Requests for Comment/Community imposed ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing with proposal 1 passing. I will lock the global account and LP should contact staffmiraheze.org for any content dumps of wikis before they are deleted. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 16:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Reasoning for this request

This user, who has gone by several different names across all of Miraheze, has been under the scrutiny of several staff members and normal users over the past 1-2 months. If you've commented on a recent Requests for Comment you're probably aware of the user, at least in the vaguest of senses.

Some information:

• Their global account information indicates they have 219 edits on this wiki as of writing, nearly 200 edits on their own wiki about the elements of the periodic table, 5 edits on a test wiki made for their own username, 5 edits on mine and User:Reception123's test wiki, and 1 edit or less on all other edits where their local account exists.
• They are indefinitely blocked on Mine and Reception's test wiki for failure to follow the few local policies we have, including actions like undoing a block designated as a CheckUser block where the user had no knowledge of the circumstances regarding the block and 'couldn't see contribs;' unblocked a locked account where this may not have made much difference, if the target is ever unlocked they should remain blocked on testwiki; and then blocked me, the founder of the site, for 'being annoying'
• This user likes to repeatedly block various miraheze users and staff from their wiki, then reduce the block duration or remove the block completely with indications that they are 'being nice' by doing this
  • Although this is allowed by global and local policy, it seems rude and disrespectful to the users blocked, especially because it essentially does nothing. Most of the blocked users have 0 contributions there, so blocking them isn't really doing anything besides adding to an ongoing dispute
• The user also likes to delete things a lot
  • Again, allowed by global and local policy, but I have serious concerns about them requesting access to advanced tools that would give them access to private information, where the only thing they might do with it is just suppress 'accidental edits' instead of normal deletion, or even more standard, keeping them there.
• The user has started two different requests for comment in a very close policy on what is arguably the same matter
  • Additionally the user created a third similar but more unique request regarding global user groups.
  • All three of these RfCs came after a personal request for CheckUser on that wiki was denied
  • The Stewards policy, which is a community approved global policy regarding the scope of responsibility of Stewards, says that these rights may be delegated to other users "if a need arises", yet no user (LP or otherwise) has demonstrated to a Steward that the Steward body is incapable of handling these requests in a timely manner.
• The user has repeatedly tried to have Miraheze install extensions that 1) bypass our security model 2) allow said user to break global user accounts.
  • Not going to find links/diffs for all of these, but there's several (closed) phabricator tasks on the matter.
• The user has used our issue tracker to create personal events, and then hid those events from Phabricator admins
• This is, obviously, my opinion but the user seems to think that they are always right and that they should have full control. Examples include saying things like 'granting access to oversight doesn't violate the privacy policy!' (don't remember the diff, pls edit in) when it infact does. Oversight/suppression is the highest level of on-wiki deletion, and up until now (testwiki being an exception) it has only been used to hide personal information. They also disregard most things regarding security concerns in extensions or policies, and continuously argue for similar things anyways
• The user has repeatedly modified comments by other users, sometimes entirely removing opposing comments.
• The user has a suspicious background, such as using User:AmandaNP's name as "her sister's," using the User:DeltaQuad account name, who holds elevated rights on the English Wikipedia, and sharing an IP address with someone indefinitely blocked on enwp for long term abuse
• The user has also used their elevated wiki creator permissions to 'close' and reopen their wiki at their own convenience, when this does things besides prevent editing, and an extension that protects all pages was installed at their request
• See the global lock log of 8 Dec - 9 Dec for locked accounts controlled by LP.

