Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Request for interface administrator
Hi there, I am formally requesting the interface administrator flag to allow me to further assist the community and to allow me to continue my regular Meta Wiki WikiGnoming. I wish to help in maintaining scripts such as Twinkle and perhaps may also publish some potentially useful de-Wikipedified scripts for usage by Meta users too. Additionally, as a contributor of Meta, it often times is very useful to be able to tweak the interface in order to tweak certain system messages (such as edit notices) in order to make them easier to read or more intuitive for our newer users. As for eligibility for this role, I presently hold various advanced permissions on Meta (rollbacker and wiki creator being some of them), I have never been issued a sanction or block and I have a very strong password on my account (on top of 2FA too). Thank you. Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agent Isai is generally very active on Meta, clearly has knowledge of JS and CSS and has presented a clear purpose for requesting the right as well as being a trusted member of the community. With the eligibility for this role being met, this is now ✅. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Move for Requests for Comment/Endorsement of Meta conventions
This proposal, which was in draft state for a long time, underwent a major change by one user including the addition of an out of scope proposal, then was moved to mainspace two minutes later. Obviously this is a problem, as this major change required time to be discussed. Their edit summary was moving out of draft space because no new comments and suggestions have been made recently but of course, ironically exactly what they have done is evaded discussion. I went to revert the page move when I saw that the page had been move-protected because one user edited while logged out. How does everyone else feel about this situation? In my opinion, RfCs were designed to be started by one person, however, the consensus for the draft phase is obviously undermined by the changes two minutes before launch. Naleksuh (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing in policy explicitly prohibits not discussing prior to RfC in the draft stage. If you don't like it, oppose the RfC and we'll do our job to make sure a fair discussion happens. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing as This should be  [closed] as ❌ and unnecessary as the proposer's thesis is simply not true. Moreover, and equally crucially, the initiating RfC openly invited changes, which several users, including Reception123 and myself, undertook. The changes with accepted, on- and off-wiki, by all participants. Dmehus (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have conerted your close into a comment. You haven't explained why you believe it is simply not true, in fact, the Requests for Comment/Endorsement of Meta conventions seems to say it is entirely true. It's not cool to declare the opposite without any evidence for doing so, and much less, try to prevent any users from replying to it. Naleksuh (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While it could've been discussed before, removing an active Proposal from an RfC shouldn't be done. As RhinosF1 says, if you don't like it you can oppose it or even open an alternative one. Even if I am not the one who removed it, I disagree that it is out of scope. Regarding your comment of 'either changes to the harassment policy or changes to the way in which Miraheze cites Wikipedia policies', by supporting Proposal 1 the community is (in my opinion) impliedly disagreeing that it constitutes harassment and also impliedly rejecting any Wikipedia policies that say so. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Remove Patroller for Naleksuh
Given their edit-warring and repeating the edit-warring after being warned, as well as being partially blocked, I am requesting that the user Naleksuh has their patroller bit removed. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 21:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be dreadfully honest about this guy. He's been verbally abusive to not only me, but other users like and even RhinosF1 to such a degree. Examples would be him trying to silence users from speaking out against him, attempted hounding of another fellow administrator, possibly resorting to meatpuppetry, especially from his own admission in the edit summary, attempted to cause damage-control by entirely removing a section (while that's not always a problem, it's just that Naleksuh is a special case here). There were even times where he annoyed me about some certain aspects of some certain situations that occurred. The first diff where he annoyed me was about some ping fixes. That time, he talked down to me like I was a stupid person. I'm just so sick of him always verbally abusing other admins, along with the volunteers that come here everyday (aside from me of course). But, if you are somehow reading this, please stop with this ridiculous behavior. It's not only affecting me, but everybody else you ever came in contact with. And for record time, please stop making aggressively false accusations against other users. This will not help you in the long run. I'm just fed up with how you treat these hardworking administrators around here. They are only doing their jobs, and you are only making the situation worse from here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ I am posting a review shortly, but to sanction Naleksuh for serious failings of administrators today, is not appropriate. John (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Understandable. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ok -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Review of Naleksuh's Sanctions
Hi, I am posting this here in the interests of transparency and to centralise discussion. This is being reviewed following an emailed complaint to the Trust and Safety team, which was referred back down to community-level users. Given my lack of involvement in this, I was asked by Owen to review it - also given my role as a Bureaucrat, I feel this would be appropriate.


