Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2012

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

Deleted[edit]

Articles[edit]

Stewards/Confirm/2012/Quadell[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Quentinv57 on 28 January. Trijnstel 12:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per author request. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Grants:Lori_Phillips/US_GLAM_Coordinator[edit]

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 Its presence in the grants lists is just a distraction and a time waste for those wishing to review past withdrawn/cancelled requests.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)

Requests for comment/Gwen Gale[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.
  • Here we go. There is quite a lot to say here. At first let me point out that I'm really a completely uninvolved user here. I did today read the RfC and this RfD for the first time. I also want to ask all involved people to accept my uninvolved closure. This is now the third closure and I think that all this caused more than enough drama already.
  • At first let me clarify, yes meta is a project for people to discuss matters related to all Wikimedia Projects, no matter if it is about the Saterfriesisch "Seeltersk" Wikipedia, the Swahili (Kiswahili) Wiktionary or the English Wikipedia. Everyone is free to come here and to get help. As everyone with an account here is allowed to voice their opinion in any request for adminship as well as in any other requests and proposals (with few exceptions like steward election, where there are restrictions), everyone is and should be allowed to voice their opinion on any RfD. A bit problematic here is the fact, that this request has been canvassed. But as in every request, this will always happen — in good and bad ways. (There's even been a meta RfA that has been kind of canvassed on foundation-l). It is simply impossible to say who of the commenting people came here to voice their opinion, they could always say that they found it by accident. This means that I see no reason to discount any comments/votes from below. I see everyone eligible to have their voice here as long as they are somehow related to us (being active elsewhere, etc.)
  • The English Wikipedia has a (good working?) process for dispute resolutions. Meta can't and won't overrule a local decision made by the community there. No matter if that is on some small wiki or the bigger ones like deWP, enWP, frWP, ptWP and so on. If a local ArbCom or the community agrees on something (that doesn't conflict with any principles of the WMF), no one (no meta admin, crat or steward) would get along to overrule this local decision because some RfC on meta took place. Meta is not something like the the supreme court for all projects. No matter what outcome the RfC would have (assuming it would go on), we could and would not implement this consensus on the English Wikipedia and overrule the locals there.
  • I closed this request now (again), but as deleted for various reasons.
    • Firstly, meta is not a good place nor the right place for people banned on a specific project to complain about a ban when everything on the local project failed already. That is especially meant for the bigger wikis, which can quite good handle such things themselves. It might be different for very small wiki, where there are only two or three admins. We need to realize that requests from big wikis with good working processes need to be treated by meta differently from the usual stuff we get from smaller projects. Meta is not a place for banned users to be heard by the worldwide community.
    • RfCs are especially meant as a dispute resolution for Meta or cross-project issues. This is not really related to meta affairs and is also not a cross-wiki problem involving more than one project. RfC handles single-wiki cases when the project is unable to manage themselves.
    • I think the RfC page actually serves as some kind of an attack page as which it should be deleted anyway.
    • The page actually has not much sense for meta as meta can't help there. It rather seems to be just a new forum.
    • I also think that there is some consensus to delete the page.
    • The RfC falls under the point 10 of WM:Not (Meta is not a battleground) and number 11 (Meta is not a forum for continued attacks against other users.).
    • The page is (from my point of view) not covered by Meta's Inclusion policy.
    • Since there are some comments in agreement to WizardOfOz's statement: It is true that meta is the place for coordinating the different projects. However, it is not within steward's scope to "act (if there is a need) in such matters, or to contact the local ArbCom and ask them for consideration on that matter." I'm very sure that no steward will do this, at least not on projects with working local processes. If a project has a local ArbCom, stewards won't be the speaking tube for banned users. If an user needs ArbCom attention, then they should call the ArbCom themselves.
    • As for another part in the keep section: "Already the first request for deletion was rejected" — while this is true, there has also been another admin who has deleted the page...

I hope that this closure/rationale from a neutral admin stops now all the drama about this. Please also note that I don't like it to overrule another admins decision, but a neutral closure was requested and here it is.