Proposal 1

• Lawrence-Prairies is to be globally locked, along with any other accounts (such as the one she created while logged in even though their other accounts were locked and their IP is globally blocked (anon only).
• Their Phabricator account may be disabled now or any time in the future, completely at the discretion of system administrators. If disabled, all tasks assigned to them shall be orphaned
• Their GitHub account will not be blocked immediately, but will be blocked at the first sign of abuse or disruption (up to system administrator discretion)
• Their IP address should be globally hardblocked

Comments

• The only downside to this I see is losing a wiki creator. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• For the record, a matter that was suppressed criticism by this person. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• If this proposal should pass (which it better not), Elements Wiki should be deleted entirely. Otherwise, it should just remain closed. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 00:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• So far this is the only proposal that got votes in the affirmative. And there haven't been been any comments in support of L-P other than from L-P themselves. Since they have decided to move on to another wiki farm, I doubt that anyone else will speak in favor. If you are considering opposing a ban, please comment now!
  Despite their leaving, I would like to move forward with this RFC anyway. The question is not mooted, because User:Lawrence-Prairies has a history of working under different user names, and will probably return to haunt us under a different name in the future. So I still believe that we should act. So would any stewards care to comment about when this RFC could be have enough time or support to be implemented? --Labster (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

•  Strong support as proposer -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strongest support This user has a tendency to propose solutions to problems that don't exist for >99% of users; takes up 80% of staff time on just themselves (even when I'm not involved); routinely bans Miraheze staff from their own wikis (who have never edited) while asking for elevated privileges; is suspected of being a serial abuser on English Wikipedia, and pretends to be other users from that wiki; thinks that being allowed to do something implies its righteousness; and generally like totally bites. --Labster (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I was, for a while, somewhat involved with Miraheze and the community. I of course don't want to be seen as `barging back in` by voting on an important RfC nor do I want to give the impression that I am voting entirely due to my involvement on Wikimedia projects - I am casting this vote as someone who cares deeply about the community you have built, and as someone who would rather not see it go to waste. There is strong technical and behavioural evidence to suggest Lawrence-Prairies (AKA DeltaQuad) is a long term abuse case on Wikimedia projects, and this is behaviour could very easily transfer over to Miraheze -- Samtar ^{talk to me} 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong support - Initially I was inclined to give DQ/LP/whatever the benefit of the doubt, not having been personally impacted by any of their actions, but I have been examining the various histories, and I find little to be neutral about here. In particular, their habit of editing/deleting opposing comments offends me greatly -- in the last few months I've had to deal with a serial ban-evader on ATT who made a concerted effort to erase evidence of his earlier bans, and one of the lesser reasons I left the TV Tropes wiki was the administration's habit of stalinizing criticism and disagreement out of existence. By itself the attempt to counterfeit greater support for their actions than actually exists would alone garner my vote for a global lock, but add to it all the other dubious shenanigans -- I do not feel that DQ/LP really has anything to offer the Miraheze community other than potential damage and headaches. -- Looney Toons ( Talk ) 13:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Same as LT's reasoning. GethN7 (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong support For the reasons already stated by Samtar, Labster, and Looney Toons. Also: Back in the days when Usenet was a viable option for text-only discussion, the behaviour that Lawrence-Prairies exhibits here would have earned him or her identification as a troll and entries in users' killfiles. The alleged use by LP of the AmandaNP account, if verified, shows a willingness by LP to take actions that bypass bans. This user is a disruptive influence. By his or her own actions, (s)he has earned a permaban from the wiki farm. (As for the wiki that this user asked to have created: If a wiki "belongs to" anyone, it belongs to the editors as a group, not to the wiki founder. I have not been able to read the wiki, so I do not know whether it could be administered by any of the wiki's other editors. This option should be investigated before the wiki is deleted.) --Robkelk (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Strong oppose This is absolutely ridiculous!! --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 13:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Their currently unlocked global accounts and all external accounts shall not be locked/blocked/disabled, but the user agrees to acknowledge this ban and not edit any sites on Miraheze unless they have been given express permission to perform said edits.

