Editing Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

{{/Header}}
<!-- BEGIN OF AUTOMATIC ARCHIVAL CONFIGURATION -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archive-header}}
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(15d)
|archive = Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/%(year)d-%(month)02d
}}

== [[User:Ottava Rima]] ==

This user [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Other&diff=2852175&oldid=2851826 keeps calling other users pedophiles] and also shows a bad behaviour outside of that. The user is apparently known for being a really big vandal and already banned on the English Wikipedia indefinitely, but still vandalizes discussion pages on Meta Wiki like this (just look at the long discussion surrounding it... he was told to stop calling other people pedophiles, but still went on with this!). Could you do something against this, please? At least taking back those accusations and a public apology would be in order. --[[Special:Contributions/93.129.35.41|93.129.35.41]] 19:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:I would have indef blocked him, as he should know better. He has been blocked on meta before and the same happened now again. Now he is blocked for three days. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 20:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:I agree with the indef, Barras, second time down the personal attacks road, our patience should be at an end. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:This is not his first such action. There is still the same behavior so i support a indef block. --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 20:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:I would likewise support an indef block, as after multiple chances he still seems to be unable to interact with people without insulting them. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
*I agree with indef blocked because repeated personal attacks on other people should not be tolerated in any Wikimedia project. Once he has been blocked on meta before and the same just happened again... [[User:Ruy Pugliesi|<span title="Ruy Pugliesi"><font face="Arial Rounded MT Bold">Ruy Pugliesi</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ruy Pugliesi|<span title="Talk">&#9701;</span>]]</sup> 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:+1. Beria, you can block indef ;) -- [[User:Quentinv57|Quentinv57]] [[User talk:Quentinv57|<small><sup>(talk)</sup></small>]] 20:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
* I'm not convinced he ment it offensive as you understood ... I'd might give hime another chance ... [[User:Axpde|<font color="#0000ff">'''a'''<small>&times;</small>'''p'''<small><sub>de</sub></small></font>]][[User Talk:Axpde|<font color="#ff0000"><small><sup>Hello!</sup></small></font>]] 20:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
**It's not the first time. And there is surely a reason why he is blocked elsewhere. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
*Structural continuous project disruption. Indefinite suits best here. User can reflect and perhaps return once his behaviour no longer interfere with the wikimedia goals and no longer harm others. [[User:MoiraMoira|MoiraMoira]] 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
*Consensus si fairly clear.  The block is now indefinite. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

*"Vandal" was excessive polemic, and this decision was unseemly quick. What was the hurry? He was blocked for three days. Be that as it may, I'd seen the problems and tried to warn Ottava, he [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=2703309&oldid=2703261 removed my comment]. Two days ago, I made a [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=2847120&oldid=2847118 self-reverted edit] to his Talk page, addressing issues, warning that, in the end, he was heading for a block, hoping he'd take the hint. I saw the stuff he was blocked for, it was beyond the pale. He's not banned, he's indef blocked, and his Talk page access remains open, as it should, unless he abuses it. I and others will be watching that page, in case he comes to his senses, and can realize what he did, such that we could feel safe in supporting unblock. He's passionate about certain things, and he loses balance and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being ... something awful, it varies with the issue. He's been a highly productive user in the past, and seems somewhat bewildered by the response he gets. But, as I wrote in that last bit, enough is enough. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
:: I'd like to add that he [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=2853237&oldid=2853231 still removes posts on his talk page] without comment. In my opinion, this is nothing but censorship on his side. I do see that vandalism on talk pages may be removed without comment, but that? That is abuse of his talk page right there. Don't know if it is wise let him use that talk page, since he apparently only leaves comments that he likes, but (as usual) no criticism. --11:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)<small>--[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]], note by --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)</small>
::*Users have the right to remove comments without response. I've mentioned removal because it might be better for Ottava to respond to criticism, even uncivil criticism, by trying to understand what might be meaningful about it. Such a removal, in itself, is never an offense. If there is removal with incivility, maybe. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=2830655&oldid=2830423] was complicated. The question asked by the probable sock puppet was legitimate, even friendly. However, Ottava ran with it as vandalism and a threatened outing. In fact, the reference to his dissertation was legitimate, because it was covered in what he had linked from the Talk page.
::*There are people attempting to harass Ottava. I have attempted to offer Ottava some good advice. He might not take it well, and he has the right to reject it civilly, which would include removal without comment. It's still his Talk page, and I fully support leaving it open if he does not abuse it to attack others. He should be protected there. Semiprotection?
::*An account was registered with an abusive username for the purpose of harassing Ottava, that's been [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOttava_Rima&action=historysubmit&diff=2853586&oldid=2853237 RevDel'd].
::*[[Special:Contributions/93.129.35.41|93.129.35.41]] filed this report. We should generally be careful about anonymous users who seem to have a sole purpose of trolling a user like Ottava into excessive response. This IP seems to have edited here only to provoke Ottava, and then to request sanctions.
::*[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]], who made the comment above, was provocative with Ottava from the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Other&diff=prev&oldid=2846737 first edit]. Notice that this user is really asking for Ottava to be banned from his own talk page.
::*The harassment should not be tolerated. It is my hope that Ottava can come to understand his part in all this, because when he does, and can state it, he would then be unlikely to continue to repeat the problems, and he could safely return to being the fantastic content creator that he was, the helpful administrator on Wikiversity, and the rest. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

