User talk:Lucia Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whoever is reading: Farewell.[edit]

Its such a shame i had few more GAs planned. But i guess i can't talk about them, so all my projects on my page are welcomed to be improved/created. I can't really say much. For now, the only interest i have is so that these injustices don't happen again to another member who has also been targeted heavily, not by the level of disruption, but the number of ANIs created. So if you're interested in that, let me know and we can create a sandbox. Other than that, i can't say much other than farewell.

I'm literally limited to what i can say at this point. So forgive me if this seems rushed, or apathetic. Lucia Black (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Lucia, I am sorry that the community decided to enact a ban against you. However, even those who supported such a ban would likely concede that you have, over the years, created some solid content that ultimately benefits Wikipedia's readers. Thank you for your contributions. Take a break, and eventually you can appeal the topic ban. Best, and God bless, Go Phightins! 14:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: As much as i enjoy appreciation from my contributions, not when it comes out of injustice. This barnstar feels mostly like a condolences rather than truly seeing my efforts in wikipedia. You don't know the supporters, i on the other hand, know them very well from past ANI encounters. The supporters don't care about my good contributions and if everyone wants it to get appealed, why not ask for a second discussion? i will not be returning. period. Lucia Black (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't leave for good[edit]

The topic ban[edit]

Hi Lucia, I just found out about the topic ban... I just wanted to say that despite this topic ban seeming devastating, it can be appealed in a few months, which will be here sooner than you believe. That's just the nature of time. Trite, but true.

I respect your decision to leave, because only you can decide your actions. However, I agree with the others, that to work in another section of the Wiki and wait out the few months and gather evidence contrary to the ban would be better. I understand that it feels devastating. That' s an understandable and valid feeling; heck, I'd probably feel the same way! But the very nature of feelings is that they can and will change. Especially when they feel intense and permanent.

Try to see the topic ban as a temporary challenge to expand your expertise. (I didn't know I loved writing about children's literature until I started working on the article for Carroll's Alice.) I remember seeing that you are a part of the Novel Wikiproject. Despite being different, manga and novel articles are set up almost identically. Character pages as well. Rather that dwell on what you can't edit (temporarily) , focus on what you can.

What I would suggest is to do something nice for yourself (take a walk, watch a favorite film, read a favorite book or manga, play a favorite video game, etc), and take a mental break from the Wiki. That way, you'll be able to assess the topic ban with fresh eyes, and be able to weigh your options under less stress. If you still want to leave, I will respect that. If you want to stay and continue to improve the Wiki, I will respect that as well. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rapunzel-bellflower: more to this than meets the eye. This will "not" take a matter of months, and there will be a group of editors who will make sure about that. Lucia Black (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You might be surprised. The vote to ban you didn't pass by a wide margin; really, I think the main problem was that users who would've opposed your wider topic ban didn't cast votes in that section because their votes were in the other sections, so the topic ban passed. There were plenty of us who still wanted you here, and if you can actually back that up with a few months of good behavior, I don't see what ground a continued ban will have to stand on. Tezero (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Tezero....i'm done talkinga bout this...theres so much to be said,but it never sinks in. Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm just more optimistic. (I have read the relevant material, Lucia.) I think that you're underestimating the evidence on your talkpage that, like Tezero wrote, there are editors here who do want you here. That said, we don't have to talk about this if you prefer not to. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't enough when it came to those who don't. And thats the point. This has been done to me too long for this to last "months". They painted me as a troubled editor in the past, and they will continue to do so. It doesn't matter how many good contributions i make because it doesn't matter to them. Lucia Black (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You are probably right about the group of editors, but if that's the case then why give them the satisfaction of seeing you fade away after this topic ban? That would ultimately be 1) a personal loss for you, as you wouldn't be able to edit in the topic area that you love, 2) a loss for the project, as you've done good work here, and 3) they would have succeeded. I would just use this to take a wikibreak, get back into old activities that you enjoyed, or find a few new ones, and come back refreshed to try to appeal your topic ban. -BloodDoll (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If i'm right about it, i would like it to be exposed and i would like my name to be at least partially cleansed due to propaganda. if i come back, nothing will change other than more and more restrictions, more probation, more things to worry about. these editors will continue to exist and continue to treat me badly and spread more propaganda. And this is hypothetically if i do get it appealed as soon as possible. No, i rather not jump through hoops just so some other editors can paint me as awful as they can all over again.