 * Timeline
 * Naleksuh reverts a contribution he previously made, which was reverted without an explanation at the time.
 * RhinosF1 reverts the above contribution citing it is an on-going discussion and should be discussed instead.
 * Naleksuh makes a request for a current RfC to be moved back to draft following concerns raised.
 * Dmehus closed the above request as not valid.
 * Naleksuh proceeds to oppose the proposal.
 * Naleksuh proceeds to revert the closure by Dmehus, explaining that the close is factually incorrect.
 * Having read the original comment, and looking at the RfC history, I do agree that the close is factually incorrect. The removal of Proposal 1 should have been discussed originally, by Naleksuh, but the immediate re-addition of it in the act of open an RfC would be correct grounds to request potentially moving it back to the draft status, therefore I disagree with Doug that this is an incorrect claim and worthy of closing the thread immediately.
 * Block is placed by RhinosF1 following discussion with "4" other admins.
 * This is a two-fold problem, 1) Rhinos is heavily involved for me, as he cites the CoC as a reason for his block, I question whether "Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling)." can be construed here as the block seems to be placed to prevent Naleksuh engaging in a community discussion, rather than focusing on allowing it to occur for the wider community. 2) Why did no other admin decide to place the block before? Either based on their own ideas, or as a result of this discussion(s) that took place?
 * Naleksuh in response to the block, identifies that they are actively involved and have been involved in numerous disputes [both on Miraheze and off.]
 * Agent explains that the block being agreed by numerous administrators makes it valid., [ Similar by Dmehus, and Reception123]
 * A comment by Reception123 providing a little insight on why the block was deemed necessary by the group of administrators.
 * This is interesting actually and forms the basis of why I am going to conclude with an unblock of Naleksuh. There is some examples of where Naleksuh has made reverts with comments in edit summaries, however, they have actually discussed all of them in the body of comments posted on both AN and the RfC. Therefore, I do not agree past behaviour is evidenced here and therefore I do not agree this block is preventative in these circumstances.
 * Comments by Naleksuh back up by above note.
 * A comment saying let's not be too bureaucratic, makes a request of Naleksuh to be overly bureaucratic by requesting him ask another administrator if he can continue to discuss something closed early without any opportunity of discussion to take place initially.
 * For the record, I review this, and I agree the closure was wrong - so I will be re-opening the discussion to allow the discussion to occur.
 * This revert, is concerning from Naleksuh. At this point, I would have issued a final warning before blocking.
 * MacFan reverts Naleksuh's closure of the discussion on his own talk page.
 * As much as I would like to ignore this, this is actually the root of the problem. We keep saying in this incident "You can't revert a closure without asking the person who closed it if you can revert it", but here we have an administrator doing exactly the thing that Naleksuh got blocked for - this makes the grounds for the block extremely thin to me and untenable.
 * Dmehus protects the talk page to sysops only.
 * This is where things continue to not sit right. At this point, I would have blocked Naleksuh. But why are we using protection to gain an advantage in an editing dispute, rather than use of blocks in a preventative manner? This to me, is the final nail in the coffin that this block was punitive and not preventative.


 * Comments and Summary
 * The block is clearly punitive and not preventative. I have commented on this point throughout the timeline and feel it is evidenced appropriately. During my review, Dmehus has reverted the block. I hope this message will go across to the other administrators who supported the block and they review it as well to reconsider if it was appropriate in the first place.
 * There is clearly an on-going history between Naleksuh and RhinosF1. As an administrator, I feel it is appropriate to put a message across to Naleksuh that they should not interact with RhinosF1 in any way where possible - except in the course of community discussions where they should retain neutrality and keep points factual. If this is not accepted by Naleksuh, or he breaches it once agreed - he should be blocked for a period of 1 week initially, then a doubling period after that for any subsequent breaches.
 * Given it is unfair to only place a sanction on Naleksuh, given the continued evidence that RhinosF1 is bordering on a breach of the CoC and administrator neutrality - I am making a similar recommendation in my capacity as a bureaucrat. RhinosF1 should refrain from engaging with Naleksuh in any way where possible - except in the course of community discussions where they should retain neutrality and keep points factual. This extends to their use of sysop tools against Naleksuh unless they can clearly justify on wiki why the action was an emergency at that time. They should also not proxy other administrators or users to make administrative actions against Naleksuh. If this is not accepted by RhinosF1, or he breaches it once agreed - he should be blocked for a period of 1 week initially, then a doubling period after that for any subsequent breaches.
 * This is a semi interaction ban to support stability and health of the community - if users disagree, they should immediately seek a community discussion and abide by the interaction ban in the meantime.