:I'd like to point out that I am not in support or opposition of the conduct of Ottava himself as his conduct is not presented in a neutral and unbiassed manner. I just do not see the evidence either way as indef block gun was reached '''FAR''' too quickly.
:I am sorry but indef blocks are reserved as an extreme action generally to deal with vandalism. Has there been any discussion where the accused was allowed to defend him or herself from the accusations? You should not be indef blocked so casually. People have called me all sorts of names, none have been indefinitely blocked over it - at least not for that reason alone. There is no point for us to have meta wiki if people are not going to make community decisions on matters such as this. I am under the belief that indef blocks for cases aside from obvious cases of vandalism would be more fruitful if based on discussion. If the rationale is sound enough the discussion would reach the same conclusion. One concern I have before such a discussion even starts is the possibility of canvassing - that is something we ought to look out for.
:--<small> [[User:とある白い猫|とある白い猫]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:とある白い猫|chi?]]</sup> 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:Abd, could you please tell me what exactly in my first edit is provocative? I asked a sincere question and presented my point of view. I agree though that asking for Ottava to be banned from his own talk page is too extreme; I was still a bit furious when I wrote that since I am deeply opposed to censorship. Sorry. :/ --[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]] 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks as though there is a denial of natural justice here, and a quick declaration of guilt, evilness and execution, without a discussion with the editor. That is neither the role of an admin or a steward. To my look at the link, it does not seem that was the claim it was a generic statement about the statements that child abusers do make, so while it may be a careless statement, it is neither an accusation nor factually wrong. Plus when there are two parties going at each other, one should look at both sides of the arguments made, especially when one is an IP address. [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
:In the other direction, [[Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima]]. I was, from different causes than the Ottava comments that led to the block, preparing to add new material to that RfC. There is no question, for me: Ottava was baited in the subject discussion. However, there is also a long-term problem. This may be why this discussion went so quickly to indef block. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

*{{comment}} With all due respect to my fellow community members here, I would suggest reconsidering their opinion on an indef block. Ottava has had similar  issues elsewhere, he can be a bit too passionate while debating but there are ways he can be reasoned with. There wasn't a warning given in this case and he might have listened. The other facts of this case also need to be considered, the complaint came from an IP address, whose sole contribution was commenting and then asking for a block against Ottava, I don't want to go as far as calling it baiting, but it does have to be taken into consideration. Since Meta is non-content project, and has no internal dispute resolution/deliberation body, I would ask for a bit more leniency than an indef. block against him. We still have our fair share of issues, looking at the evidence and comments on the issue below with Huib, Ottava doesn't have as much interaction and support on Meta (like LangCom work) but still deserves a chance and his voice to be heard. Indef. block should be reserved for really problematic users, we should not use it for users who are rude, and argue aggressively. With all that said, I do have a condition that Ottava apologize(which he sort of did) and give his word, to avoid polemics and an aggressive debating posture on Meta. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:*Agree with Theo. From a fundamental standpoint, there are very few reasons to indef block people on meta, mostly limited to blatant vandalism and spamming. The OP's characterization of Ottava as a vandal shows a lack of research, and perhaps good intentions, and I'm not comfortable banning someone on such flimsy grounds. A few days to get the point across, sure; indef is excessive for no good reason IMO. &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To say that there was just a comparison of Ottava - saying that my viewpoint was the same as that of pedophiles - is utterly untrue. Let me just quote this sentence: '''"without any logic or reason behind you, you bad mouth and attack in hopes of bullying people into letting their guard down so you have access to children. That sickens me."''' Ottava explicitly writes that I take part in that discussion so that I have access to children. It's right there, an accusation that I want to groom children. So stop saying that '''"it is neither an accusation nor factually wrong"''', Billinghurst! That is a lie and you know it. Don't protect Ottava by trying to interpret his accusations much more positively than they are. I also want to add that I [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AImage_filter_referendum%2Fen%2FOther&action=historysubmit&diff=2846900&oldid=2846737 warned Ottava] about his accusations way before. He knew that he should watch his language for a while.

Additionally, I am sorry for using strong language myself; it definitely did go out of hand, but I felt very, very stronlgy provocated by Ottava as you can guess. Note that the first accusations came right after the very first post I made: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AImage_filter_referendum%2Fen%2FOther&action=historysubmit&diff=2846781&oldid=2846737 Ottava wrote that I should be banned] for my opinion (!), although I had just joined the discussion and stated a completely non-provocative opinion.