Regards, -Barras talk 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


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 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 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 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 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 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 Remove per local guideline WM:NOT, points 9, 10 and 11. CIreland 15:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per WM:NOT 11. Sven Manguard 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Remove per WM:NOT #11. Jarkeld 07:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepRemove 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)
  • Keep 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 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 CommentRemove 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 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 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 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 • contribs) .
    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)
  • Remove Removeper Tarc above. Meta has no remit to review en.wiki ArbCom decisions. Beyond My Ken 09:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment 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 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 Remove per WM:NOT # 11. --SarekOfVulcan 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove 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 Remove as per Sarek, Blade, et. al. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove 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 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 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 Keep per Ottava Rima Dsds55 13:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep 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)
  • Keep Keep per Wizard. --N KOziTalk 07:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Procedural discussion on closure

Withdrawn 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)
  • 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)
  • 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.
    The current closure appears to some, including at least a couple admins here, to be non-neutral. Please allow someone with a completely fresh view to close it. As you note, this would be better, and there is no rush to temporarily close it until that can happen. The current courtesy blanking seems like a reasonable step, but does not need to be done in the context of a temporary closure, as it does not require an RfD. SJ talk   00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, another closure, by an equally involved admin, because... we waited a day and nothing happened? Hum. And by the way, it's amusing that the first point of the new closure is the page is obviously within inclusion policy, when I cannot see how Meta:Inclusion policy actually permits requests for comments on individual users at all. Presumably it will be claimed that it falls under the first point, "...discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects...", but I do not think this falls within the scope of that point either as written or as intended. Presumably this lack of policy compliance is a side-effect of the fact that there was never (as far as I can tell) any discussion on the creation of the Meta RFC process in the first place - user or otherwise. It just seems to have been magicked into existence, now to take on a sacred status which can't be written down properly, because that would risk that status crumbling like mouldy biscuits. Rd232 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no formal policy about RfC's other than the introduction on that page. Tradition dictates that user essays and pages of all sorts are generally kept rather than deleted; but then attack pages are generally deleted. SJ talk   00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Can I suggest an alternate means to a closing administrator. The concerns are by some that RfCs@meta should not be deleted as that is one of the supposed purposes of meta, and historically that RfCs have not been deleted. Whereas the contraposition is that RfCs are not meant to be about people but about processes, that a resolution process exists on the originating wiki itself so it should not have been allowed here, and that some of the commentary could be defamatory.

My suggestion to a middle road that looks to meet the concerns of both parties is

  • That a factual summary of the discussion be added, and it incorporates agreed findings, and that this text would be what would be displayed at this RfC.
  • That all earlier/other textual parts of the discussion are either hidden (admin-level) or oversighted (OS-level), so just leaving the edit times, people and edit summaries (though some of the latter may need review).
This allows for retention of the RfC, and its outcome; it allows for a factual public record of the discussion; removes potential defamatory matters, and can also refer readers to any follow-up actions or items, such as further RfCs, that came out of the process.

To compile a summary of facts, it might be worth getting one person from each side of the debate involved in that process to present what they see as the factual (not argumentative) components. billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked to do so ages ago, and it's discussed already on the RfC talk. This seems superseded by blanking, though. If you're willing to do this selective redaction, just go on. The RfC is closed, though, so I've no idea how «getting one person from each side of the debate involved in that process to present what they see as the factual (not argumentative) components» is possible without actually reopening the RfC (as in, a discussion about its merit etc.). Nemo 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Far too complicated given the scope and scale of the content concerned. How about just respecting Meta's own policy? RFCs on users are not within the Meta:Inclusion policy, so this one, which is widely agreed to not achieve anything, should be deleted. (And presumably the next step should be to propose amendment to the policy to permit RFCs on users. Of course, some users like to pretend that user RFCs cannot be distinguished from others... which is a bit head-scratching if you look at the Table of Contents on Requests for comment. See Talk:Requests_for_comment#Distinguishing_RFCs_by_topic.) Rd232 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The page Meta:Inclusion policy is not comprehensive. Note that user RfC's aren't listed as unacceptable either. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

Help:Turkish characters/fr

This page has no content, apart from some templates and a category. Mathonius (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


Deleted per consensus. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed.