and can you both please accept/reject (and open the appropriate discussion if rejecting) the proposed interaction ban so it can be recorded that will is in place and fully agreed to. Thank you, John (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge this request and will review shortly. It looks like only comments from myself and one other user are being asked for so this should be simple enough. Naleksuh (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Having discussed this matter with John and come in to see the mess just as it entered review stage, I am in full support of both the assessment and summary. --Raidarr (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read all of the timeline and I agree with it. Specifically, that the thread was valid and was prematurely closed. In my view, closes of threads should be completely uncontroversial especially when closed minutes after they are made, and that requesting reopening is wrong, or as John puts it, "overly bureaucratic".
 * Yes, I also agree that there was some misuse of reverts by MacFan4000, however I note that John refers to "an administrator" (or as I say sysop)-- MacFan4000 is not a Meta sysop.
 * There was also use of blocking to prevent discussion on issues, and false comments (like claiming I was assuming bad faith when I was not).
 * Yes, RhinosF1 has repeatedly unwantedly contacted me several times, including both the placing of this block and after being reminded not to post on my talk page, decided to revert an edit there.
 * Given all of this, I support the two-way interaction-ban, but without exceptions on community discussions and support a full two-way ban, and agree to the sanctions on enforcement. I also look forward to it being enforced on both ends instead of only on me.
 * I'm also going to ask that we remove the "Edit warring" and "May 2022" sections from the talk page, not only because of the ongoing, non-retroactive discussion on removing sysop threads, but because of the conclusion that edit warring has not taken place and that RhinosF1 is subject to an interaction-ban, and therefore should not have messages on my talk page, especially not those made with an attempted sysop capacity. Naleksuh (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not support removal of the prior "Edit warring" warning, as that is unrelated to this specific incident. As to the May 2022 warning, I would also not favour outright removal and would favour archival (in some form), given recent events, but will defer to the community here. Dmehus (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit warring thread is related, because it is a matter of whether or not edits in your own user space constitute edit warring. Currently they do not, but even if proposal 4 was successful, it would not be far to apply that retroactively. Also, in this thread John points out how MacFan4000 was allowed to revert a close but I was not-- the same thing goes for removing warnings, and for the same user. MacFan4000 removed a warning for abusing rollback on their talk page, and I didn't reinstate it because I believe users should be allowed to remove warnings. As for archiving "in some form", they can be archived to the page history. I do not use traditional archive subpages and do not have an intent on starting. Naleksuh (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, this is simply not accurate. If that were true, one could vandalize or spam their own user talk page with impunity and without regard to edit warring. Dmehus (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored your thread at User talk:MacFan4000. That being said, I also feel that you should not be giving messages that may be construed as warnings without the requisite permissions to revoke the  permission. Rather, you should have opened a thread at Administrators' noticeboard if you felt it was inappropriate. As to your comment about messages being available in the page history, that is easily lost, due to Miraheze not having added tools that allow for easily searching, by keyword, edit summaries. That is the impetus behind the current Meta convention, that recent warnings should be archived, but not removed. Note that you can use the permalink-diff method, which you yourself even ✅ to use. Dmehus (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that comparison is accurate. The warning issued to you was by an administrator while the warning issued by you was not and was based on a misunderstanding that the “Usage” section on Rollbackers was policy. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am giving you permission to archive both threads to your talk page history. May 2022 as shown above isn’t relevant anymore. With regards to the edit warring one, convention isn’t policy and until it’s written in policy, I personally don’t see an issue with archiving this way. At this point, with how much it’s been discussed and rehashed, the warning is pretty much imprinted on every administrators head here, so I wouldn’t say the argument of ‘it’s hiding it from others’ is valid as pretty much everyone has seen it by now. John (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that is appropriate here, given that Naleksuh has already previously agreed to use the permalink-diff archive method, but perhaps equally importantly, there was already a general consensus by participants in that discussion that they favoured archiving in that case, with raidarr noting he "strongly agreed" with that solution, and other users including Reception123, Agent Isai, and DeeM28 noting similarly favourable results. It's worth noting that not every administrator action needs to be grounded in policy, so long as it is consistently applied and, ideally, documented in a Administrators handbook. Where there's a dispute as to an administrator devised rule, or convention, that can, and should, be opened up for community discussion. Dmehus (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that at all. It's been archived to the page history, where you can find it any time you like. There's no need for anything more than that, nor is there a need to do anything differently. It would not make sense to revoke the right to OWNTALK for one user only based on feelings of certain sysops and not based on policy, this turns Miraheze into a dictatorship. Thank you, John, for the permission to remove those threads, I have done so now and they should not be restored. Naleksuh (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Many things have been already said here but I wish to enter my opinion that I do not agree with the assertion that "convention isn’t policy and until it’s written in policy". Meta is a project with very little written rules and functions by a sort of common law system where the rules are made by convention and are often not written except in some rare circumstances. If a convention is the subject of controversy or unclear it should be subjected to a vote (and that is exactly what I have done) but I do not see any valid reason for why conventions should simply be ignored unless written and I think that creates a dangerous precedent. I disagree with Naleksuh being allowed to remove the thread and think it is ignoring the rule that has been applied before and also the current support of the rule which is taking place at the RfC. To qualify my opinion I believe that this small matter has become very contentious and I would accept this particular warning being put aside for the reasons given by John. That being said in the future (and especially if the RfC is successful) it would be unacceptable to not respect this rule. DeeM28 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