Coming back may not give them complete satisfaction, but neither will it give me when i'm constantly put in at their crosshairs. I'm done....period....So like i said, unless some editors are willing to expose these actions of these who streamline the ANI discussions, i am not going to come back. This is already a loss. Indefinite bans are not taken lightly. If you want me to come back as soon as possible, then make it possible. I'm done doing things on my own just to get a few editors off my back. Lucia Black (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion about your topic ban[edit]

Hi Lucia Black,

I've started a discussion at WP:AN#Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics asking that your topic ban be rescinded. I'm notifying you because the instructions on WP:AN say I have to. I would highly recommend that you don't post anything these or anywhere else on AN/ANI, and instead completely avoid those pages. I want to mention that I honestly think that you have been very annoying on previous threads on those pages. I think that you are wrong in thinking that there is a group who is out to get you, and instead think that those people are justifiably angry at you. You keep accusing people of being out to get you . . . please try to put yourself in their shoes and think of how it would feel if someone made the same accusations against you. You've been posting nonsensical replies and rants that quite frankly make you seem to be kind of a nut (e.g., your reply to Robert at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive264#Too_many_threads_about_Japanese_entertainment which is almost unintelligible, or your suggestion to Jimbo that your topic ban is some great injustice that he himself needs to somehow step in and remove). Please try to take a step back and think about what you are actually writing. Despite my opinions on your behavior, I've asked that your topic ban from Japanese entertainment articles be rescinded since I think you do good work in general, and I'd rather have some disruption at AN/ANI than lose the good work you do on articles. Calathan (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop the melodrama. I'm not threatening you with anything. I'm advising you about what I (and it looks like a lot of others) think ARBCOM will do to you. You want to hang yourself, fine by me. I've given you rope as well. Are you simply incapable of understanding how ridiculously frustrating your conduct is to people who have zero interest in dealing with you? How much time do you think I wasted reviewing the prior ANI discussions, that entire lengthy discussion and going through your edit history to see if you have actually done anything in months to show that you can move on? Do you realize how completely insulting it to other editors when you go on and create walls of text like this trying to play a victim when all everyone is asking you to do is edit something else without bothering everyone? Look at some examples of competency required here: two that concern me are grudges and what seems to be an inability to discuss any incremental ideas. Grudges are obvious. If you had once in either ANI discussion offered an ounce of recognition that someone could honestly find a problem with your conduct and that you were willing to compromise, I'm certain you would have had an ounce of sympathy but repeated arguing and arguing the same things and putting everyone who disagrees with you into a box is getting you nowhere. No one at ANI cares about how you conduct yourself at those local articles or about the local consensus: those aren't the people you are bothering. If you seriously cannot find another way to spend your time than arguing about whether or not you should get to edit some topic of articles, (or more importantly playing hurt because people aren't happy with you editing those articles) you will be blocked completely because you don't have the right to create more work for other people. And no, I was not being insulting with my collapse. I was trying to make the point to you that you need to first acknowledge that people are not happy with your conduct and until then, you are going to be digging yourself deeper. But I'll accept that it may have been in poor taste and for that I do apologize. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Did you read that "wall of text"? If you read it, you would know so much more.... Lucia Black (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are rehashing the prior ANI discussion from two months ago. Yes that went from three articles to a whole topic fast (and I don't think I'd support that much) but you still don't seem like you wanted to compromise about or even accept any part of it. In response to your question about 'what can you do to prevent additional sanctions', the general view is 'don't elevate this to ARBCOM, drop the stick and just keep your head down.' Whatever you are doing, it's not helpful and I think you need to take a step back and look at it with a clear head. If you really do want to be able to chip at the topic ban, I'd suggest you pick an article or two (that does not have the editors you are having issues with) or think about a draft or something, and make a short, concise post asking to chip at it as a compromise and as a showing of good faith. I'm willing to help on that and I'd suggest you listen to Calathan's advice next time. People don't normally get banned from going to ANI, you have to ask yourself what you are doing to cause that. One thing may be realizing that you not agreeing with something does not mean there's no consensus on it, you sometimes have to ignore comments or edits you don't like and you have to question repeatedly whether this is really the hill you want to die on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: What possible compromise could there be? Last time, these same editors wanted to ban me for good under no new grounds. Lucia Black (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You seeRicky81682 (and Thibbs if he's reading too) As much as everyone tells me to go "edit somewhere else", i have been stuck in several articles with no progress at all to make any proof. WP:COMICS has been a nightmare to even attempt to edit. Articles such as Jason Todd, Dick Grayson and Tim Drake have extensive coverage, but difficult to copy edit as i need to be very familiar with the subject, and that includes being familiar with the comics, which i would need to buy these comics. I'm not even sure how to handle it.