I wanted to take part in a discussion here on Wikipedia and didn't know Ottava before *at all* (nor any other participants of the discussion). This was not baiting, although I think the block is the right decision since the discussion really seemed like a dead-end with the kind of extreme overreactions and ignorance Ottava was showing. During the whole discussion, Ottava completely ignored all facts that were thrown at him, and just kept making his claims and accusing others - implicitly and in the last case, explicitly - of being child molesters. Even when assuming good faith, you can only come to the conclusion that accusing people with a different viewpoint than his was all that he did, and now that I read a bit about the problems people had with him previously (also surrounding warnings and bans on the English wikipedia), this seems like it is very much "his style" of discussion. Such a style of discussion is unacceptable absolutely anywhere, wether it is on the internet or not. In my opinion Ottava must learn that he is not the least bit welcome here if he keeps going on with this style; but all warnings and past bans seem to have hit deaf ears. So the indef block is justified. Also, I still await a real apology from Ottava for his accusations; I doubt I will ever get one, however. --[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]] 09:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose the block, support unblock.''' The post that made Ottava blocked was made in response to this post by IP [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Other&diff=prev&oldid=2851826 "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this. Since you simply ignored the real content of my comment, because you don't have ANYTHING to say against my arguments, I consider that you, in fact, don't know any kind of intelligent response. Well done! Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world. "] So, let's see "you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this","I consider that you, in fact, don't know any kind of intelligent response" "Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world:ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world." May I please ask you to note that IP using "you" all the time:"you are too stupid or ignorant";"you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world" and so on. That IP was not even warned for the above personal attacks. On the other hand Ottava was blocked indefinitely and even after he apologized he is still blocked.This was one wrong block, and should be undone immediately.Thanks.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
**Exactly, I have not been warned before - while Ottava was warned many, many times before. This is just one more reason to block him, in my opinion. He apparently had a hell lot of second chances. Me? No kidding: I was a total dick right there, I was very aggressive at the time, and I already apologized for it just above. When the whole atmosphere inside a discussion gets heavy like this, when someone constantly ignores any points you are trying to make and always tries to put you in the same boat with child molesters, it's very hard to keep calm. '''It was wrong of me to write all that and I apologize.''' Words that you will, sadly but undoubtly, not read from Ottava. This is why I believe that this indef block is justified: I learned something from this, and I certainly will be much, much more careful with my language in the future - even though I was never warned. Ottava did not learn anything, he doesn't even see what he did wrong, although people have warned him a thousand times over. Unblocking him would send the fatal signal that his behaviour of constant provocation is justified. --[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]] 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
**:Who are you?? you are an IP with no edits before this. What do you mean you have not been warned before?? Please either identify or we should CU. Those are 2 different IPs so far, one made the complaint and now this. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 21:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
::: I am an occasional (German) Wikipedia editor without an account. I learned about the image filter referendum, the German poll against it, and that's how I ended up here on meta and took part in the discussion. I have no idea what "CU" means, nor am I linked to the IP that made this complaint. "I have not been warned before" means that nobody threatened action against me for my offensive writing in the discussion with Ottava. I hope I was able to answer all your questions. --[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]] 10:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support block, oppose ban.'''
*#Ottava has not actually apologized. He made what is recognizable as [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#An_apology a conditional apology] -- "I'm sorry if ..." --  that shows no awareness of the actual offense, and that thus provides no assurance that problems will not repeat.
*#Ottava's recently renewed activity on meta is not related to or necessary for any specific project work. He's project-inactive. His participation here, since he came back, was almost entirely disruptive in some way or other, arguing for blocks or bans of other users, for example, or complaining about steward actions, etc., when it was pure criticism, about "being right," with no respect for differing points of view.
*#If Ottava returns to positive wiki activity, and needs something done at meta, I'm watching his Talk page and will assist. Maybe it's time to make the self-reversion suggestion here. If he IP edits something, identifying himself in the summary, and self-reverts "per block," that isn't disruptive and does not complicate block enforcement (if anything, it makes it easier). Anyone may then see that edit and revert it back in, on their responsibility, and he could diff such edits on his user talk page to get attention. He could do this when it is more cumbersome to describe something than to actually make the edit, more cumbersome both for him and for someone assisting. I oppose blocking IP or sanctioning a user for making harmless ''self-reverted'' edits. That's no guarantee: if he abuses this to suggest abusive edits, all bets are off.
*#If he establishes a need, I would have no opposition to unblock. But someone should supervise, given the history.
*#Unblocking without addressing the problem, which is long-term disruptive activity, through tendentious argument that easily falls into personal attack, would be asking for continued difficulties and waste of time.
*#If he ''actually apologizes,'' which requires that he recognize and acknowledge what he ''actually did'' -- and not just this one time -- I would support his return to normal editing. Ottava ''was'' a highly useful content contributor. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:Hi Abd, Just a couple of points. Ottava was actually pretty active when the controversial content study was put on Meta. His debating posture might have been a bit aggressive at times but he nonetheless, was a very active participant, calling all of it entirely disruptive sounds a bit hyperbolic. Second, his constant arguments, complaints, and criticisms don't justify any admin action at all, we can't silence out dissenting or aggressive voices. I know several dozen users who are far more critical and argumentative of everyone and everything on en.wp but have always been productive members of the community - they are entitled to their opinions, most times there isn't anything that particularly requires any corrective measure. What I am trying to say is, calling his contribution here entirely disruptive isn't exactly fair and a few people above disagree with that, even if you agree, that alone is not a reason for an indef. ban without some form of warning/discussion and Meta-wide consensus. Thanks. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