Comments

• @NDKilla: does "not edit any sites on Miraheze" include my own wiki? --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 02:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lawrence-Prairies: I forgot I was going to mention all your wikis being closed in either proposal, but I guess I'll let other users comment on that. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Abstain This is better than proposal 1, but still a ban altogether is ridiculous. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 13:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose Hate to say it, but opposing this in favor of above, or support if this proposal would pass and the above would fail. As the user who unlocked the DeltaQuad (at the time) account, I'm sad to say I'm just really tired of dealing with this. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3

I am going to create a target-generated proposal that I think is a fair compromise:

• None of my current unlocked accounts will be globally locked, same goes for my IP addresses..
• I will remain only active on my wiki. That means I will no longer be involved in global matters at all, and I only will be involved at Phabricator/GitHub for helping other users (not making any requests of my own).
• All of my activity will be limited to Elements Wiki. No contribs on Meta whatsoever except for wiki creations.
• No staff members will be blocked/banned on Elements Wiki unless they blatantly and intentionally violate local polices.
• I will remain active on IRC - there's nothing Miraheze can do to prevent me from using that.

Comments

• To be honest, I would use another site if I could, but there aren't any other good hosts out there. After extensive research, this is what it comes down to:
  • Many sites, such as WikiFree, WikiHub and MW-Zip are dead and no longer go anywhere
  • ShoutWiki and Wikia are both spammed with ads. ShoutWiki charges you $5.50 to get rid of them, and Wikia has no removal option at all.
  • Both ShoutWiki and Wikia give even less founder control than Miraheze
  • EditThis.info is completely founder controlled, ad-free and cost free, but it is running an ancient version of MediaWiki and all request to upgrade have been ignored by the sysadmins, with no response in over 2 months.
  • Referata is founder controlled, semi-updated, ad-free and cost free. However, their feature requests forum has been heavily abandoned.
  • MyWikis charges you $8.00/month to do anything, and $35.00/month to have a fully managed wiki.
• I don't know if any of you have looked at my GitHub repository. While it is still a work in progress, it contains a sample of the configuration that I would like my personal wiki to have.
• Who the hell cares about English Wikipedia? Any ties to any Wikimedia Foundation project should not influence my life on Miraheze. I don't even know why this is an issue - I honestly did come up with DQ before knowing about the Wikipedia one.

• I don't intend to vote, but I had to bring up that what your saying is a blatant lie. I blocked your IP over a year ago, and you suppressed my dissent (and explanation of harassment) because you didn't agree. Sure enough though, you'll find some way to delete this comment too. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just commenting for now, I won't tolerate anyone deleting others' comments on this page, even if I tried to leave his behavior as is elsewhere. — revi 14:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: So would people be okay if I did not make any contribs on Meta except for wiki creations, did not join IRC anymore, and did not make any contribs at Phabricator nor GitHub? Basically, wiki creations would be the only contribs outside of my personal wiki. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 15:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope - but that's just me -- Samtar ^{talk to me} 15:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samtar: Why? If I was restricted only to my wiki, the issues with global policies/interactions with staff would no longer be issues. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 15:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But the issues with your previous behaviour wouldn't be addressed, the fact you've impersonated people wouldn't be addressed and the fact you've lied to/manipulated people wouldn't be addressed. Do you not see that the only way you remaining on this project is even going to be considered is if you come clean? I don't have the time or energy to continue this discussion, it's clear, you know what you did, and I think the community here is switching on to the fact that you being globally locked will result in nothing but positives -- Samtar ^{talk to me} 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't impersonate anybody. Just because I share an IP with a Wikipedia vandal doesn't mean that I am that vandal. The fact that my sister and EN Wikipedia DQ share the same real name, and the fact that us three all live in Canada, are mere coincidences. Amanda isn't that uncommon of a name, to be honest. As I personally am not the vandal from Wikipedia, I did come up with the DQ name myself. When @Reception123: mentioned to me that there was someone on Wikipedia with the same name, I clarified then that we were different people. That should've been the end of that issue. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email)

@Lawrence-Prairies: And there is yet another lie...You don't live in Canada according to YOUR own admitted IP address and the other one you edit off of. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you don't realize what I have on my Internet router in terms of security and privacy. I have the advanced settings configured so that a whatismyip.com lookup will return the incorrect information on purpose. I don't want people knowing where I live unless I've told them. At one point, I had the IP located in Budapest, at another, I had it located in Wichita, and at antother, I think I had it somewhere in England. It's called protecting user privacy on the Internet. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 13:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That's something that us Checkusers would call a proxy or a VPN. I use them myself directly. I also went to school for computer networking. The problem is your location that shows on whatismyipaddress.com stays static, it doesn't change. If your location changes, then your IP is changing too. Your IP doesn't change. That, and you use a home and school (as you claim) connection with two different IPs in the same city, which tells me it's not a VPN or proxy. Also very very rarely will someone use their router settings to employ a proxy, and would require advanced knowledge to do so. If you can tell me what a hostmask, a default gateway, and a DNS server are correctly as those are pieces of information you would need to do that, then i'll believe you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Real!Amanda, please don't give fake!Amanda any ideas, or pretty soon they'll be IPv6 tunneling through our firewalls straight into Miraheze's token ring. --Labster (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Anyone part of the Miraheze staff team has operator privileges in the IRC channel, which allows them to kick(ban) you from the channel. If one of the operators disagrees (while others may agree), we must discuss the ban, but it is definitely possible for Miraheze to prevent you from joining the channel. Southparkfan (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

 Strong support Of course. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 12:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support No longer a strong support per the addition of proposal 4 below. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 20:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Strong oppose of course. If the community decides they don't want you on IRC, I can assure you there are ways of preventing you joining the channels. "Who the hell cares about English Wikipedia?" - I think it's apparent that we should definitely care about someone's behaviour elsewhere given how disruptive it was -- Samtar ^{talk to me} 14:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 4

A second target-generated proposal:

• My account will not be globally locked. However, it will be blocked locally on Meta for 3 months, and my IP addresses will be globally hardblocked for 3 months.
• Elements Wiki will be closed, but not deleted.
• I will stay off of all Miraheze sites, IRC, Phabricator, and GitHub for 3 months.
• After 3 months, I will come back to Miraheze, but also follow proposal 3 above (no contribs except on my wiki).

Comments

What is going on here? I have been away from Meta for a few days and everything seems to be getting out of hand. I don't comment/vote very often (I'm usually busy working on my wiki) but I have to comment on what's happening here as there seems to be a lynching going on. I'm going to make it clear from the onset that I don't agree with most of the things LP/DG wants to have implemented, and yes, there is evidence that provides insight to the questionable actions/behaviours of aforementioned user, however, what's going on here is not what Miraheze is about.

Firstly, @Lawrence-Prairies:, you should understand that Miraheze cannot operate the way you would like it to. It just won't happen and in reality you know why, so to makes thing better for yourself, don't keep trying to change things that, at least for the foreseeable future, will not be changed.

Secondly, whilst it has been brought to the community's attention that LP has done some unacceptable actions, that shouldn't be a basis for repetitive character attacks readily available across a multitude of pages. I agree with the whole approach to RfC's so long as they are managed in a diplomatic way all of the time. Much of the negativity in what has been covered should have been dealt with privately. Newcomers to Miraheze reading these pages must be wondering what is going on between the staff and its users.

Thirdly, Miraheze is first-rate, pure and simple. What it offers is far better than its competitors and most issues can/are resolved in a timely manner. Stewards and System Administrators have their hands full keeping things running smoothly and yet most of us probably take all their efforts for granted. And further more, financially, it costs you nothing for the privilege so, really, as a community all we have do is work on our projects and just get along with each other, is that really so difficult.