Help:User style/de/myskin.css

Someone probably made a mistake when creating this page. It isn't used anywhere and I doubt it could be used anywhere. Mathonius (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. Again tempted to speedy delete ... --Aphaia (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • delete, of no evident value — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done per unused and this request. –BruTe talk 07:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

Grants:Wikipedia capacity building project: train-the-trainer South Africa workshop

This is an early draft of a grant request that was later submitted under a slightly different name. We will be engaging on the newer request, so this page is just confusing and should be deleted. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You did not post the deletion template on that page. I just did it for you. The typical protocol is to post that template and then wait for a response before deleting, but if things are as you say, then this content is also elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy per WM:CSD#G4 -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Research:The Principle Bias of Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, no objections in just under a fortnight. Courcelles 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This page doesn't describe a serious research project and has been inactive since late April. It is currently automatically listed along with other, more serious, research projects, which is confusing. --EpochFail (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - Doesn't seem to host useful data. — MA (audiencia) 11:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Insults which may have relation to Meta[edit]

Wikimania 2012 translations/Registration[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted under speedy deletion criteria, authors' request. The Helpful One 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This was used during a failed attempt to properly translate Drupal for WM2012 this year. We never ended up using it, and nobody's linked to it from anything (only reason I didn't request speedy is that I'm not the sole author). ^demon (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. — MA (audiencia) 15:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. as the original author, I would say this is viable to be speedied. The Helpful One 15:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Users receptive to telephone calls[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Looks useless. Not edited since its creation in 2004 and just have one user which does not edit since 2007. Not any historical insterest IMHO. Thanks. — MA (audiencia) 09:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete, no use, no need to keep both the category and the page. Savhñ 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Avi (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Wiktionary[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, outdated with no useful content. Savhñ 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Page from 2004 containing little or no usable information. Uknown historical context indeed. At this time I'm not sure it can be used anywhere. — MA (audiencia) 09:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. –BruTe talk 08:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, outdated. Savhñ 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please delete this translation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Both deleted on 31 October. Trijnsteltalk 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I create this translation by mistake, but it belongs to Traditional Chinese and needn't be translated. I don't know the translation tool well, so I am asking for help to delete this translation.

link: Research:Wikipedia Editor Survey August 2012/Questions/zh-mo

H2NCH2COOH (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The exact page in need of deletions is this one: Translations:Research:Wikipedia Editor Survey August 2012/Questions/81/zh-mo. It might(!) be possible that a sysop also needs to be a translationadmin (self-assignable) to delete it. --MF-W 09:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot understand those professional terms at all. I am a beginner. I choosed a wrong language and translated it(I can understand it but I mean to translate it is 100% useless. It makes users puzzled if Traditional Chinese and Chinese(Macao) both appear in their language list). I want to delete it but I don't own that right.H2NCH2COOH (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - one was inmediate, the other one I clicked the delete button but since it depends on the JobQueue it'll take a wile before it's gone I think. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Template:Gradient[edit]

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 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)
Yes check.svg Done per unused and this request. Thanks for your work. --WizardOfOz talk 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.

Template:Edit conflict

Initially tagged for speedy deletion:

Nobody needs a template to write "(edit conflict)" [or the translated version according to the discussion language] in front of his comments. --MF-W 20:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should follow the regular procedure for this. Mathonius (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Only three live edits. IMO kill it. billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Meta exists to serve other WMF projects, yes? Well users of other projects come here expecting to find templates like this. What exactly is the point of deleting it? Don't you have better things to do? Also, I've complained in the past about Meta's support for multilingualism - deletion requests like this help explain why. The template provides the words "edit conflict" in every language MediaWiki knows, as the reader requires; why indeed would that be better than the author writing "edit conflict" in English or possibly one other language? Rd232 (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep This was created only a couple of days ago. I don't know about meta-wiki regulars, but I did find it useful on wikis on which it exists, which insofar did not include meta-wiki. And I hated having to type "edit conflict" by hand every time here... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - uneeded, per MF-W. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 13:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
(note - ec redirect amid this discussion)
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proofreader77 (talk • contribs) .
• Clarification by Proofreader77: Topic "note" inserted above issue 19:30, 10 March 2012 was added instead of a subtopic header, and then discussed below with same signature. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
re: (Edit conflict.)
- The other problem is that Template:Ec does not redirect to "edit conflict" here. Does anyone know what that "edit and call" stuff is about? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. {{edit and call}} appears to be unused, and I don't see what it's supposed to be good for. The only uses of {{ec}} I could identify were people expecting it to produce {{edit conflict}}. Rd232 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment Comment This redirect resulted in a change of text on a few "(transluction)" pages, which it seems might now unexpectedly say "edit conflict" rather than what was supposed to have been said. (I think. Please verify).