::Why not silence aggressive voices? I believe that any opinion - as opposing as it may be - can be formulated with respect for everyone involved. Heated discussions and aggression are a very different thing. Why should it be wrong to ban users that disturb a peaceful style of discussion? It's not about silencing opinions but preventing disruption. I would have never insulted Ottava like this if at any point during the discussion, I would have felt that he has the least bit of respect for me. After my first post which was completely harmless, he already suggested I was in the same boat as child molesters and should be banned. Do you truly find that an acceptable style of discussion, especially towards someone that just joins in? Aggression just leads to counter-aggression, so an aggressive style of communication must not be tolerated. I'm a pretty good example for this: a peaceful user that got completely enraged by what Ottava was throwing at me. I know I am still responsible for it, and again: I'm deeply sorry that it got out of hand like this. But anyone should see that with Ottava's style of discussion, this will happen again and again. Not helpful at all. How hard can it be for a person to learn how to properly respect another on the internet? This seems like it has been going on for years! --[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]] 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Again, Who are you???!!? You seem to display keen knowledge of what's right here and what "signals" this will set off. It's hard to take your words honestly when you choose to hide behind a random IP address and accuse others of not being honest. If you are so aware and have had these problems "again and again" with ottava, please tell us who you are. So far, There is no proof that the 2 IPs on this issue are even linked, even if we believe that, there are no edits on Meta before this issue, I'm thus inclined to believe that this is a logged out user who is on Meta or a banned one. Before you start arguing about whats right and wrong, kindly be honest and say who you are. How would we even know if a third IP shows up tomorrow arguing on your side? '''I'm inclined to disregard all statements coming from IPs on this discussion until you clarify, and I would ask others to do the same'''. You keep talking like you have dealt with ottava over and over again, please be honest and leave your username. This isn't my idea of properly respecting another on the internet either, you should start and clarify first how you're jumping in the middle of this like you're a veteran on the projects. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: I am not hiding; in fact my IP address gives you more knowledge about me (e.g. geolocation) than an anonymous username would. Plus it rarely ever changes, as you can see this IP has been the same for days. Since I am an occasional editor - I fix things in articles that I read on the German WP - I have never bothered to make an account. I'd just forget my password with the few times I would use it. :P I assure you that I merely stubled into this discussion and didn't have any prior knowledge about Ottava. Read my post again: I am aware that other people - not me! - have had these problems "again and again" with Ottava. This should come as no surprise from what Barras, Courcelles, WizardOfOz, Ajraddatz, Ruy Pugliesi, MoiraMoira etc. wrote just above.
:::: Please don't misinterpret me there: I have never written that I have dealt with Ottava "over and over again", nor do I see myself as a veteran on the projects - again, I'm an occasional WP editor that is certainly surprised about the strong reactions from Ottava and you others on here. All I learned about Ottava happened the past days, when he got blocked and I read the above posts that clearly stated that these problems have existed way before, and then I read some other stuff, discovered that he was blocked on the English WP, read some more posts there etc. - it gives a very consistent image of Ottava being a troublemaker because of the exact same attitude that Ottava showed in the discussion with me. I never said otherwise. Again, please re-read my posts, I think you misunderstood a lot. If there are any further questions, I will gladly answer them.
:::: Also, It is new to me that it is important on WP to have an account, and I don't like the attitude of disregarding statements just because I didn't make one. If you want me to create an account, I can certainly do that. I don't see why it should be important though. Please tell me if you want me to, I want to be polite here. --[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]] 10:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support block and ban for "you are a pedophile"-comments'''. --[[User:MGA73|MGA73]] 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:Ottava never said: "you are a pedophile". He said: "You claim that children are abused because of "puritans", but it is those who make claims like yourself that are the ones who have been revealed as pedophiles on Wikipedia" and it was a direct response to an absurd claim made by IP: "you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world". In any case I am sure Ottava learned his lesson, and will watch his language. There is no reason to keep him blocked. He has been blocked long enough. Please unblock him, please.Thanks.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=2868694&oldid=2868114 Bad sign,] no ability to engage in civil discussion when offered. No, Ottava has not learned any lesson. He may show that he has, at any time. He just hasn't yet. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::It is not a bad sign. If Ottava were not blocked, then we could be talking about "civil discussion", but Ottava is blocked, while IP who was much more uncivil is not. I am sure Ottava will be an example of civility as soon as he's unblocked, but for now I believe IP should stop commenting on Ottava's talk page because no matter how "civil" IP comments are they look as grave dancing. --[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: "Grave dancing" certainly was not my intention. Indeed, I wanted to see if the difference between me and Ottava could be sorted out like this, and I think my post was quite obviously intended that way. I don't see why a civil discussion should be any more possible when Ottava is unblocked; for all I know, he sees me as a child molesting bad-mouther that carries the whole fault for him being blocked; not a word of him doing anything wrong on his talk page. I also don't understand how you can call Ottava more civil than me, especially seeing how I apologozed for my behaviour multiple times already while he didn't do it a single time, but whatever... --[[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]] 18:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::No, you too are at fault of him being blocked. He responded to your comment, and it is what made him blocked. Yes, you apologized, but it is much easier to apologize, when one is not blocked (and never was blocked) while the other one is. 
:::::You're arguing that Ottava should be kept blocked, and then you come to his talk page (the only page he's allowed to edit, and start a "civil" conversation). Please try to put yourself in his shoes. Your rights are not equal now. He's in a corner, and you are free. Let's unblock him, and I am sure he'd be much more willing to have a conversation, and sort out the differences. Thanks.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::: What the...? Of course I am ''not'' the least bit at fault about what he said. He completely owns all and any fault in every single word he wrote, the same way that I do for my own words. Why do you see it any differently?
:::::: You really are taking a stand for Ottava here, but after you see me at fault for *his* bad behaviour, I must sadly admit that I'm not very much inclined to believe you when you talk about Ottava... what makes you think anyways that he will respond in a civil way all of a sudden, when he apparently never was able to do so before, from what we've read here (check Abd's links)? I'd be happy if you posted a link here where we can see Ottava disagree vehemently, but completely respectfully with somebody, instead of it turning into one big argument. --01:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)<small>added by [[Special:Contributions/178.201.100.215|178.201.100.215]], note by --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 15:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)</small>