Second attempt was at toy-related articles such as Lego and Bionicle. I was even looking into Bratz as well...and that was a very quick dead-end. Seeing as the MOS for WP:TOY was rejected, and the wikiproject's recognized content being dominating more of the other media such as films, and tv series. There was very little mainstream references that i could use for legos and bionicles.

I recently tried GAN reviews, but its a much slower process.Especially when the only ones i feel most comfortable are from WP:VG, and barely any of them are not Japanese-related media...overall....i have zero confidence that the community would even care what "good" editing i do in other areas. Because most likely, they'll argue that the topic ban is working. But....i just want some answers.....and thats the worst part of this topic ban....its hurting more people than it is helping....and overall there is no answer to it all. Can you provide an answer? Lucia Black (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So i ask again, what possible compromise is this local community willing to accept? Lucia Black (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that it's not necessarily the funnest thing in the world to edit in areas you aren't familiar with. I also understand that it can be frustrating and difficult to demonstrate to the community that you can collaborate if a WikiProject is disorganized, contains few members, or lacks clear guidance. I guess my basic suggestion would be to find a WikiProject that is well organized and active. Obvious examples might include WP:MILTHIST, WP:BIOGRAPHY, or any of the more recent women projects like WP:WOMENSCI or WP:WMNWRITE. If these don't sound like appealing projects then I recommend that you go at it from a collaboration-specific angle. There are plenty of examples where editors are asking for collaborators or where you can post to ask for collaborators yourself. Start watching for interesting topics at WP:TAFI. Maybe volunteer at WP:ARS. You can even keep a lookout for posts like these (covering non-japanese games) at WT:VG. I don't know how you prefer to go about it, but it's not hopeless.
I see you are also concerned again (you've said this a few times) about your degree of expertise in topics like Jason Todd and others. You've previously worried that you don't have time or interest in gaining an expertise in other areas, and that this lack of expert knowledge bars you from participating on Wikipedia. But expertise is emphatically not a requirement to edit here at Wikipedia. That's the beauty of the place. That's why it is what it is today. Reliable sources written by experts act as a proxy for expertise. Oversight by peers safeguards against improper interpretation of the RS-writing experts' claims. It's a work in progress and incremental improvement can come from the most humble of origins. Keep focused on what you're trying to prove - that you can work closely with peers in situations of both construction and constructive criticism without getting into a fight. You're not expected to be an infallible authority on the topic you're collaborating on. Some give and take - admission of errors and offers of compromise - that sort of thing would go a very long way toward rehabilitating your image in the community. -Thibbs (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thibbs i don't think you can possibly understand, attempting to edit other areas has been torture the past few months. Its more than a lack of expertise, i can't afford the materials needed to progress and fix the articl. I was making a lot of real progress in WP:ANIME, (just look at my most recent barnstar) and it gets halted. I have proven to the community that i'm a valuable asset in WP:ANIME, more than once. But i know the community (at least revolving in AN or ANI that have history with me) don't care how good i edit. No one referenced to disruption. And that has to be the worst thing...I don't even know on what grounds did the community have to add more sanctions on top of the ones added. Topic Bans are meant to be placed when there is disruption or violation. So before any consensus can be build, it has to be established under what grounds do they have for it. That is the worst thing about trying to come back into Wikipedia...trying to come back and edit just to get what you lost, and not even know what it was that made you lose it in the first place. What i do get hints of have nothing to do with WP:ANIME. Which makes me believe they still fully intend a site ban. Or that editors fully understand that this is something i can't recover from, and are content with that. Lucia Black (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM isn't going to analyze just the topic ban discussion. If ARBCOM even takes the case, ARBCOM is going to want to evaluate the entire series of issues, starting with all the editors involved in the editing disputes you've been involved with. There are currently four different editing restrictions against you, the earliest starting in January, and either you see where the problem is or you don't. I've given you a suggestion but it's clear you accept no responsibility at all and have zero interest in compromising. I'm not going to engage this any longer. It's entirely up to you at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If you see my responce, thats part of the problem......i dont knoww hwat the problem is to even cause the additional sanctions. SO taking responsibility is a little more harder. Lucia Black (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