In any case isn't the point of this discussion to determine if an edit conflict template should exist on meta? — and if so, the result of the discussion should not be circumvented amid discussion. Or so one might think. :)Of course, given the events of 11-23 Feb, one might not be surprised. ;) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Immediately above your comment I said The only uses of {{ec}} I could identify were people expecting it to produce {{edit conflict}}.. (Well, except for Help:Template/fr, where I couldn't find it in the wikitext, but with the page being so out of date and incompletely translated and the transclusion not in the English version, I didn't worry about it. Fixed it now though.) {{edit and call}} is essentially unused, so whether {{edit conflict}} is allowed or not, there's no harm in renaming it. Rd232 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
(As per my previous underline-initiated "In any case" assertion) Perhaps redirecting to a template that is being discussed for deletion should wait until the discussion concludes. Face-smile.svg

Note: While I initially considered this a trivial matter, the existence of {{edit and call}} gave me pause (as someone who during occasional programming knows that changing things that would not appear to make any difference sometimes produces unintended consequences). That pause also caused me to reflect on recent events which highlighted differences in en/meta cultures, and suggests that even small changes to meta by those who are not regular members of that community should be done with great care — and certainly without haste. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment I'm not sure how I feel about this one but I do take the point that consistency of templates across projects makes life much easier for cross wiki folk. --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep... I see no reason to delete. Just because you don't want to use the template doesn't mean that everyone else should be prevented to as well. If people want to use the template, I see no reason to not let them to. It causes us no harm at all to keep it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it useless, redundant and annoying but no reason to forbid it. Nemo 18:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't see the point of deleting templates like this tbh. If someone finds it useful, no reason to make things more difficult for them. If not, they are perfectly welcome to not use the template. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepMikhailov Kusserow (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep — Agree with Herby and support keep for that reason, as well as the fact that the nomination reason, seems to be speculation about what "nobody needs." Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but seeing that common practice on Meta is to use normal brackets around the words "edit conflict" as opposed to the practice of some other projects to use double curly brackets (i.e. a template that gives the words "edit conflict"), it is clear to me that the template is indeed not a necessity to have at all. --MF-W 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    So the cross-wiki experience or multilingual support is worth nothing? Rd232 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    Of course multilingual support is an important issue. But this template doesn't do much for it: A user who wants to read a discussion on meta in English but doesn't know English can't do this better if occasionally, "{{int:edit-conflict}}" shows up in a known language in the text (not using en as my interface language, I also find it rather strange to see the template produce something like <<re: (Bearbeitungskonflikt.) - The other problem is that [...]>>). --MF-W 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    "edit conflict" is a technical term, and users with moderate English might be helped by having it translated to one they presumably know. And "doesn't do much for it"? It's one small template, so let's not expect it to work miracles. Rd232 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Harmless template, some might find it useful. As such, if it is kept, it is unlikely to jeopardize the functioning of the wiki, so it doesn't matter. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept fr33kman 12:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted. -Barras talk 10:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Translation/WP:BAN for Persian

Abandoned translation of wikipediawikipedia:BAN since 2008. Delete or userfy; but given that the content is already avalaible at enwiki I feel deletion is Ok. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The author has since retired from meta, seems rather unlikely to be translated at this point. Snowolf How can I help? 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like only a few "see also" links were ever translated, so nothing substantial is lost. If someone wants to start a translation now, it would be better to start with the current version of w:WP:BAN instead of this outdated copy. In any case the Persian Wikipedia has had its own banning policy since 2010. Jafeluv (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete or ask Mard for translation. :D --WizardOfOz talk 11:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, per MA. No reason to keep it. -Barras talk 19:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted -Barras talk 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Category:Esoteric templates[edit]

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)
The following discussion is closed.