== Seeking permanent, and updated, community consensus for the "Edit warring" thread at User talk:Naleksuh per this thread ==

In this thread at Administrators' noticeboard, a significant majority of the participants either explicitly or implicitly agreed that my compromise solution to the "Edit warring" thread at User talk:Naleksuh was a good one, with some, including Raidarr and Agent Isai, noting they strongly supported it. John had been unaware of that thread, when authorizing Naleksuh to remove the thread, so in my discussions with him on IRC, he encouraged me to advise Naleksuh to move forward with that outcome, and to warn Naleksuh if he did not. As Naleksuh already reverted the thread, I told John that I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to arbitrarily remove the thread a further time.

As such, I'm seeking updated guidance from the community on their preferred outcome here:

-- Dmehus (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Archive thread using one of the methods w:simple:Help:Archiving a talk page
Rationale: Miraheze's infrastructure does not support the web-based tools that Wikimedia users, which means edit summary searches are not available. Given the pattern exhibited, it holds that the diffs should be readily accessible

The page would then be eligible for removal automatically after approximately 3-6 months with zero continuation of the behaviour, or upon seeking further consensus (if earlier).

Support

 * 1) Completely responsible methods of archiving a page which would both allow for easy searching in order to cite something at a later date. I would also partially concur with Nale in that this should also be extended to all user talk pages but that's a matter for another day via an RfC.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a matter for another day. Especially if that other day were to never occur. This RfC seeks to ignore the rules of OWNTALK and mandate archiving just for one talk page. Also, did you call me Nale specifically because I asked someone else not to? Is this some deliberate attempt at going around that? Naleksuh (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With regard to your latter point, we have, on occasion, been a bit inconsistent in enforcing this practice, so this is something I personally definitely aim to improve upon. Dmehus (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  per my numerous previous comments. The result of this whole argument shouldn't be to simply allow the warning to disappear from the talk page. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 04:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above and per my rationale as the proposer. I don't think it's appropriate in this case to simply allow the warning to disappear into complete obscurity, due, primarily, to the lack of availability of edit summary search tools on Miraheze when a substantial majority of participants in the March 2022 March administrators' noticeboard discussion endorsed the proposed compromise solution. As well, Naleksuh even supported it himself, so the unexplained about-face is curious. As to the incident from today, I do prefer archiving as well, but am less concerned with this one and would be okay with that not being restored and archived my comments elsewhere. Dmehus (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I "supported" (not really) proposal 2, which says archives can be added via links to Special:PageHistory, as is currently being done here. Don't claim I supported things that I didn't. Naleksuh (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Nothing bad about this one. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) There is no need to mandate archiving, especially not just over all talk pages but for this one thread only. I don't even think this is something that one RfC can do. Either there should be consensus for the way ALL talk pages are, or none at all (I'd lean towards the latter, but either is better than enforcing this on one talk page only). There's also no need advanced for this, as explained by John: At this point, with how much it’s been discussed and rehashed, the warning is pretty much imprinted on every administrators head here Naleksuh (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) If this was a general Miraheze wide proposal, I’d consider supporting, but I can’t support the community directly targeting and enforcing an archive method on one specific users talk page against their will, when that’s not against Miraheze’s policy. I feel we are spending an absurd amount of time trying to enforce a standard on one specific user which is draconian and borderline becoming harassment. There is also an ongoing RfC seeking to address this going forward - I advise we leave the past in the past and move forward, rather than seeking constantly bring up the past. It hasn’t worked so far and has only escalated this entire situation unnecessarily, it is counter productive to the health of Miraheze and achieves nothing. John (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  As indicated by my comments above I think it is time to leave this particular instance behind us which as John mentions has taken up so much time. Even if I completely disagree