'''Comment''': Ottava reached me on the #wikimedia IRC chan this evening to complain about his treatment and the resolution of the above discussions.  He made a few statements that misrepresented my comments here (similar to those noted above), and misrepresented a brief communication he had with me in private.  (I would discourage others from having private discussions with Ottava, since they may change rapidly in recollection.  I am limiting myself to on-wiki discussions!)

He claims to be showing excerpts from recent controversial content discussion (particularly the parts that led to his block) to "a few politicians" in an effort to bring the projects into disrepute and somehow bring about change through censure.  It is not clear to me if there is specific change he wants - is this simply a desire for a strong bright-line no-pornography policy for Commons based on a particular definition?  for something related to the recent referendum?  But he seems to be increasing his efforts to make this a flashpoint within the community.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>  [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] &nbsp; </small></span> 04:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:Oh, welcome to the club! The whole range of trolling could be studied on Ottava's example. Just to confirm that <s>private</s> any discussion with Ottava is usually useless, at the best. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 05:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

;Comment by Mbz1
I am not sure what happen on IRC or via emails but for what I see here I still disagree with the indefinite block of a valued contributor and here's why (Sorry, I will repeat a few of the points I made above)
#An IP made this personal attack: [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Other&diff=prev&oldid=2851826 "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this. Since you simply ignored the real content of my comment, because you don't have ANYTHING to say against my arguments, I consider that you, in fact, don't know any kind of intelligent response. Well done! Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world. "], saying "'''you''' are too stupid or ignorant", "'''you''' are the exact reason why children get abused in the world:ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world (In both cases highlighted by me)
#Ottava responded: "You claim that children are abused because of "puritans", but it is those who make claims like yourself that are the ones who have been revealed as pedophiles on Wikipedia",saying "but it is those who make claims like yourself that are the ones who have been revealed as pedophiles on Wikipedia". A grammar question: does it equals to saying to somebody: "You are a pedophile"? 
#Another IP made a report on this board:[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&diff=prev&oldid=2852768 "The user is apparently known for being a really big vandal and already banned on the English Wikipedia indefinitely"]. A vandal, really?
#None of administrators who acted on the request had anything to say/do about personal attacks of Ottava by two IPs. Ottava was blocked, none of IPs was even warned. Later one of IP apologized, but it is a different story apologizing, when you are free, or when you in a corner for everybody to see. 

I'd like the admins who commented on this request to think what Ottava has felt, when he was indefinitely blocked, and personal attacks against him, including the one made on this board, went unanswered.And before you are to respond I'd like to refer you to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Cheers this thread] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ottava_Rima#Petition_for_the_unban_of_Ottava_Rima and this one]. Do you believe that any of you who could be banned tomorrow would get such amount of support :-) 

If you still see nothing wrong with the indefinite block of the valued contributor, I'd say you and me came from a very, very different cultures :-)--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

===Proposed close===
'''No action.''' This discussion has not demonstrated that unblocking Ottava would be productive. No need for Ottava to edit meta has been shown, and he's inactive elsewhere. He has not responded satisfactorily to concerns about incivility. However, he does have a history of productive editing in the past, and if he chooses to address the concerns, any meta administrator could, being informed by this discussion and others linked to it, decide to unblock. He is not banned, he is merely indef blocked pending a resolution. On the other hand, administrators should be careful, given the history, about unblocking based on private or shallow assurances that do not show an understanding of the problem. It would be likely to lead to future disruption and wasted debate. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 15:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{Support}} (as proposer) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 15:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:What a strange proposal, afaik I see an huge consensus for the lock and I don't see any reason to don't block him, he had *many* second chances and Wiki*edia's scope is not teaching civility. Frankly I don't understand why you are acting such as a sort of public defender, to me this shows a serious misunderstanding of Wiki's principles, we don't have to set up a perfect virtual World with its own Law and rules, we have just to work out.
:--[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::<small>Perhaps Vituzzu has not understood the proposal. '''It keeps Ottava blocked,''' that's the present situation. "No action" means no change. Indef blocked. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::Sorry, I messed around with two different statements by you, I give you my apologies.
:::--[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] 21:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{Oppose}} I completely disagree, there is no consensus. if anything I see you arguing against him over and over and a multitude of voices in his favor- some who think indef. block as excessive, some who think he was baited, some who are willing to give him a chance. I would favor an unblock on Meta if others wish to overlook his sometimes acerbic tone. I would rather reserve decision to a consensus among admins here than regular user. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 09:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

== Unblock [[User:Sterkebak]] ==

Huib Laurens is a member of the language committee and does good work. It is really welcome for this and one other reason for him to be unblocked. We found at Wikimania that there was activity that was to indicate that he was sockpopping. This was not possible as he was not at even close to the Netherlands; he was in Haifa. As a consequence he asked at the time for a check user. Consequently these facts have been established. Given that the block on the Dutch Wikipedia happened when Huib was not active there for the last year, it is quite clear that some people are creating mischief.