Category:Ignore XWiki reports

Nominated by RedYoshii for being an empty category (and yesterday deleted by Micki), though it shouldn't be speedy deleted imo. Trijnsteltalk 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose as this category may still be used for the usual cross-wiki reports. Trijnsteltalk 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it should be called "Ignored XWiki reports" instead. Please ask User:Beetstra for his thoughts. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 10:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this can be deleted, they should indeed all be in Category:Ignored XWiki reports - I think it is something that we had in the beginning, where the categorising template was not properly programmed. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ignore all rules, as well XWiki reports - heh. I concur with Beetstra, it seems now redundant with Category:Ignored XWiki reports and hence safe to delete, even speedy. --Aphaia (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • delete as superfluous — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, empty and unused category, scope covered by Category:Ignored XWiki reports. Savhñ 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed.

Category:Education Program

Nominated by RedYoshii for being an empty category (and yesterday deleted by Shizhao), though it shouldn't be speedy deleted imo. Trijnsteltalk 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Speedy was correct IMHO. Is an empty cat w/o any description and its creator blanked it minutes later. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 10:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't notice the creator blanked it soon after he created it. Then the speedy delete was fine I guess. :) Trijnsteltalk 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Concur with MarcoAurelio. --Aphaia (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • deletebillinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted per CSD M4, empty category. Savhñ 14:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Images[edit]

All fair use files and templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: With no active Exemption Doctrine Policy, hosting fair-use images on Meta puts us in violation of the WMF board resolution, and until an EDP is drafted and approved, we should not be hosting fair-use images. I think an exception is reasonable for WikiMedia project logos, as long as the logo file has the copyright notice. I believe that it is reasonably self-understood that the WMF would allow Meta to use images copyright by the WMF for the purposes of identifying and promoting wikimedia projects under the aegis of the WMF, as per the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. I would also recommend that a discussion as to whether or not Meta needs an EDP, and if so, what form it should take, be started soon. -- Avi (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Meta has some files uploaded as fair but meta does not allow fair use. So I nominated the files and the templates for deletion with the reason:

"Per Non-free_content#Other_projects meta does not allow fair use. Also see the WMF resolution - there is no exception for meta. Speedy deletion per Meta:Deletion_policy#Images"

The request was declined with the reason that the deletion should be discussed.

I do not see what there is to discuss. Meta does not allow fair use and the WMF resolution says "... As of March 23, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted. ... By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted."

