" isn't the same as "a trial where someone gets the result they want". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for giving us a taste of en:Wikipedia admin civility, but it wasn't really needed. We are well aware. Guido den Broeder 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  On en.wiki, that's absolutely nothing, you must have been away for a while. If I really cared, I could check why, but I can't say I do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've been mostly active on a non-WMF wiki, where we are all getting along fine. Maybe you should ask for help, if your project is in such a sorry state. Guido den Broeder 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back from your 2.5 month hiatus[[3]]. How is your project? Diffs? - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Ottava Rima Dsds55 13:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Ottava Rima and because the issue is obviously included in WM:IP. Theirrulez (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well if it's that obvious, you'll have no trouble quoting the relevant part of the policy. Rd232 (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The reaction to the RfC illustrates why the RfC appeared. (The documentation of diffs of admin behavior is almost always treated as something to be dismissed/labeled harassment-defamation/deleted rather than treated as perhaps useful data that might be processed in some less social-dynamic-overloaded process than is the norm at this time but which must evolve -- of course this RfD is not the place for elaboration of proposals of alternate procedures including software/statistical ones.)

Self-collapsing further elaboration for the record to clarify my perspective (in context of Arb/Proofreader77 exchange on another meta RfC talk page) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course it should be stated clearly that (wherever it might appear) the problem with any RfC with respect to admin behavior, is that the problem almost never lies in a single administrator, but the collective response of the admin corps -- and above them, the Arbitration Committee which does not exist as a judicial body; It is not the Supreme Court of Wikipedia as it is sometimes casually referred to, but rather a social balancing mechanism with a primary goal of achieving "what's best for Wikipedia." As more than one Supreme Court justice has pointed out, the justices have their power so that the least popular person in America may still prevail against the most popular in the eyes of the law. A judicial system will protect the individual against the group if the law indicates that's the way it should be under law. Of course "wikilawyering" is a dirty word within Wikipedia, because the highest good is not what is right according to the law/rules ... but rather what is best for Wikipedia (with the Arbitration Committee acting as a proxy for the consensus of a small number of long-time editors numbering no more than a few hundred). Diffs that illustrate that the decisions made in the interest of Wikipedia are in fact unfair (and sometimes even abusive) are something to be defiled with general undermining statements and removed from public view. (Disclaimer/illustration) Let it be noted that I myself am indef blocked on en.wikipedia. There exists offers to unblock me, but let it clear that any unblock offer does not anticipate (and would not allow) my requesting an Arbitration case upon being unblocked -- one in which I have all the diffs, and the voices against me only bullshit. And the bullshit would prevail: for the good of Wikipedia. [Excuse provocative word, but I will assert its tone is appropriate in that case.] As I began, I will close: The reaction to the RfC illustrates why the RfC appeared. For the good of Wikipedia, in the long run, better ways of responding to negative feedback must be developed ... than what we have witnessed in the past few days. As the seed of the (illuminating) spectacle, the RfC has done something useful -- whatever it's impotence within process. The (completely unnecessary) "social" punishment inflicted on the author of the RfC has perhaps illustrated best historical/foundational patterns which must be transcended in the future. So: With respect to keep/delete -- do as you will, and wish to be known. For the record. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-enwiki editors who might be inclined to believe what Proofreader77 said, look at w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence and w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies for obvious counterexamples. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Wizard. --N KOzi^Talk 07:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Notes:

• Withdraw closure: Kept as there is no clear consensus. Several users said that we cannot consider this RfC as an isolated case; there are many similar ones in the archives. Therefore we need a clear consensus to delete such pages. In fact, no RfC has ever been deleted before, as far as I know. I also want to point to the Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users, where we are still discussing the general issue. mickit 07:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Additional comments on the previous closure can be seen here. mickit 08:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(procedural) Questions for (meta) sysops/bureaucrats re RfD of RfC/Gwen

[Adding: Sub-sub topic header added to simplify editing, and propose clarification of purpose/rational for discussion below. If objectionable/improper, delete. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)]

• Would the closer please comment about the instruction at the top of this page that says "After at least one week, an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision." and explain the decision to use consensus over the majority decision. 10 for keep, 25 for deletion. I would like to see this reviewed by an administrator who did not express an opinion. billinghurst sDrewth 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As an administrator, I don't think that's in contrast with the closure: it surely doesn't mean that we apply "majorities" blindly. The closure is valid. Do you seriously want to say that you find the closure invalid a second time? If this is the case, take the responsibility to say so (although it would be weird, given that you've voted too) and request a new closure. Nemo 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC) P.s.: The discussion is still closed.

I am asking for the closing admin to add reasoning to why they chose "lack of consensus" rather than the "majority decision", when there is a distinct majority decision, especially on such a contentious matter, especially when the closing admin was one of the ten. This decision has wide ramifications, and will be used as a precedent, so there needs to be a greater clarity about how and why that decision is made as it was. I don't see why such an explanation is unreasonable.