For all these reasons it makes sense for him to be unbanned on Commons and Meta. Huib indicates that he does not care for the Dutch Wikipedia any more... Thanks, [[User:GerardM|GerardM]] 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:<small>The [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&oldid=2874391#Unblock_User:Sterkebak subsequent discussion(s)] have been [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAbigor&action=historysubmit&diff=2874438&oldid=2708229 moved] to [[Talk:Requests for comment/Abigor]] by [[User:Mathonius|Mathonius]] 15:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC).</small>

===Deblock under conditions===
:*<small>I have moved the active poll, showing substantial consensus, back here. Please respect desire to keep this page free of extensive back-and-forth. Please review the full discussion where moved by Mathonius,  [[Talk:Requests for comment/Abigor#Unblock_User:Sterkebak]], before closing. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 18:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)</small>
After whole discussion above, I would be prepared to deblock him but only under following conditions:
*All CU who have made the investigation, or have take a look at the log (think about those three who have commented), can confirm that findings are inconclusive or there is doubt about them.
*Abigor will not request any kind of local flag here for next two years (after this time we can discuss about that).
*Even if he gets a global flag, such as GR, GS or any other (about steward flag we should discuss, as there is no way not to use it on meta), he will promisse not to use it on meta.
*Only LangCom related edits are alowed.
*One more Sock and the block is for infinite (even if he create it on another project and than come here). 
If so, I would deblock him. --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

* {{Support}} The Wizard's proposal.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>  [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] &nbsp; </small></span> 03:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{Support|Strong Support}}--'''[[Special:Emailuser/Vibhijain|<sup><span style="color:dark red"><small>Email</small></span></sup>]] [[User:Vibhijain|<span style="color:#A50B5E">Vaibhav</span>]] [[User talk:Vibhijain|<sup><span style="color:red"><small>Talk</small></span></sup>]]''' 12:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{Works for me}}: with or without a mentor, but I think a statement by Abigor himself is necessary (see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta%3ARequests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&action=historysubmit&diff=2870654&oldid=2870639 my previous comment]). [[User:Mathonius|Mathonius]] 13:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{support}} BTW, there should be a note that, let's say, after six months his case would be reconsidered and if he proves to be constructive, it is possible that the limit on editing just LangCom pages could be lifted. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
**{{comment}} Sorry but 6 months are not enough for me. That´s why I wrote 2 years (in best case I would say let us discuss again after a year). BTW what about Bot accounts? I didn´t thought about that but would say they should be not allowed. --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 16:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
*** OK, two years. If the bots are not used on Meta (and why would be used on Meta?), then there is no need for him to use them. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 20:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{Support}} unblock, with conditions per closing admin discretion and Abigor formal acceptance. Support mentorship as a condition with clear mentor agreement allowing mentor to obtain fast block if needed, without requirement to prove abuse. See [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abigor#Proposed_monitor_agreement proposed agreement]. However, this does not and should not depend on further checkuser comment. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
* Okay with Wizard's proposal. But mentorship is also needed as he accepted. &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="background: #f2f2f2; border: 1px solid #e6e6e6; font-family: Courier New;">[&nbsp;[[User:Wikitanvir|Tanvir]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Wikitanvir|Talk]]&nbsp;]</span> 13:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{Oppose}} Seems obvious. No good will ever come of this. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 10:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{oppose}} I don't see this as "a vote", but well. Abigor has had enough chances. And this has nothing to do with me being Dutch. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{oppose}} as already stated [[Talk:Requests_for_comment/Abigor|elsewhere]]. --[[User:Brownout|Brownout]]<sup><small>([[User talk:Brownout|msg]])</small></sup> 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
* {{oppose}} Proven sockpuppeter, absolutely nothing beneficial will come from opening this can of worms again. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
* Since the discussion appears to still be going, '''oppose''' per my personal belief that people who have done what he has shouldn't be on any committee, and by extension I do not see a valid reason for unblock. Also, it's been months now - checkuser data will no longer be conclusive no matter what. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 00:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

* {{comment}} '''Abigor has accepted the monitoring agreement.'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abigor&curid=154128&diff=2873363&oldid=2871742][http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abigor&oldid=2873363#Proposed_monitor_agreement full text as accepted]. This agreement incorporates and enforces whatever restrictions are placed by an unblocking administrator. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{not done}} As we can see, the last input in this discussion is dated on 5 September. Even if I don´t count Guido´s oppose, there is no clear consensus to deblock under those conditions. Also, the discussion on the RfC talk page has show that there is no consensus. I would sugest Abigor to search other areas of work outside of this project as the community here don´t trust him anymore. Sorry but this unblock request is declined. --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
::I see no reason why my oppose should not be counted and would like to see you refrain from making such remarks. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
===Request review by an uninvolved administrator===
I consider WizardOfOz involved. The full discussion showed rough consensus for unblocking with conditions; even with this reduced set of comments here, where it is 6:4 for unblock, higher consensus for unblock if involved users are set aside (with history suggesting possible prejudice from other-wiki involvement. Wizard's proposal was in itself prejudicial. Maintaining a block should require consensus, not the reverse, the position that consensus is required for unblock establishes and maintains control by motivated factions. '''Any admin may unblock, given this discussion.''' --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 13:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
: I personally agree with Abds sentence that maintaining a block should require consensus, since everyone has the right to edit the projects, an active majority of the community should support a block for it to stand. 6 support and 4 opposes would in my view be a consensus to not have a full block on him. My view ''on the discussion'' is that consensus is to allow a conditional unblock. [[User:Laaknor|Laaknor]] 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Sorry, but AFAIK this is the other way 'round. The user has been blocked before, in this talk we discuss the ''deblock'' ... and there is no consensus to do so! [[User:Axpde|<font color="#0000ff">'''a'''<small>&times;</small>'''p'''<small><sub>de</sub></small></font>]][[User Talk:Axpde|<font color="#ff0000"><small><sup>Hello!</sup></small></font>]] 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::: This is not a vote, and an admin who feels strongly about this can close the discussion.  Combining the comments above with the [[Talk:Requests_for_comment/Abigor#Unblock_User:Sterkebak|general unblock discussion on the RFC]], I see fair points made that Abigor has a specific reason to want to edit, and 13:8 in support of an unblock under strong conditions (next infringement leading to an indef block).  Some people have changed their minds in each direction about whether this makes sense (Mathonius, Ajraddatz), it is a judgment call.  Wizard: have you changed your mind about your proposal, or are you simply observing too little support to feel comfortable implementing it?  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>  [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] &nbsp; </small></span> 02:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)   
::: '''For''': GerardM, Abd, Herby, Millosh, Vibhijain, Melos, Mbz1, Fontes, Sj, WizardofOz (as proposer), MGA73, Mathonius, Tanvir
::: '''Against''': Trijnstel, Brimz, Courcelles, MADe, Guido, Béria, Brownout, Ajraddatz. <small>List added by [[User:Sj|Sj]] 02:09, 9 September 2011, sig added by [[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC).</small>
::::No I didn´t change my opinion. But as it looks noone of those three CU are prepared to comment on this. So, not even the first condition can be fulfilled. And 8 opposers (even if i forget Guido), where 4 of them are elected sysops on the project, doesn´t realy looks like aconsensus in my eyes. But any other sysop can feel free to review. --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 04:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::"Consensus" generally refers to the community of users, not to the community of sysops. Whom does meta serve? Meta sysops? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Once again, stop making such remarks about me. You have been harassing me before, this needs to end. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 09:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I can close it again if anyone wants a neutral sysop. But It's not a matter of opinion when the opposes are so clear, just counting. I would arrive at the same conclusion as WizardofOZ does, and would back him- There is no consensus to deblock in this case. The votes are too divided. Abd, I do not like your accusative tone however, alleging that WizardofOz is not neutral in this case. You are talking about blocking policies and making things on a whim, there is nothing in the discussion to support your conjectures. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 18:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::WizardOfOz set up an almost impossible standard. The basic request and other comments supporting unblock don't depend on checkuser revisionism, difficult at this late date. The actual conditions of an unblock would depend on the decision of an unblocking administrator. WOO's personal conditions were excessive.

:::::::There is no blocking "policy" at meta. It's widely understood, cross-wiki, that any admin may unblock a user, on their own initiative and judgment, absent a clear, established consensus to maintain a block -- which is also called a "ban," and which can change. Here, there is discussion with substantial participation showing majority support for unblocking, so the idea that the block is supported by consensus would be preposterous. It is not uncivil to note possible involvement or bias and to request an uninvolved decision; however, if this is closed, as it stands, any admin could then use this discussion, as-is, to support an unblock. Should we have an RfC on this issue? I'm concerned that we have local admins here who don't seem to get this. This isn't just my personal opinion, see the comment by steward Laaknor above.

:::::::I'm puzzled by Theo10011's ''"just counting."'' Just counting, unblock is supported. Considering issues of possible involvement, it is even clearer. It would still require some admin -- or steward -- willing to act. Why a steward? Because one of the most important functions of meta is for transparent access to stewards. Abigor is an admin on two projects. He may still email individual stewards, but stewards may prefer service requests be open. (So editing should ''not'' be limited to just LangCom matters.) The Abigor account, in fact, had no history of disruptive editing here. Not using undisclosed socks would be an obvious unblock condition.)

:::::::As to Theo10011's suggestion that he could close as a "neutral sysop," I'm concerned, as well, about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta%3ARequests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&action=historysubmit&diff=2872035&oldid=2872018], wherein he presented himself as "The Management," stopping discussion. Are meta sysops "managers"? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

== User:Jasper's Dong - block? ==

Looks like a vandalism only account.... someone want to investigate / block if necessary please? <font color="#E66C2C">[[User:QuiteUnusual|'''QU''']]</font> <sup><font color="#306754">[[User talk:QuiteUnusual|TalkQu]]</font></sup> 22:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
:Took care of him. Just one of those long-term abusers. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 22:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
::@Barras, I restored the user and user talk of [[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]]. [[User:Jasper's Dong.|Jasper's Dong.]] was an impersonation of the first (respected) [http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Jasper+Deng contributor]. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] 22:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Woops, fail. What shiny 's can make... Sorry and thanks for the fix. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 22:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