I also asked Jimbo about it. Lets see if that gives a result. --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Why do you believe Non-free content is authoritative or accurate? And where are you getting the idea of exceptions?
Your entire premise seems to be flawed. Meta-Wiki has long allowed non-free images, as I understand it. For example, proposed project logos have always been specifically directed to not be released under a free license. Why do you believe Meta-Wiki bans non-free images? Why do you believe that non-free images can't simply have a fair use rationale added as necessary? And which images are you specifically proposing for deletion? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The WMF resolution says that all projects should develop an EDP if they want to keep non-free files. The reason I think that Meta-Wiki does not allow non-free files is Non-free content AND the big fat notice on Meta:Fair use that says "This is a failed Meta-Wiki policy proposal.".
Anyone that wants to keep non-free files must prove that it is allowed. So if you believe that Meta-Wiki allows non-free image please just add a link to the EDP.
I tagged the files I proposed to delete but it was reverted. But in short it is all files that does not have a free license or a "CopyrightByWikimedia" template. --MGA73 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why Meta:Fair use is a failed proposal? I can't find any related vote or discussion about the proposal. I think it makes sense to have a proper vote before marking the proposal as historical/failed. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
See below. --MGA73 (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all The list at Non-free content doesn't have to be complete, but WM:FU tells that the proposal to create an EDP failed. Thus, Meta-Wiki doesn't have an EDP, so fair use items aren't allowed here. See also Meta:Babel/Archives/2012-04#Category:Unfree images. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you explain why Meta:Fair use is a failed proposal? I can't find any related vote or discussion about the proposal. I think it makes sense to have a proper vote before marking the proposal as historical/failed. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't tell why it is a failed proposal. In either case, non-free images can only be kept if there is an EDP in place, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. If no one can locate a valid EDP for Meta-Wiki (or write one and get it approved), then all of those images will have to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I reverted the {{historical}} and {{failed}} tags from Meta:Fair use. I believe we need to have a Meta-Wiki vote about whether to allow limited fair use exceptions as described at Meta:Fair use. Once there's a vote/discussion with a clear outcome, we can move forward. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
          • You are welcome to give it a new try. At least a formal discussion and vote looks better than "nothing". I think you should add a big fat notice in a visible place to make sure than more than 5 users notice it. I do not know how to inform the wiki projects about the discussion. Site notice? Mail list? Notice on village pump on en-wiki, Commons and other big projects? Or perhaps a notice on meta is enough? --MGA73 (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
            • An EDP for Meta-Wiki is only relevant for users of Meta-Wiki, so why do you wish to find voters elsewhere? --Stefan2 (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
              • True. I just wanted to make sure that all relevant users noticed. Some users (like me) may only visit meta from time to time and therefore miss this DR and debate about an EDP. --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
                • Well, my idea was that an EDP mainly affects users who frequently use Meta-Wiki. If you rarely visit Meta-Wiki, you will neither need to upload an image nor view the images, and so the EDP doesn't affect you. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (de-indent) Perhaps a note at Meta:Babel, a watchlist notice, and a two-week vote/discussion? That seems reasonable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Question: On Commons there is a problem with watchlist notices. If you add a watchlist notice on Commons, it is only visible if you have selected "en - English" under "Internationalisation" at Special:Preferences. Users with other settings have to watch Commons:MediaWiki:Watchlist-details in order to find out that there is a new notice (see discussion at Commons:MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Can't see it). Does the same problem also exist on Meta-Wiki? For an international project, I think that it is important that information is given to all users, even if you have set the interface to a different language than English. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Copyright violation. No EDP at Meta (and I'll oppose one if proposed fwiw). -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Really? Even for the project logos? That seems a bit extreme. :-) Meta:Fair use seems fairly reasonable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I do not think that Template:CopyrightByWikimedia is the same as Fair use... If it is then we should delete all files on Commons with that template ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
        • wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy does not talk about fair use, only about free content licences, and that projects without an EDP (such as Commons and Meta-Wiki) can't host material which is not available under a free content licence. The template {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} does not seem to be compatible with the definition of a free content licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
          • If we understand it strictly then Commons are not allowed to host with the license {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. So we have to delete all files in Commons:Category:Copyright_by_Wikimedia and Commons:Category:Logos of Wikimedia. I do not think that the WMF resolution was intented to forbid Wiki-logos. That is why I think we should Wiki-logos and other unfree files in two separate discussions. --MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes. If interpreted strictly, then there would be lots of administrative problems related to logos. That would be very inconvenient. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record (I was the admin that declined the speedies), I do not object to deletion, just making these many deletions via the speedy process when they have been effectively tolerated for so long. The point is right, we either need an ED or they need to go. Courcelles 02:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Is anything being done about this? I don't see any discussion at Meta talk:Fair use. Also, with regard to images hosted on Commons, I don't think local projects should have to worry about the license of an image at Commons so long as it is still hosted there (and at any rate, the longstanding consensus is that WMF images are sufficiently free to use on WMF sites.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Nothing at Meta:Babel either. Perhaps nobody is interested? My opinion hasn't changed. Those files have been uploaded without an EDP; if meta decides to adopt an EDP later (and the proposal may or may not succeed; and will need extensive discussion I guess) it doesn't change that if there's consensus here to delete those files, they must go. If an EDP is adopted later we can discuss on a case-by-case basis whether to restore or not certain images. Regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Location of intervention and volunteer current city.png[edit]

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×pdeHello! 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)

File:Berlin Agreement part 1.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as requested. –BruTe talk 09:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Berlinagreement1.png, File:Berlinagreement2.png, File:Berlinagreement3.png, File:Berlinagreement4.png[edit]

The following discussion is closed: All four uploads from 7 April are now deleted. Trijnsteltalk 13:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These four files are scanned copies of the Berlin Agreement. The first version of each of these files contains signatures that we not blurred out. I have now updated these images so that all signatures are blurred, but the initial versions are still accessible. Can these versions possibly be deleted? LouriePieterse 13:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ph2.jpg[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

User:विकिजी [edit]

The following discussion is closed: no need to delete this page, no harmful content, but placing "indefblocked" is a good idea! a×pdeHello! 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


User has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts and I think his userpage needs deleting too--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Which part of «After at least one week, an administrator will close and carry out the consensus or majority decision» did not understand? :P —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 13:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
AFAIC this was a question rather than a request ... a×pdeHello! 21:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Kept[edit]

Articles[edit]

Requests for comment/Gwen Gale[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Invalid RfD, not within deletion policy. Nemo 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove 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 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 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 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)
  • 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 Remove per local guideline WM:NOT, points 9, 10 and 11. CIreland 15:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per WM:NOT 11. Sven Manguard 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove 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 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 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)

Closure readdressed and issue resolved at [4]. (A couple later comments removed from here.) Nemo 23:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Enwikipediathink[edit]

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 Remove meta is a place to talk about problems, not to fly-poster your personal views! This "essay" does reflect the NPOV! a×pdeHello! 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - no real reason to remove this essay. Rd232 01:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment 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 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 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 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)

Association_of_Wikimedians[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Totally outdated, pre-Wikimedia-Foundation content; misleading if read in today's context. (Stumbled across this when researching role of community in WP vis-a-vis WMF and only noticed how old this was after reading halfway through ;) If not deleted outright, would at least require some sort of "historic interest only" banner across. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.220.236.128 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Comment I've dropped a "historical" tag on the page which I think is more than appropriate. I see no reason to delete it. --Herby talk thyme 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Herby I think marking as historical should be enough. It's in scope and not harming anything now that there's a clear indication that it's not up-to-date info. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. fr33kman 17:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Herby. –BruTe talk 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with Herby. No harm to kept as tagged historical. If it disturbed up-to-date associations or formation of such, e just could rename it as adding (2003) or whatsoever appropriate. --Aphaia (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Kept. Marked as {{historical}} by Herby; there is consensus to keep the article. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

I moved the content from here to a page on Outreach - outreach:Wikipedia Loves Libraries/Events. Since this is an outreach event I propose that most information about this be on Outreach. There already is WLL content on Outreach and some people are developing it further now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not really sure content should be moved from Meta to outreachwiki (it's usually going the other way), but anyway transwiki implies interwiki redirects, not deletion. Nemo 21:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Www.wikinews.org portal[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept and tagged as obsolete on Talk:Www.wikinews.org portal. Trijnsteltalk 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Superseded by Www.wikinews.org template. If it is not deleted, at least tag it as obsolete and/or redirect to the new one. This, that and the other (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: already tagged as obsolete (see Talk:Www.wikinews.org portal), we're not going to change the HTML-only page. --Nemo 14:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard/Guide to blocking IP version 6 addresses[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. No consensus to delete the page. An 'essay' can stay in his user space. Trijnsteltalk 20:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Gives erroneous advice that's unsuited for Wikimedia wikis. User claims to be an expert on this subject, but this page does not reflect that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's in user space, so what's the problem? It seems on topic for Meta, at first sight. You can stick an {{essay}} template on it, can't you? --Nemo 21:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It's misled users, for example at wikt:en:Wiktionary:Grease pit/2012/June#IP range_blocks?. It's still linked as good documentation in other places too, when it's clearly not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that there are some edit wars and heated discussions around this page, which is a bit weird for a pseudo-technical user page. I'm not sure a RfD is the way to go to calm down.
Now an essay template has been added and I hope our most experienced SWMT members and assorted administrators can write down some good advice in a Help:/Manual: page here or on mw:, it's probably a better use of their precious time. Nemo 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose deletion, it's in the userspace. We should, however, make an "official" guide in the project space. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I likewise feel a deletion is not appropriate at this time. Snowolf How can I help? 22:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose deletion, as said it is in user space, and it is not our task to validate the accuracy of all works in user space, nor to delete them for inaccuracies. That someone else cites it as fact is an error in their judgment. I agree with Nemo_Bis that it should be labelled as essay, and then any concern about accuracies can be listed on its talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nemo. –BruTe talk 12:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, per Ajraddatz and Billinghurst. Trijnsteltalk 20:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Categories[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Category:Fellowship Proposals