with its ultimate removal I do not think we must spending time on this specific instance and think we should focus on approving the the general proposal to prevent these situations from reoccurring by prohibiting this behavior in the future. --DeeM28 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) An unwritten convention does not constitute policy. Furthermore, there should be few, if any, unwritten rules/conventions whose violation may result in administrative sanctions. In fact, I dare say there should be none. Indeed, there is precedence that nobody&mdash;not administrators, not stewards, and not even the community itself&mdash;should act in absence of policy, and that the establishment of any such policy does not allow for that policy to be retroactively applied to past events. --  Void  Whispers 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Add a permanent link to the top of User talk:Naleksuh indicating something to the effect of "Archive"
Rationale: Miraheze's infrastructure does not support the web-based tools that Wikimedia users, which means edit summary searches are not available. Given the pattern exhibited, it holds that the diffs should be readily accessible

The page would then be eligible for removal automatically after approximately 3-6 months with zero continuation of the behaviour, or upon seeking further consensus (if earlier).

Support

 * 1) only if proposal 1 fails. I would prefer proposal 1's methods which also allow for creating subpages but this would work fine too.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Conditional, if Proposal 1 fails. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 04:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  as a solid second choice to Proposal 1. Dmehus (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  per above. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Per above Naleksuh (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) If this was a general Miraheze wide proposal, I’d consider supporting, but I can’t support the community directly targeting and enforcing an archive method on one specific users talk page against their will, when that’s not against Miraheze’s policy. I feel we are spending an absurd amount of time trying to enforce a standard on one specific user which is draconian and borderline becoming harassment. There is also an ongoing RfC seeking to address this going forward - I advise we leave the past in the past and move forward, rather than seeking constantly bring up the past. It hasn’t worked so far and has only escalated this entire situation unnecessarily, it is counter productive to the health of Miraheze and achieves nothing. John (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Actually, we do enforce this on many users, as evidenced by Meta administrators' and patrollers' contributions to  namespace. As I said above, we have all been somewhat inconsistent in not applying it fairly in all cases, and that's something I personally aim to correct, and assume others plan to do the same. Dmehus (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is enforced and backed up, why isn’t it policy and why are we discussing whether we should do it on one user specifically? John (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So lets do the correction now and make it a matter of standard practice and not an individual's RfC, which is simultaneously unusually strong to do on one person and among the weakest options right now to set platform precedence. --Raidarr (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In reply to the question of why it is not policy I point out that it is difficult to have a written policy for everything that is done and that Meta has at least for the short time I have been here functioned with unwritten rules and conventions that are generally not seen as not contentious. DeeM28 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per John; a community-maintained archive, seemingly only for Nale very much seems to be targeted. As such, I . -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  John has a point here, I'm afraid. What kind of sense would that make anyway? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) An unwritten convention does not constitute policy. Furthermore, there should be few, if any, unwritten rules/conventions whose violation may result in administrative sanctions. In fact, I dare say there should be none. Indeed, there is precedence that nobody&mdash;not administrators, not stewards, and not even the community itself&mdash;should act in absence of policy, and that the establishment of any such policy does not allow for that policy to be retroactively applied to past events. --  Void  Whispers 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Create a community-maintained archive page in namespace
Rationale: Miraheze's infrastructure does not support the web-based tools that Wikimedia users, which means edit summary searches are not available. Given the pattern exhibited, it holds that the diffs should be readily accessible

The page would then be eligible for deletion automatically after approximately 3-6 months with zero continuation of the behaviour, or upon seeking further consensus (if earlier).