For clarity, I made no comment about about the decision to close. I also would neither re-open nor have closed this RfD due to my involvement. billinghurst sDrewth

I said this on my talk page, but I will repeat it again: any uninvolved sysop may review my decision. I have no problem with that and there is no need for asking my permission to do so. Some administrators have agreed with my decision, some have not, so I will not object if there is a need to reconsider my closure of this RfD. I explained my action on my talk page, but I also respect the opinions of other experienced users. mickit 23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Having that reasoning on your talk page is not useful for the historical record, nor for a review process. billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• So it's OK for a user who participated in a discussion to close it, against consensus, when they were against the consensus? Christ, Meta is more dysfunctional than I realised. Rd232 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Q: (review process) Will there be a public discussion by meta functionaries on this matter, or will there be private exchanges of opinion, and someone stepping forward (or not) to state a judgement confirmation/negation/etc? ([Rhetorical] Proposal: Someone could volunteer to spend the next month carefully analyzing all input, summarizing rhetorical valences, tables of statistical analysis with various coefficients of weight to assign to each vote ... then produce a 100-page report for all to read, and then someone appropriate could make a statement ... ignoring the report OR using it as a basis of illustrating that sufficient care has been taken in the closure.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• How about we start with the compromise of courtesy blanking the RfC. This has the benefit of removing the potentially defamatory information and certainly the attacks out of immediate view, but anyone who is looking for it can find it. As for the closure of the RfD; Meta does not codify the need for an uninvolved administrator. On the other hand, it certainly was not clear that there was no consensus, as there was a 2.5:1 ratio and the arguments were not weak. I personally think that someone with less connection should have made that decision, as it does open the door for claims of impropriety for an involved admin to effectively rule that a majority opinion of over 70% does not indicate a consensus in this issue. Whether it does or doesn't, impartiality and propriety would indicate, at least in my opinion, that someone neutral make the call. -- Avi (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  Blanking is an interesting idea, but it's not the point and I don't think it would calm down the situation. Anyway, although I think that my decision is good, in an attempt to resolve this as soon as possible, I have decided to withdraw my closure (I will left my comment anyway). I hope this will help. mickit 08:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  Avi has now blanked the page. I had already proposed such a compromise on Talk:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale#Deletion_request_made, asking what needed to be redacted, but nobody gave any clue. If blanking is considered the way for this particular request, I'm not against it. Anyway it should be discussed on talk. Nemo 10:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've re-closed the RfD, as uninvolved administrator as requested above, and with more details. As usual, my closure is just a proposal to my fellow administrators: if they think it's invalid, they can explain why and request a new one. It might be considered better for the RfD to be closed not only by an uninvolved admin, but also from someone with a completely fresh view on the discussion, but noone has been found in the last day. Barras, who would be such a person, has informally agreed to review the RfD again in a week, when he has time, if needed. Nemo 11:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC) P.s.: As the discussion was closed and we were discussing the closure itself, but only administrators can close RfD per the header of this page, I'll remove unallowed comments, which will stay in the history.

Templates

Submit your request at the bottom of this section.

Template:Gradient

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by WizardOfOz on 1 February. Trijnstel 19:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Deprecated by {{linear-gradient}} (including /doc). Nominated by Edokter on 11:47, 1 February 2012‎ (UTC). Trijnstel 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Still used. Needs to be delinked. --WizardOfOz ^talk 13:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • All templates delinked. I failed to notice all direct transclusions. — Edokter (talk) — 15:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • All transclusions delinked. — Edokter (talk) — 16:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done per unused and this request. Thanks for your work. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Category:Esoteric templates

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by WizardOfOz on 3 February. Trijnstel 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Requested for SD but not empty so I transfered it here. --WizardOfOz ^talk 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Must be a caching issue; none of the members in the category right now have the category listed on the template page (after purging). They've been moved to Category:Intricate templates by amending {{Intricate template}}. Rd232 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It's empty now. Btw, if a page is displayed in a category where it shouldn't be, a null edit usually does the trick. Jafeluv 08:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'll try and remember that. :) Rd232 08:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Typing ?action=purge onto the end of the url is even faster ;) Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Done --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

File:Location of intervention and volunteer current city.png

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as per consensus. The Helpful One 20:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Possible copyright violation. Screenshot from iPhone application presumably copyrighted. No source or license either. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 04:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• delete out of project scope for meta a×p_de^Hello! 17:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete after seven days per the normal process. Unless a credible license is provided, I don't think this requires discussion. Jafeluv 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Currently our deletion policy on images is quite conservative and allows only for orphaned images to be speedied cfr. Meta:Deletion_policy#Images. I think that our deletion policy needs rewritting :-) —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 07:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed, it basically says we can host no license/source/permission images indefinitely as long as they're in use, which means that our non-free criteria are in effect "anything". This needs to change. Courcelles 08:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

---

None currently

---

General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map

Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation