Talk:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

(Out of order) link to an blocklog / Redress[edit]

Since an en.wikipedia blocklog has been linked to for rhetorical purpose,
let it be noted that:

self-collapsing item list/notes - open if of interest [not for discussion] -- Proofreader77 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. one of the blocking admins (who Proofreader77 had lightly mocked to deflect them from being rude to a new poster on Jimbo's page, and who then exploded with indignation and marked their user page "Deceased" -- precipitating that last domino of blocks in the block log) has since been desyoppped and banned
    2. one of sysops who changed the Proofreader77 blocklog because of an overzealous indef, was later desysopped (and retired) after blocking back in retaliation when assaulted with an outrageous sneaky block by an admin who previously had improperly warned Proofreader77 about something, which Proofreader77 nonetheless obeyed, but was still mistakenly blocked by one of the blocking admins -- besmirching a clean block log and thereby opening the door to careless/(social dynamic influenced) blocks.
    3. an admin who improperly dumped Profreader77 into AN/I leading to an improper block (in retaliation for Proofreader77 having maneuvered a prominent admin into thwarting them in some way in the past), has been desysopped. (Let it be noted with amusement that I became aware of the prominent admin (and liked him immediately:-) when an even more respected Wikipedian ruled he had lied during the ArbCom election in which he was a candidate. :)
    4. the sysop who (improperly) blocked Proofreader77 in the midst of ArbCom proceedings regarding the blocks of Proofreader77 (which was initiated, not by Proofreader77, but by an editor who had been mad at Proofreader77, but was outraged that Proofreader77 had been improperly blocked the first time since Proofreader77 had not done what he warned not to do) had been previously desysoped by ArbCom (for long term incivility ...)
    5. ASSERTION: ALL the blocks in the Proofreader77 block log are improper, and could easily be proven to be by diffs.
    6. ALSO NOTE: During the period of the barrage of blocks to the Proofreader77 blocklog, Proofreader77 received two barnstars from (then) administrators. (One, a Socratic, for a sonnet in the midst of an RfC. Another, an "Original," for a comment in an RfA clarifying the role of administrators. The second comment so profoundly insightful, a [later] ArbCom member asserted wholehearted agreement, and yes, even one of the Proofreader77-blocking admins asserted agreement, linking to it when voting in the RfA. :-)
    7. LASTLY: Let it be noted that the first editor to (improperly) dump Proofreader77 into one of the improper AN/I's is now banned. And an editor who leaped to make that first improper AN/I a humiliating mess has been reminded by ArbCom to be more civil (and have apparently walked off the field in disgust at being reprimanded at all.)

With those clarifications, the rhetorical infliction of the use of the block-log-linking of "incidents," should be more clear. (No further discussion.)
-- Proofreader77 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. Maybe an admin at will look into this again, maybe not. I would like to think we are infinitely patient, and *infinitely* approachable. If user:Proofreader77 is wanting redress, sending the most crucial portion of the above post to Arbcom at by email maybe is the way to go, if that is desired and available. Not for me to say. I do like sonnets, but defer to the need for only constructive contributions to the en.pedia. Newbyguesses 23:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much appreciate your gracious reply, Newbyguesses. The only reason this is noted here in the context of the RfC is that a link to a blocklog from was posted in a meta discussion (with the edit summary "context"). An en.wikipedia blocklog is never self-explanatory, and to simply wave it in the air to characterize someone's behavior/character is out of order in a meta discussion. I chose to redress the implications implied, with notes suggesting that the entries in the blocklog are not clear "facts" (as implied by the link text "incidents"), but rather artifacts of perhaps flawed behavior by others than the person whose blocklog it is.

    (I.E., This is not another RfC. :-) -- Proofreader77 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many moons ago (August 2011) I privately offered to unblock you on English Wikipedia. I found you to be a useful member of the English Wikipedia community there. The offer still stands. I also informed you that you could/should appeal to Arbcom to be unbanned. As far as I know, *you* havent tried either of those option, so either you or Mbz1 using a meta RFC is inappropriate. I appreciate that you're not instigating the Meta RFC, but (afaik) you are not informing the community here that you know you have an appeal option open to you. John Vandenberg 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your kind words, John (re useful), although I would suggest only a few understand what I was doing of value before being deflected into a master course on the social dynamics of the Wikipedia project pages.
  • re your August 2011 email - (As worded) see my August 2011 reply. (Off topic for this RfC talk page)
  • re duty to inform meta community of options - As I have never asked the meta community to consider anything re Proofreader77/en.wikipedia, yada yada yada
On topic: I reiterate that a prominent admin posted a link to an blocklog on the project page of this discussion in response to a general "Comment." I have noted that such linking was inappropriate, and redressed the rhetorical implications of that linking in the collapsed section above (originally concluding "No further discussion," and have now collapse-header identified as "[not for discussion].")

METACOMMENT: RfC - At least from my own perspective, it would be more useful from a dispute resolution perspective to have an RfQ (Request for Questions) in which concerned community members can ask questions (with diffs) re why an editor was doing what they were doing in a certain situation. (Rather than broad brush summaries of someone's behavior that often tend toward character assassination). While you might respond that that is what a user's talk page is for, I can assure you no one ever asked me there (or at least no sincere question of clarification, but only amplifications of pre-judged allegations). AN/I notices. Improper warnings based on misperceptions. On topic/connection: An RfC regarding the behavior of one administrator does not address the social dynamics problem of once someone's block log has a mark on it, other administrations may behave as if that is a license to act without careful consideration, and add further blocks based on the "evidence of the blocklog" that they are dealing not with someone who deserves respect, but an enemy of the community. [Excuse rhetorical flourish amidst peroration.]

METACOMMENT: As ArbCom is a social balancing mechanism (rather than a system of justice), it is not surprising that its responses are extension/formalization of the social dynamics issues beneath. I.E., Proofreader77 can only be seen under the illumination of the block log -- [on topic/connection] which is how the prominent admin who linked to the blocklog implies you should see Proofreader77 (who may appear quite differently in different light -- provided by the collapsed section above. Selah. :-)

PS [preemptive retort] To no one in particular ... ;-) if Wikipedia had a legal system, there might such a thing as "wikilawyering," since it does not, it is (often) a bullying term with which to club those who are merely defending their honor in the face of group/social abuse. And while that is a contentious and unpleasant note with which to conclude, the thousands/millions of hours wasted by those attempting to defend/restore their honor in the realm of Wikipedia -- incurred because there cannot possibly be enough administrators to do the work, and so given the limits of time, the official position must (in effect be) Grin and bear it, or begone -- [To all:] UNTIL perhaps social (and technological) design innovation allows Wikipedia to evolve to be a place where everyone can edit without the social frustrations (including unnecessary harm to ones identity, however encoded in screennames) that darken horizons now. I really don't know: perhaps that's what meta is for.
-- Proofreader77 20:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you felt it necessary to respond here regarding your blocklog. My personal opinion is that it would have been equally important for you to respond regarding Mbz1's activity here, indicating that you were aware that you had options available to you. John Vandenberg 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARB: You failed to do something you had a duty to do.
  • P77: Decline allegation without elaboration of negation.
(Do we need a rhetorical sonnet for clarification? :-)
-- Proofreader77 12:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


(Requisite) sonnetized clarification

[rhetorical verse in Shakespearean/English sonnet form]

I NEVER TOUCHED contentious RfC,
and so I did not comment there (of course!)
Its author was the hand of destiny.
But on THIS RfC I felt The Force.

ONE gen'ral comment I was moved to make.
The Force then called a sheriff to ride in
(on high horse :-) to insert one link (mistake).
A talking point that yields a meta sin.

REPEAT: "One gen'ral comment." NOT request.
PARENTHESES enclosing en-blocked state.
BEFORE THAT, saying meta's not my nest.
AND SO I would not vote to add my weight.

NO REASON to discuss ArbCom & me.
OFF-TOPIC in this gen'ral RfC.

(FOOTNOTE: For those unfamiliar with Proofreader77 lore, his current indef occurred long ago after posting an ArbCom request comment in [collapsed] Shakespearean sonnet series form. So it is absolutely required in any P77 wiki-episode that there be at least one sonnet. Yes, Proofreader77 is probably the only person ever de facto banned from Wikipedia for posting sonnets at ArbCom. And surely the only person first [mistakenly] blocked for talking about his $1,000 donation to the Foundation. While we're down here in the fine print, I will direct your attention to the smiley-labeled subtopic below from which one might glean the essential complication of any ArbCom/Proofreader77 email exchange that might occur, at least until Taylor Smith runs for president. LoL Selah. :-)

-- Proofreader77 12:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Off topic) proposal re unblocking offer :-)[edit]

If an arbitrator on en.wikipedia wishes to unblock Proofreader77 with the following edit summary, I would not object:

(Note the smiley in the topic header. Will need more time to pass to allow further attrition of dislikers of Proofreader77; perhaps 2024 so I can current-events wrangle NPOV of the Taylor Swift presidential campaign article against POV-pushing Taylor Swift haters. :-)

I believe the original topic has been addressed sufficiently, and has reached a point of circularity which can only lead to sonnetization.:-) A gracious wave to all, and a special salute to TheWizardOfOz (coda to my comment on the project page)
-- Proofreader77 22:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1's lynch mobs comment[edit]

The following was in response to Sandstein's support which reads "to prevent continuing disputes resolved at the local level continuing here"

This option should be available here, if for nothing else then to provide a place for the victims of arbcom closed tribunals and of a lynch mob that sees nothing wrong with lynching a person who does not even allow to defend himself. Today you became a part of this lynch mob, sandstein. Congratulations!--Mbz1 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz, the term "lynch mob" is politically charged and highly inappropriate. Lynch mobs were violent. Has anyone laid a hand on you? Lynch mobs killed people. You're obviously alive. Reword your statement, please. Philippe (WMF) 10:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will not do it. This is a common way to use the words even, if nobody actually is getting killed: "Social lynch mob have hit their target", "Nick Freeman: This jealous lynch mob is hounding out all our talent";"Banker-bashers: a lynch mob with PhDs" and so on.--Mbz1 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz, at a quick reading much of what you say in your RfC/U makes sense. The problem is that I don't know the case, I'm not going to take the time to research it in detail, and without knowing that dozens of good WP editors and admins will be looking at it also, I won't have any confidence that I'm not being fooled. I think most other outside observers will react similarly. That and that the major procedural flaws you allege - for example, that you were blocked for e-mailing ArbCom to state your case - are being lost in the particulars of the case. I believe you would be better served with a process that is not "everything about Gwen Gale" or "everything about Mbz", but which requires you to state these specific procedural flaws one by one here and ask for a broader community to assess these issues, one by one, and decide whether there's something wrong with how is being run. Wnt 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading it over, and saying that it makes sense. You made an interesting comment in particular "I don't know the case, I'm not going to take the time to research it in detail." Of course the only way to make sure you are not being "fooled" is to click on differences, and ask specific questions, but it is too late now anyway. The RFC is closed. Thanks anyway.--Mbz1 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using the words "lynch mob" directly next to a user's name, looks like a *personal attack* to me. Newbyguesses 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of other projects[edit]

Obviously the knows about this. I've personally notified en.wikinews. Sandstein was kind to translate the proposal and notify de:Wikipedia:Projektdiskussion#Meta-wiki_requests_for_comment_on_users. More to come. ASCIIn2Bme 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] notified too. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notified on en Wikibooks QU TalkQu 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SJ talk   04:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the notification is to be taken seriously, why not use CentralNotice? Maybe this RFC isn't well-enough formed for that, but in principle, for a substantial global change, it ought to be considered. Rd232 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need translations first. Besides, I don't think is such a major issue. It's certainly something that other wikis should be made aware of, but a post on their equivalent of w:WP:Village Pump is adequate, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, has anyone notified ruwiki? The editor who did that translation said that he doesn't want to edit on ruwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even posting an English message on the Village Pump there would be fine (usually they get translated pretty quickly).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More people wasting their time needed? --Vituzzu (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it time wasting? It won't change the RfC outcome but that wasn't the point (or at least it wasn't my point) in advertising this to other communities. Although the RfC was started in reaction to the RfC that inappropriately intruded on en:wp's remit, it has started a debate that is useful for the full WMF community. There are lots of smaller projects with no dispute resolution process that would benefit from taking advantage of a 'proper' process at Meta - a "global ArbCom excluding projects with local ArbComs". By encouraging contributors to those projects to read this RfC it may help create a consensus to build such a process that would benefit them. I'm not overly optimistic that it will, but I don't think it is a waste of time to try. QU TalkQu 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at how previous cross-wiki proposals of some importance have reached consensus? Anyway, where did this RfC become about "global ArbCom excluding projects with local ArbComs"? Should I redirect it to the actual RfC on the topic again? Nemo 08:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was about "global ArbCom...", I meant (and I thought I said) that it might help encourage that separate proposal to get more traction. I'm not clear why you seem so bad tempered in your response. I always thought meta was a polite place for civil discussion... QU TalkQu 20:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of that other proposal -- I hope that interested people will revive discussion about it. I have often seen it mentioned recently, but not constructively on its own pages. SJ talk   04:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify first sentence[edit]

I would add "about the conduct of another user" to the first sentence. This would clarify that this is only about RfCs about user conduct, something which is already rare on Meta. Many of the Opposing statements seem to misunderstand that and to be talking about all sorts of other RfCs or requests for help that a user might make here on Meta.

Approving this suggestion would in no way limit the ability of a user banned on some arbitration-enabled project to ask for help here. It simply wouldn't allow them to post and maintain an RfC challenging the behavior of another user. SJ talk   04:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a few examples of useful RFCs a contributor might post about about themselves? (I've never seen one that didnt focus on another user..;-)) John Vandenberg (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggestion is reasonable, so here we go. I've added "set of users" because many RFCs target a small set of users rather than just one user. Maybe "group of users" would be better. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original wording was clear enough, but I don't object to this change. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]