If editing in other areas is truly torture then I guess I probably can't understand. I have several times stepped outside of my own area of expertise to make expansions and improvements where I thought they would help. For example I went on a cleanup kick in 2013 where among other things I tackled an article on a Hindu holiday that had been flagged for ref improvements since 2005. Am I an expert in Hindu holidays? No. Am I Hindu? No. Had I even heard of the thing before seeing the article in "Category:Articles needing cleanup since 2005"? No. And yet I was able to add several more RSes and expand the article to double its size. The article is not a masterpiece, but it's much better than when I first saw it, and it didn't require me to buy any sources or participate in the holiday festivities beforehand. I found all the RSes I needed online. I didn't need to fly to India and if I had felt that I needed to do that to improve the article then I would have moved on to the next article needing help. There's no shortage of them.
I think your record of good work is clear, but there is no rule that as long as an editor produces good work she is excused from the behavioral guidelines. I'm pretty sure the expanded sanctions came as a result of the persistently argumentative behavior. Correct or not, your participation in the many further appeals at AN/ANI/ArbCom/Jimbo Wales' talk page simultaneous with very little in the way of editing the mainspace have done nothing to dispel anyone's impression that you are more interested in arguing and battlegrounding than in building the encyclopedia. I don't want to relitigate the issue with you. You can consider yourself a victim here if you wish, but you should consider what it looks like to a neutral third party when your edit history shows that you spend the majority of your time now making long-winded argument after long-winded argument to support your thesis that you are not disruptively argumentative.
I was considering making this suggestion in my last post and I decided against it, but given that you've rejected all of my suggestions previously I'll offer it as a last try. I think you would be able to benefit a lot from a WP:MENTOR. I bet you could find one if you asked for one at WT:RETENTION and explained that you have a history of good editing here, and you want to edit here, but you need to get a ban lifted first and you need help to demonstrate that you can collaborate civilly without getting into hyper-argumentative battlegrounds. My hope is that a mentor would be able to track down likely articles for you to try your hand collaborating at, would provide oversight if and when the editing starts to get "hot", and could then help you prepare and speak on your behalf when you appealed the ban with solid evidence. You can blow this idea off as well, but you should try something constructive to help yourself out of this predicament and the arguing in more and more public arenas does not seem to be working very well. -Thibbs (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thibbs: There are key differences between your situation and mine. If you can recognize these differences, you will have one step closer to understanding the "torture" that i feel when i attempt to edit Wikipedia. First is that you have the freedom to do what interests you regardless of whether you have any knowledge of it. You're not moving out of your comfort zone out of force, and most importantly, you're not moving out of your comfort zone at all. Moving out of your general expertise isn't exactly the same as leaving your comfort zone. You merely chose to make it part of your comfort zone or an attempt at it. if you couldn't make much progress, you can move back to your preferred area and make progress there without a care in the world. Second, you probably pride yourself in other areas just as much in your the area where you shine most. Me? I'm not you. I took pride in Japanese related media because i took a fascination int he culture, and able to share that
For me, my editing was heavily relying on the RSes that the wikiproject has already proven reliable (with the exception of the obvious 1st party sources). Not only that, but for WP:ANIME, looking for the 1st party sources or primary retail sites was also really easy to find. And if i couldn't find it, it most likely didn't exist. I have no knowledge of determining RSes, especially with a topic i'm not familiar with. And this is coming from attempting the other areas in which i am moderately interested in such as toy-related articles and Comic-related. This is definitely going to be an issue for areas such as WP:BIOGRAPHY where there aren't many universal mainstream sources that i can use multiple time for multiple people that can be easy access (online or free). But most importantly...the biggest difference is you have nothing to prove to anyone...the disappointment to fix an article ..failing in just one area feels a lot more depressing. That's kind of the problem. Thats where depression really starts to feel like torture....

I"ll take your advice....under the condition of "Guarantee". Can you guarantee me, that if another editor does ask for one is going to insult me, no one is going to dismiss me, and no one is going to ask for more sanctions? Such as legitimate disruption in article space? Or if they do, they will have it based on objective reasons? Can you guarantee me that editors will not be taking in a punitive model such as "Lucia Black has had punishment enough" or "Lucia Black hasn't been punished enough". Can you guarantee me this Thibbs?
I tried my hardest in the last AN and ANI to give the most respect to as many editors as i could....i really did, and i will not go back to that stressful time with the exact same editors who have just as much as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards me as they claim i have of them. Lucia Black (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Lucia, I have faith in you, that you can overcome this temporary setback. I understand that you feel upset and unhappy over the topic ban. Reading the comments on the appeal, I feel that constructive action would be much more powerful and convincing than words. Something to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that their worries are unfounded. I acknowledge that you have tried the toy and comics section (what about Disney Princesses? Would you like to give me specifics, so that we can figure out if there are sources out there?) What was the last good novel you read? Character you liked? Novel and character articles are identical to manga and Japanese characters in set up. Sources will likely be reviews and interviews, again like manga articles. You can access reviews through your public, free library (virtually or digging through the archives) or even college and university. Heck, if you can't find something, interlibrary loan it , or let me know and I'll see what I can do. Google Books has helped me out more times than I can count. If you're interested in biography, of whom may I ask? Let's try to figure this out. It's not as hopeless as it feels. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC

Are there any examples of users who have been topic-banned but eventually gained readmission to their topics of choice? I feel that too much of this discussion is theoretical. Tezero (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Well I obviously can't guarantee anything about a community-based discussion, but I suspect that if you make a significant effort to demonstrate that you are able to participate in a collaborative manner and that you are able to compromise even when disagreements arise then the community will take your side. There is strength in pointing to clear examples of good things you have accomplished especially if you are trying to show that these are the kinds of good things you are capable of doing and that you wish to return to doing if unbanned. If you're persistent but not overly pushy about it then I think you'll demonstrate that you really want this. There are a lot of editors who would be swayed by that. To answer Tezero's question, yes I have seen editors return after being granted forgiveness via WP:SO. For something like that to work I think firm commitments would have to be made and examples of continued arguing through official admin channels would have to completely stop for a long time. -Thibbs (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs and Rapunzel i don't believe this is just a minor set back. And i wish you understood the gravity of it all, especially Thibbs, who has seen this behavior overall even in my own talkpage. But like i said, the torture is not even knowing what the disruption even was. I would like a direct answer please. Thibbs, you are the one who pushed for a consensus, and claimed it to be necessary even when it was confirmed "broadly construed".
i'm willing to work on several articles that appeal to my current schedule (and need to have an interest in the subject) . WP:VG and WP:ANIME had allowed me to access mostly online sources. So i would like some that can be up to GA class using mostly free online sources. I would also like to participate in a Wikiproject that definitely gives me enough room to start. I don't have the time to look for something completely online.
But only, if someone can give me an answer. I'm going to say it again, it is torture trying to move on in WIkipedia and knowing absolutely nothing. Lucia Black (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Finding online sources isn't as impossible as it sounds. Google Books, in particular, is massively helpful: I've relied mostly on that for sources in both extremely obscure (Mussie, a rumored lake monster from Canada) and extremely mundane (Czech language, Afternoon) GAs. (Actually, for Czech I did get one book from the library, but even that was easy to find.) Not only that, but on Google Books most of what you'll find will be reliable - if not, it'll be obvious, like if it's simply a collection of Wikipedia articles someone assembled.
The more pressing issue is finding something you're interested in. Since your current editing history is so niche, I'd recommend starting off with something specific rather than something broad. Is there... I don't know, a book you really liked? A town or region you're interested in? A musical artist or album you enjoy listening to? None of us can provide you the perfect article to work on - perhaps none exists, in which case you can just pick one you generally like. And remember, it doesn't have to be something you're an expert in, or even know much of anything about already. The sources will do the work for you there. Tezero (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to keep myself away from the discussion because if you say you can't, so you can't. Who knows more about you than you? No one! However, I'm with Rapunzel and Tezero. There must be something you like. And if not, it's a good time to expand your horizons. Think on it as a time to refresh your tastes, to refresh yourself. I really hope you can :) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gabriel Yuji:, @Tezero:, and @Rapunzel-bellflower: i've tried and failed and in normal circumstances, it would feel ok. you can move onto another article and be happy or make progress somewhere else. is truly the most depressing thing under my circumstances when its all to prove "something" to the community. ANd i don't know what that "something" is. And why i'm even banned. its trying to move forward, and know absolutely nothing about it. Its to the point that i feel crazy.
I rather ask for a siteban...i really least a siteban says "you're banned from editing at all" rather than "you're banned from the only place you're good at, go find another place and we might let you go back to editing where you were good at before"and worst of all its under the conditions of "oh, and you wont know why specifically, only know that there is a community out there that believes so".