Support

 * 1) I'm in support of this out of all presented options. If we have formal warnings yet respect user's liberties over their talk pages, then the local administration should maintain an archive somewhere for its reference and I would like to respect user liberties as far as intermittently clearing their page and not having to have formal 'you've been a bad boy' messages stick, or to mandate a particular way of how talk page management should be done be it automatic archiving or leaving it to page history. However, if we do have these formal warnings we need to take them a step further - as they can be formally given, they should be able to be formally appealed, and thus struck or invalidated from the record or made a matter of at least partial (admin/community) consensus especially if the user strongly disagrees with the warning. Without that second aspect, this along with above options will present an incomplete system. Along with this the voting process is hyper-specific - what is set into place should be a matter of precedence for how Meta administration works, consistently applied to future cases. If anything this matter could have/should have been resolved/addressed by proxy of the broader Meta RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I could consider supporting this. But one question arises. How would you determine which are valid and which are invalid? People said my warning towards MacFan4000 was invalid because "oh, how you can and can't use rollback is only a guideline and not a policy so you can just rollback whatever you want", yet claimed Reception123's warning was valid just because they were a sysop, even though the claims made not only were not policy nor guideline, but directly went against them. How can we determine which warnings are valid and which are not, and do so in an unbiased and fair way via the merits of the text and not the poster's usergroups? Naleksuh (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Validity in my book comes from having a challenge system, be it a few admins as reviewers (in the same way a block is reviewed) and/or community input if the warning was improper, and the result of that stands as a block would. Needless to say there were an awful lot of procedural errors today that we're going to have to work on for the consensus of admins to be of reassurance and the process should be at the very least publicly visible. --Raidarr (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Conditional, only if Proposal 1 fails. I feel it's much simpler to have user-archival than this method. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 04:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  as a solid third choice should Proposals 1 and 2 fail. Dmehus (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Hmmmm, I think this proposal here is trying WAY too hard to sound like Wikimedia, but meh. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) This sounds like a page ONLY for Naleksuh, not a general system? If this is the case, it’s wholly inappropriate and would require justification why this entire process is being carried out for one user and not every user otherwise it wouldn’t be hard to argue given the history, it can be construed easily as harassment? John (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per above -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  In accordance with my vote in the first proposal I believe that this issue has become too big for what it really is and that this proposal is much too bureaucratic and unnecessary. I understand that some users have supported due to their frustrations with Naleksuh refusing to follow rules and administrator indications but nonetheless I do not think that this is an sound way to move forward. --DeeM28 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) In addition to the comments I have made above, I believe this proposal would be a misuse of the project space to shame a single user who has acted outside a policy that does not exist yet. I would not be opposed to a discussion on improving the system overall (such as having something like WP:EDR), but it is inappropriate to do so in this context. --  Void  Whispers 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite the issues with Naleksuh as of recent, I've been constantly seeing pointless quarrels between him and RhinosF1, amongst other users he's been getting into arguments with, I wouldn't oppose a gentle reminder firsthand would be feasible. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  Sounds a bit too burdensome to maintain.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea here was to create a single purpose page outside of Naleksuh's own userspace/user talk namespace, but I personally wouldn't be opposed to some sort of centralized archive page for tracking these sort of warnings. Perhaps Void-bot could even be engaged to provide for maintaining a Meta administrator warnings log. Dmehus (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Don't feel strongly about this one. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Counter proposal: current situation
Should this proposal pass explicitly by direct support, or implicitly by Proposals 1-3 failing, the previous consensus is modified, and Naleksuh's current removal of the thread stands; however, any community member may, in their discretion, archive the thread as a subpage of their own userspace, in any manner they wish.