== DerpaDerpaDerpaHurpa ==

Please consider blocking {{lh|DerpaDerpaDerpaHurpa}}, which is an account used for vandalism. [[User:Striker|<font color="#4153A0">'''Striker'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Striker|<font color="#7094B7">talk</font>]]</sup> 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 03:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

== 65.49.14.60 ==

Block {{IPuser|65.49.14.60}} as open proxy. IP-address is already globally blocked as part of 65.49.0.0/17 and has now started to create off-topic pages at Meta. -- [[User:Tegel|Tegel]] <sub>([[User Talk:Tegel|Talk]])</sub> 06:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
: {{done}}. &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="background: #f2f2f2; border: 1px solid #e6e6e6; font-family: Courier New;">[&nbsp;[[User:Wikitanvir|Tanvir]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Wikitanvir|Talk]]&nbsp;]</span> 06:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

== User:91.7.175.225/common.js ==

Delete [[User:91.7.175.225/common.js]] as a page not used for IP-addresses. -- [[User:Tegel|Tegel]] <sub>([[User Talk:Tegel|Talk]])</sub> 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:Mathonius|Mathonius]] 15:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

== Is it appropriate to import or continue local disputes on Meta? ==

I've asked [[Meta_talk:About_Meta#Meta:About_Meta.23What_Meta-Wiki_is_not|here]] if it is appropriate to import or continue local disputes from other projects on Meta-Wiki. I really don't know, but I expect that it is not.

If it is not appropriate, please advise [[User:Mbz1]] accordingly [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=2886940] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno&diff=prev&oldid=2887005] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=2887016]. In my opinion, any concerns Mbz1 has regarding en.wiki should be raised via en.wiki dispute resolution processes. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
:To clarify the above post that was made because of my question. Although Xeno is partly right and some part of my question contained some elements of an old dispute, my main concern was about this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wyss/a4#Wikipedia:Avoid_personal_remarks In the edit summary admin Gwen Gale stated: "22:17, 16 July 2011 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Wyss/a4" ‎ (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace: user thought this had been done years ago)"]. [[en:User:Gwen Gale]] and [[en:user:Wyss]] is the same user. The admin deleted her own talk page history citing "a user request". It is a violation of the talk page policy and abuse of administrative tools.So I decided to ask about this here on Meta This particular deletion has nothing to do with me, and is not a part of my dispute with Gwen Gale. Another concerns I raised also have nothing to do with my personal dispute with Gwen Gale, and were  about misleading and false statements she made in her RfAs that probably made her second RfA successful. I did not vote on neither of her RfA. --[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::I listed some more, but not all of my concerns [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1 here] (scroll down to the last post please)--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Though I'm not an admin, I can tell you with 100% certainty that enwiki drama has no place on meta. I would thus recommend that you stop leaving people messages here which are related to enwiki, and to not continue to fill up this section with info on the enwiki drama. Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, this isn't the place to be chatting about it. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::::It is not about drama, it is all about policies with some specific examples. It was my  understanding that Meta is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:About_Meta#Current_purpose the right place] for such discussions, but thanks anyway. I had a nostalgia about En. Wikipedia AN/I. I do not anymore :-) Warm regards.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Meta is the place for discussions of a global scale - your case is very clearly limited to enwiki, and even if it does happen on other wikis, it is not global policy and should not be discussed on meta. The main reason for this is that discussion here can't do anything about it, since global policy is never above local policy. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

: It is generally not appropriate to continue local disputes from other projects on Meta.  The only exceptions are requests suitable for the [[Meta:Requests_and_proposals|Meta requests pages]], or general discussions about cross-project policies.  Mbz1, please do not import any specific incidents from en:wp into this wiki.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>  [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] &nbsp; </small></span> 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

:: If the dispute could not be solved locally, a request can be filed at [[Requests for comment]]. So yes, in such cases it is entirely appropriate. Be aware, however, that it rarely leads to anything. The idea was that experienced users would take a fresh look and help out. In reality, the local combattants will show up, re-iterate their pov and perhaps gather some new buddies, and that's about it. Regards, [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

*'''Please close.''' This is not a request for this page. Xeno's actions are multiplying discussions, this is now not only in the history of [[User talk:Gwen Gale]] (blanked by Gwen Gale, where Mbz1 was a bit insistent but did not violate the ultimate request by Gwen Gale to stop, and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno&action=history User talk:Xeno] (blanked by Xeno), plus [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=2887243#FYI User talk:Mbz1], but also now here and at [[Meta_talk:About_Meta#http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:About_Meta#Meta:About_Meta.23What_Meta-Wiki_is_not]], attracting wider attention and inviting Mbz1 to defend his action. Mbz1's comments here were unwanted by the two users, which is the real issue. Had Mbz1 continued comment after a request to stop, then a warning would have been appropriate. Neither did he continue, nor was he warned. Instead, Xeno started this request and the one on the About Meta talk page. The Meta talk page discussion is more relevant than this. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

{{closing}}: per the aforementioned comments. There's no real need for administrative action. Please continue any further discussion about this on [[Meta_talk:About_Meta#Meta:About_Meta.23What_Meta-Wiki_is_not|the relevant talk page]]. Thanks, [[User:Mathonius|Mathonius]] 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

== Removing of ´crat flag ==

Could someone remove my flag please, at the moment there are enough helpful hands. If needed I can reactivate. Thanks --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 14:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Let us know when you want it back :) [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)