What i value most is an answer to help meget through all of this. And if no one can provide an answer, then i rather request for a siteban. No one would ever stay under these circumstances. No one. look at the early comments here? Who says these things? Look at Ricky81682's comment, the one who closed the topic in the first place? He claims to be insulted by my long comment (who even gets insulted by things like that?) and shows me the minimum of respect in my talkpage. Look at @Calathan:'s comment who also throws a few insults. And worst of all, no one wants to even give you a straight, direct answer. Would you honestly stay under these circumstances?
I'm at a standstill....the articles i want to edit that i have moderate interest are either a) little to no knowledge. and i'm not talking about being an expert, but knowing where to look. b) already has a huge following and my edits are not required. Lucia Black (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, think about it this way. I think a lot of the time we work extensively on articles, we're trying to prove something. In my case, I wanted to prove to myself I could be a good editor outside the topic of video games, on subjects I knew less about. Keep in mind, not all of us are against you or wanted to see you banned; rather, the ones who did tended to have the most influence already. Perhaps the situation really isn't as dire as it seems. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly.  :) To recap potential sources of online, free RSs: your library databases, Google Books, possibly ebooks from your library, and the community. Lucia, I truely do emphathize with you, and I truely do believe that you can overcome this temporary setback. I find it admirable that you have tried to edit outside your comfort zone, and can only hope that you can find the courage to try again. I'm not sure what you're thinking of editing, but I'm happy to help with suggestions or looking up sources, if need be. I understand that you feel upset and hurt, and I feel that it is more productive to focus on what you can do now. None of us can control the behaviour of others, but we can determine our own actions. And I sincerely hope you'll find the strength and courage to try again to edit again a new topic. It's up to you, ultimately, what you make of this challenge. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond until now. First of all I don't know what consensus you are talking about, but yes I do prefer consensus. The "broadly construed" terminology comes from the language of the tban, yes? I think the important thing to realize about that is that Japanese media is a very narrow niche inside of Wikipedia. Although Japanese media is widely construed, it's still a very narrow ban. There are highly interesting animated, comic, and video game media from many different countries. Others have suggested music. Perhaps you might enjoy editing about food. Maybe you don't know much about those topics, but reading about them can be a rewarding experience as they are sometimes fascinating topics. If you try to avoid focusing on it as torture you'll see that learning in totally new topic areas can be a pleasure. I've tried to give you direct answers to all of your questions. You said you don't know what the disruption was, but I think I already explained that. It was the large arguments. When everyone is involved in arguing they are prevented from building the encyclopedia. I don't want to rehash this again because at a certain point it's just insulting to you. I don't want you to dwell so much on the problems from the past. Try to think about what needs to be done to move forward. Honestly it's kind of astonishing that you have a team of editors working to cheer you up and imploring you to just move on and prove yourself so that you can return to doing what you like doing. This is a decision you have to make. If you want to return to editing in good stead then I recommend you try to move forward in a positive direction instead of circling back again and again to poke at the old wounds. -Thibbs (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The suggestions of Tezero, Rapunzel, Thibbs and mine are all valid and good suggestion: try a new "something". However, if you feel you can't return now, it's fine. If it's really a "torture" to you, don't return. At least, don't return now. Take your own time. Do what you like to do, enjoy your life. And the day you feel comfortable to edit again, return. Wikipedia must be a pleasure, not an obligation. If you feel so, take a break, refresh your mind, and then we will be anxiously waiting for you :) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A conversation in a talk page suggested a scenario. Let us test if it is real. Lucia Black should continue this discussion. (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thibbs: and @Rapunzel-bellflower: it really bothers me to the point that i feel insulted how much i ask a very single and important question, and constantly being ignored. So i'm going to be very clear....I've tried to ignore all these other comments in hopes that you're advice was counter-intuitive and that i can make something for myself. I've tried to move on to other areas and I've failed. I'm trying even now, and look at my edit history...can you see a single edit?

I'm going to say this: If none of you care enough to give me an answer, then no one will care about it when if the very very very very slim chance i get to ask for this topic ban to be exempt/repealed. I deserve an is deeply insulting how long you stay in my talkpage, and not even give me the respect i deserve. The very answer, i believe everyone deserves....if they ever get topic banned from a subject.

@Gabriel Yuji: The problem is, thats the very reason why i'm most likely never going to back to Wikipedia again.... Lucia Black (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm, ok. I really dunno anything about you, so I can't say anything with sure, and my suggestions can be useless. However, I did a break for a good time, and I know other users, like Tezero, for example, who did the same, and are okay with Wikipedia now. Some say, "the good son [daughter, in this case] always comes back home." My suggestion: take a "vacation" without planning to come back... If you have the same feeling I had for Wikipedia, when you least expect you'll return. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been on two breaks; not sure which you were thinking of. With the first one, I wasn't planning to come back, but I wasn't upset, either; I was moreso just bored and preoccupied with real life. The second break was much shorter; I took it because I was so pissed off at having a bunch of Sonic character articles I'd created - including a few that were GAs - turned into redirects to the character list, and besides just needing some time to think, I didn't want to do anything rash that'd get me blocked. Now I just don't participate in notability discussions one way or the other because I think the whole concept needs an overhaul if it's to make any sense at all. Neither of those situations is quite like this one, but I second Gabriel's recommendation that, if you leave, you do it for a while to clear your head, perhaps without a definite date of return. Tezero (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gabriel Yuji:, i dont think you understand the situation.
@Tezero: I think you knowing "partially" of the situation, but enough to know theres no coming back....the Wikipedia community has left such a strong sour note, there's no possible way i can come back. And no ammount of supporters will ever change that, because how the situation plays out, they only want to support the best of the worst situation (which is still the worst situation).
I rather ask to be banned....I really do. There's no hope with this community, so very few had the gull to come through for me when it mattered most. So keep in mind, the only way i can ever and i mean "EVER" have any chance of being here....someone would have to hear me out completely...every single point that i have ever made Lucia Black (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I see I've been pinged here to answer some questions again, but I noticed that you wrote a later note to my talk page requesting that I avoid your talk page. So in deference to the more recent request I just wanted to make it clear that I will not be posting anything else here. I have an open talk page policy, though, so feel free to write me at my talk page if the mood strikes you. I'll be happy to continue answering your questions there as I have tried to do here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Thibbs: You have ignored the same question multiple times.....just like how the community has always ignored my questions (a prime example of how WP:AN treats me, always streamlining what they want to cover, not what needs to be covered)...It has become bothersome and "insulting". If you're going to answer it, you're welcome to do so. And it would show that you really do have respect for me. Lucia Black (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Uzumaki[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:.hack chronology[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:.hack chronology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KirtZJ (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


Have proposed what we discussed on my talk page here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lucia_Black_Topic_Ban_Review. God bless, Go Phightins! 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Lucia. I have closed the discussion on WP:AN regarding your ban. Unfortunately I had to find that there was not a consensus to alter or lift the ban. I am sorry this is the result, however I could not have honestly interpreted the discussion another way. Chillum 22:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Chillum i'm getting tired of the treatment in WP:AN, honestly these negative spins everywhere i go. It just feels like they feed me more negativity and incivility then anything else. But at this point it doesn't really matter to me anymore. Whatever Ban works for everyone. I'm not going to argue. I just want to leave at least in a manner that allows me to walk away quietly. Lucia Black (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested Ban[edit]

Hello Lucia. I saw your request here and I'm willing to offer one of two options (my options only, other admins may offer something different)

  1. I willing to place an indefinite WP:BLOCK on this account, add a permanent link to your request, note that it is self-requested in the block log, add a note that any administrator is welcome to unblock at your request without contacting me first, and I will unblock if I see you request it.
  2. I am willing to impose an indefinite site WP:BAN (which would include a block) and note your request by way of link. HOWEVER, I only allow the ban to be lifted by community consensus.

If either of these are to your liking, let me know. BUT I would much rather see you sleep on it before making a decision. — Ched :  ?  04:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • (note: I will leave your talk page open for you to talk in either case) — Ched :  ?  05:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Option 2 is not an option for me. Lucia Black (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood - and I'm glad to see that. I'm headed off to bed right now, but I will check back tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  05:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If Lucia Black is to be given her self-imposed indefinite block, per Ched's statement above, I would suggest that it include a block of her talk page access, contrary to her request at AN, and to Ched's statement above. I see no reason that she would need talk page access if she has no intention of editing, and can simply e-mail Ched or "any administrator" to be unblocked. Unblock requests are for explanations, and none is required here, while talk page access will only tempt Lucia Black to use it to comment on the "wrongfulness" of her topic ban, the block which the community forced her into, how she's been mistreated, etc. Alternately, if this seems presumptuous, then I suggest that Ched take the responsibility to continue to monitor her talk page to insure that it is not used improperly during her block. BMK (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

For all you have done for the Anime/Manga wikiproject[edit]

A Barnstar!
The Anime and Manga Barnstar

I am sorry to see you want to go like this but want to say that your overall edits are thanked hence this barnstar for all of the good edits you have made. Hopefully one day somehow you can come back to editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)