If a user becomes problematic for whatever reason then certainly take action. What action is taken is ultimately dependant on the severity of the issues but what makes a good community great is how the situation is handled and that should always be professionally. After all, everything is being recorded here for all to see and the picture it paints is not positive. I believe a resolution should be dealt with between LP and the five top staff members @John, Reception123, NDKilla, Southparkfan, and Labster: via private messages as soon as possible and let's all move on. Parts of Proposal 4 is not outside the realms of possibility. If LP is offering to work on her own wiki and not interfere elsewhere (and subsequently with no extended user rights), this surely must be a decent compromise. If, after three months, there are still problems then address these then in a suitable and diplomatic manner befitting of Miraheze and what it stands for. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Borderman: THANK YOU for (more or less) supporting me. My only issue with this is that you can't discuss anything in private messages with NDKilla nor Labster, at least not at the moment. Both are horribly against me and are likely to just trash everything I say. It almost seems to be that no staff members are actually listening to the comments that I am making in this discussion - they are just too focused on "ban LP!" "Ban LP!" --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 01:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's cool and all, but I still don't see any kind of compromise in this proposal. Compromise to me means that both parties give a little and take a little. This proposal, to me, reads like "I'm taking a lot now, and in the future I'll take less". Well. Since the user has never given anything of value, it's still a bad deal. I'm gonna get Miraheze a better deal.

Also you've suggested that staff members talk to this user. We've been talking for over a month, and there is nothing left to do diplomatically. You also suggested that we do it in private. I've tried that approach, but @John: has said that I had a "dictatorship ideal" for suggesting such an approach for community-run wiki. So while everything you've said is reasonable, I don't think that any of it is actionable.

I'm at the point where I'm about to leave Miraheze if we don't get some form of a ban here, because working here spends too much time in exchange for too much abuse. I like the idea of wikis, but the people on them. --Labster (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This a give and take compromise. I am taking a 3 and/or 6 month global ban voluntarily, in exchange for continued use of my Miraheze wiki after that ban expires. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 01:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lawrence-Prairies: But, up until you recently became a wc, you gave very little to the community. So again, why should we ban you for three months as opposed to permanently AND still provide a service to you which you have just done nothing but abuse? -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lawrence-Prairies: I just saw your above comment and I find it extremely ironic that you say staff is not listening to you and is just saying 'ban LP ban LP' when we've been trying to resolve this in a better manner since before your global accounts were locked. Are you shocked that someone finally got tired of dealing with it? You repeatedly complain about Miraheze, it's staff, and services, and then occasionally contradict yourself. You haven't given us a real reason for even letting you continue to use our services at all, and like I said above, I think the only downside to permanently banning you is losing a wc. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 03:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Borderman: I respect most of your opinions but like Labster says, this has been an ongoing issue for (actually well over) a month, and it was attempted to deal with privately. LP's account was previously globally locked, I'm the one that 'motioned' for it to be unlocked, and am now regretting that, as it appears that all of the other signs that were worth locking it for are now seeming true. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Borderman: In addition to this, LP has not really given us any reason to let them continue to use our services which they have just repeatedly abused. On this very proposal they seems to act like the very notion of even wanting to ban them is rediculous, above they commented something along the lines of 'if this proposal passes (which it better not)' like the community is not entitled to what it wants, and on IRC they acted genuinely surprised that I created the RfC to ban them, when I have been repeatedly stating reasons why I was starting to lean towards it, and nothing was done about it. Like I said in the original reasoning for the RfC, this user always seems to think that they are a godsend or something and that they are always right, should get everything, and be exempt from all regulations etc etc. IMO this user has continously acted in bad faith of Miraheze since they day they registered for an account, and I opened this request because it appears to be rubbing off on others in the fact that me and others are acting in bad faith of this user, but at this point I think that LP has proven they deserve bad faith. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lawrence-Prairies: I believe if any user has been disruptive to the point of a global ban, that user should take stock of what he/she has done and immediately change their ways. A second chance should be given to allow users to prove to the community they will no longer continue on their original path and further prove they can be useful to the community. If not, then that user should be banned, plain and simple. I think with your knowledge of MediaWiki you could have made a great asset to Miraheze. However, your collective actions, in some part anyway, show us that you can be disruptive (even if you didn't intend to be) and more importantly, deceptive, which you know full well that in an open community like this, such actions are simply unacceptable. But I am not writing this to say you are a bad person, that's not who I am. If, at the end of all this, you are globally banned permanently then this would be a shame as the likes of ElementsWiki and WikiCanada etc. could have grown into superb, informative sites. I am not privy to all of the facts here but it looks like the damage done already is beyond repair and that, too, is also a shame because I would have liked to have seen those site grow just as I hope others would like to see mine grown and make the Miraheze platform a world-renownd platform. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 12:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Labster: I really hope you don’t consider leaving Miraheze. Your knowledge and continued work on making the project a success forms part of the Miraheze backbone and losing that part of it would be a severe blow and loss to the project overall, not just in technical know-how but also support. I didn’t know there had already been private communications between LP and other core members. I only mentioned it because a lot of what being discussed openly could tarnish Miraheze and that is something I wouldn’t want to see if I was considering joining. Having quickly looked back at all the discussions based on similar themes and how a lengthy amount of time has been spent on dealing with the issues related to the actions of a single user, I understand that you are at the end of your tether. But don’t let the actions of one person change your mind about leaving something that you personally have put a great deal of effort into. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 12:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@NDKilla: I am certainly not disputing any of the things you have carefully put together to build your case. In fact quite the opposite as I now know that LP has been disruptive and deceptive. I was, however, taken aback when I kept reading such large swathes of negativity and character assassination, especially as this is potentially damaging to Miraheze and not what we, as a community, should be doing even if some of the things are true. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions but we shouldn’t lose focus on diplomacy. I'm just not sure an RfC to ban someone is the best way to go because comments more often than not get heated and people can say some pretty awful stuff, all in the open for public scrutiny. A month of talking could have potentially been reduced to a few days if the core members and LP had a private RfC to establish grounds and actions based on the evidence supplied above, with both sides having equal say. If no resolution is foreseeable then, I guess, the decision should ultimately be down to the founders of Miraheze to decide what is best for the platform as a whole. Saying that though, what you have done and what you continue do for the community every day (including other core members/admins/stewards etc.) is second to none and I, for one, am glad you are around to offer support because without it my wiki wouldn't exist. As always, thanks for all your hard work. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 12:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Borderman: @NDKilla: In response to one of Borderman's comments above, I do have a high knowledge of advanced MediaWiki features. However, one of my main issues with Miraheze is that much of the highly technical stuff (not just checkuser) is currently limited to sysadmins and stewards. I would be much happier if wiki founders had access to all MediaWiki interfaces (except for CentralAuth global locking/blocking). In response to NDKilla, notice that I have now even proposed a six month ban. Again, I do not believe that WMF polices should have an influence on Miraheze polices, but on WMF projects, after 6 months-1 year of being banned, disruptive users are welcome to come back with a clean slate. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 12:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(reset indent) I honestly don't know why anyone would have an issue with this proposal. I will summarize it like this:

• I will voluntarily accept a 3 to 6 month global block from all of Miraheze, and I will not attempt to evade it.
• After the 3 to 6 months have passed, I will come back to Miraheze, but only edit on my wiki.
• The only contributions outside of Elements Wiki would be Meta wiki creations, but I am willing to forfeit my wiki creator rights if it makes a difference in getting users to support me.
• Following the temporary block, I will be strictly limited to Elements Wiki - no Meta, no Phabricator, no GitHub, no nothing.

This to me should be the proposal that everyone would support, since the community is getting some of what they want (banning me) and yet I am getting some of what I want (keeping my wiki operational). --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 00:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And now @AmandaNP: has checkuserblocked my school IP on Wikipedia for 6 months in response to a dispute on Miraheze which has nothing to do with WMF whatsoever. Wow. Just wow. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 02:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't block your school (as you claim) address because of this, but because you are still evading your block at the English Wikipedia, which is against the rules there, which you are blatantly ignoring, and I don't see how your block evading on enwiki would be any different here on Miraheze if you were blocked/banned. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean, I'm still evading the block? Firstly, I personally am not I Love Bridges. Second, no one from my family has edited Wikipedia since August 2016. Remember that the school IP is shared by hundreds of users, potentially. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 12:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

 Strong support If nothing else is a fair compromise, this is. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 20:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: A compromise on what, exactly? No one wants to ban you as a punishment for bad behavior, they want to make the bad behavior stop causing damage to the wiki. You haven't been able to demonstrate the basics of human empathy, so what possible difference would three months make? --Labster (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Labster: It's a compromise between what I want and what the community wants. The community wants to permanently and completely ban me, and I want no bans whatsoever. So, what's in the middle? A temporary ban, and then after it expires, remain only to myself and not get involved in any community aspects again unless I am specifically asked to. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 20:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I would also be willing to accept a 6 month block, as that is the EN Wikipedia "standard offer". I know that contradicts myself on the fact that I don't believe WMF should be involved in Miraheze, but it is a pretty fair rule for users in situations like me. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 00:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You heaven't read the standard offer then, especially lines like "This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not required to unblock you, especially if you do not provide any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Wikipedia for six months." It's totally an administrators discretion on Wikipedia if that happens, so you have to find someone who is willing to let you back in in the first place. We always protect the wiki first. Considering your lies continue above...I wouldn't be offering it for sure. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am in no way referencing Wikipedia polices nor requesting a return to that wiki. I am merely comparing it to the ideal situation for me on Miraheze right now. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 14:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 5

User:Lawrence-Prairies be allowed to continue to edit on Miraheze, but the user's account or accounts be removed from all privilege groups except for Autoconfirmed on all wikis (including Meta and Elements) for a minimum of three months. If this leaves Elements without an admin, the Stewards will ask for volunteers from other editors of the wiki who were active before this RfC was created to take over admin responsibility for that wiki. User:Lawrence-Prairies can then begin the process of earning elevated privileges by good behaviour rather than simply having those privileges be handed to him or her.

Comments

•  Comment: Proposing this as an actual compromise position. --Robkelk (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 Strong oppose I'm not just an admin on Elements - I'm the wiki founder. Taking away my admin privileges will be taking my wiki from me. No way. (BTW I already closed it anyway because of this discussion). I would be willing to forfeit my wiki creator rights, but I will not simply allow my wiki to be taken from me. The only way I would see this happening is that I would choose who the replacement admin would be - and I would still have the right to desysop that person in the case of abuse. My wiki would still need to run the way I want it to. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 22:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This would be a bad precedent to set. Normally if a wiki wants to move, change leadership, or close, what happens to it is decided by that wiki's community. It's one of the things which distinguishes us from Wikia, which has a more Hotel California policy on wiki communities leaving. Because User:Lawrence-Prairies is the entire community of that wiki, such an action imposed by the global community without their approval would be little better than theft. --Labster (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted closure

I'm going to close this as I don't see anybody ever agreeing with me in the near future, and I'm concerned that this focus of this discussion is starting to shift off-topic to my connections with EN Wikipedia. Therefore, I have made a difficult decision to move to a different hosting site. I have now created Elements Wiki on Referata - as this site offers the most founder control despite lacking features. All users from Miraheze Elements Wiki are welcome to join the new site. Miraheze Elements Wiki will remain closed and protected until I request deletion. I will request deletion after I have copy-pasted the current content over to the new site. Therefore, my account should not be globally locked nor locally blocked at this time so that I can request deletion at the appropriate time. You are free to remove my wiki creator rights from Miraheze at this time. I sincerely apologize for not being able to work with Miraheze, and I hope I will see some of you at Referata. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 13:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Why copy-and-paste the wiki? Why not get Miraheze to export it, and your new host to import it (thus preserving the attributions you need to preserve for the CC;BY/SA license)?

More importantly, why delete the wiki here? We didn't shut down TVTropes when we started All The Tropes. --Robkelk (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Undid rfc closure. It is inappropriate to close a RfC about the user himself. — revi 14:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

PS. I'm not the IP FYI. — revi 14:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

At this time, I am effectively inactive from Miraheze. Please remove my wiki creator rights, but do not globally lock/locally block me. I am in the process of transferring my wiki to Referata - users are welcome to contribute there. Once the transfer is complete, I will request deletion of the wiki. --- Lawrence-Prairies (talk contribs email), 21:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.