Nominated by RedYoshii for being an empty category, though it shouldn't be speedy deleted imo. Trijnsteltalk 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


Kept. Per consensus. –BruTe talk 10:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

Undeleted[edit]

Articles[edit]

Help-style indexing[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Restored by MarcoAurelio on 11 November. Trijnsteltalk 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Help-style indexing was deleted "21 July 2011 Courcelles deleted page Help-style indexing (Per deletion request)" however no deletion request can be found. This page is linked to twice on w:Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia minimally. Please restore. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Note: Here is the DR. See there for rationale. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: Peachey88 tells that such pages are not even useful for mediawiki.org since they're very outdated. I guess it could be restored and tagged as historical but it'll not offer very useful information... -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm still not seeing the DR. Is it under a different title? The only place on this wiki that I could find that phrase is in use in PDF Export and File:Index of Articles.jpg. It's also used on 7 places on enwiki. Could somebody please email me this page so I can see what it was about? I think it should be restored and marked as outdated at the very least. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I found the page cached here and I found the DR inside a collapsed table titled "List of nominated tables" under Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2011#Content_tagged_for_transfer_to_Mediawiki_wiki_.28.231.29 (thanks for pointing that out MarcoAurelio). - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm willing to restore and mark as historical/outdated per the above mentioned page usage. Please tell me if that works for you. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks good for me, the page is a valid snippet of code. --Nemo 14:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Categories[edit]

Images[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

User talk:PeterSymonds/Trusted user[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Hi, I'd like to ask local sysop to restore (or consider restoring) the page User talk:PeterSymonds/Trusted user, which was deleted by PeterSymonds

(Deletion log); 18:36 . . PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) deleted page User talk:PeterSymonds/Trusted user ‎(please go away)

As I read yesterday, there was/were a question(s) to PeterSymonds from Open Proxy, however, I do not think it can be marked as trolling and removed this way from Meta. Therefore, deleting of this page as an answer of this question is unfair and going against the concept of transparency of Wikimedia projects. The reason "please go away" is not valid reason for deleting the page. If PeterSymonds does not want to answer, he can just ignore the page (which is, I think, good solution) or delete the text there, however history of the page might to be accessible for others and not deleted by sysops. (PS: and just make it clear, I was not the Open proxy. My critics is all the time signed ;) by my real user account). --Chmee2 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Surely recover. Delete instead reply is an error and not only due to the related RFC. --Tlusťa (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A) I should have been notified about this RfD; B) it is in my userspace, so if I choose to delete it, that is my choice. The IP who created the page is now blocked. Please stop spreading this nonsense. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • No, this is something, where you are wrong. Hiding questions/discussions by admin edits, which you don't want answer, is wrong because of transparency of Wikimedia projects. I understand, that you don't want (for example) have subpages on your talk-page, however right way was move questions to your talk page and just ignore it (If I will be you, I will make it the same, just ignore it). But your solution is going against the issue of open-project where edits are traceable. Or is there some other reason for deleting? Do you think, that this edit was vandalism?
    • Sorry, that I did not inform you. I did not realized it that it is necessary. Next time, I will do it. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Leave deleted. A user may request deletion, or if an admin delete themselves, any content in their user space especially if it is vandalism. QU TalkQu 14:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Was it vandalism? I can not agree with you, I saw only several (useless) comments/questions for PeterSymonds, but nothing for deleting by admin. --Chmee2 (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, user subpages are not the place for questions or trolling. Please assume good faith and use talk pages for proper questions. Savhñ 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are right with using talk page for comments, however it was not possible for new users and IP's cause PeterSymonds talk-page was locked. It is strange when somebody locked talkpage. For this reason the openproxy probable used subpage. This situation was changed now, thanks to Snowolf. --Chmee2 (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per above micki 19:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per lack of consensus. Nemo 21:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

www.360cities.net/image/[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Unrelated to this requests for (un)deletion page. Trijnsteltalk 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to add www.360cities.net/image/ as an external link on e.g. German Wiki pages. I see these 360°-panorama-photos as a good addition among external links, and on the first glance don't see any reasons why this link should be not allowed. -- Klaus 16:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Requests for removal of domains should be listed at Talk:Spam blacklistbillinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)