Support

 * 1) I'm not sure that RfCs can even do things like proposing adding text to my talk page (instead, it would be part of a wider process). Either way, it's clear that there is no real problem with the way things are now, and that this RfC is not just a solution looking for a problem, but a way to take away OWNTALK access, and do so selectively (not just implicitly, but by spirit and letter). I see no convincing case for things like restoring threads or requiring boxes (though, the box solution is currently done at Project talk:Twinkle, arguably archives are better there). Naleksuh (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of whether RfCs can add text to a talk page even if I would not want that to be a precedent I think the absolutist view would have to be taken that if it is the will of the community it must be done. I additionally note that if the Request for Comment that I have proposed is successful "OWNTALK" will not be in effect in any case. DeeM28 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * if the Request for Comment that I have proposed is successful "OWNTALK" will not be in effect in any case No, if it is successful a users own talk page will not be an exemption to the edit warring policy, it won't change anything else about OWNTALK. Naleksuh (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Between the fact that I simply don't care (and see absolutely no reason for anybody to care really) about what one user does with their own talk page and that diffs are publicly accessible, I find absolutely no cause to resist the license to organize a user talk page however the corresponding user wishes. I think the ultimate vice for Meta has been the sense of need that it be based on Wikipedia, when the fact is that it will never be Wikipedia. This is the general rundown as I see it:
 * 2) Page edits have permanent IDs, and any user can find/view diffs as they desire. There is no compelling reason to require that they be "easily accessible". The warnings are permanently available until such a time that an administrator may hide the particular revision—another administrator action, usually with consultation among peers.
 * 3) It has become evident that user talk pages are not always the most appropriate avenue for these types of discussions. Administration and other Meta participants should utilize common forums/discussion spaces as a neutral space when or before discussions and parties get out of hand, as they have in this case.
 * 4) Meta administration have failed to lead the community in establishing conventions specific to Meta (I am aware of the current RfC), leading to conflicts in ideals, differing perceptions, and inappropriate exercise of power.
 * Overall, this reads like a case of poor decision making from administrators, and inflated ego from all sides. I don't believe a single wrong was admitted through this entire event. It would do everybody some good to collaborate on what went wrong, trying to reach a resolution instead of incessant bickering. dross  (t • c • g) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  per my arguments in proposals 1-3. Dmehus (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Procedurally, I think it is inappropriate to have a proposal that encourages others to archive a discussion from one talk page into their own user space. While any user can do such things (I suppose, unless we create policy to the contrary), the proper status quo is simply that the threads are permitted to be removed and the convention for forcibly retaining warnings is not to be enforced unless established policy. --  Void  Whispers 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see such policy exist for this wikifarm, but I don't suppose we all have some backwork left to tidy up (y'know, tightening any loose ends that we may have at the moment). --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  Naleksuh annoys not only me, but multiple users down the line. I think Nale should probably take some time off of Miraheze to cool down. What I wrote on one of the above threads should be self-explanatory. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How many times have I asked you not to call me Nale? It's ironic that you say I am annoying you yet you do these behaviors that annoy me. Naleksuh (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You actually never told me to not call you that at all. And way to use that ironic comeback against me, given the exact aggression in your response to me. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, well, please stop then. Naleksuh (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well then. I suppose there's no reason for me to continue this silly feud. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While being offended by 'Nale' as a common and intuitive shorthand sounds patiently like an overreaction, this voting process does not need to be inundated with personal references about how particular users annoy each other and voting reasons should pertain to the actual topic as well as the precedence that this vote will be setting as a matter of hard convention/policy. --Raidarr (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For some history, people have been calling me that on other websites since 2017 and it's annoyed me every time, I have tried politely asking people to stop, have tried asking less politely, never stops. Some people even call me that specifically because I have asked people not to. And now the whole thing just gets on my nerves completely. If you are not familiar with the history it may seem like an overreaction but in truth it is not; I am simply a person who has had enough. Naleksuh (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware other users, on other wikis, called you 'Nale'. I thought it was a recent Miraheze creation. I personally don't have a problem with users assigning me nicknames. I think it's generally a term of endearment in many respects. That being said, there is one nickname I personally don't like, which I won't repeat here, so if this is the one nickname you personally strongly object to, I think it's reasonable for users to respect that wish. Dmehus (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence the reason why I stopped. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for block
A user called User:This running in hallway identifier! Funny identifier! Keep laughing! is vandalizing by creating project pages with some nonsense content. Please block this user accordingly. --Matttest (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Matttest (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)