Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages

Certified pages

Use of administrator privileges


Requests for closure[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

NFCR discussions[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress I hacked out #1, slowly heading for 2 and 3. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: When you get the chance, do you think you could come by and maybe make another close or two? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@TLSuda: Closed the second one with recommendations to reopen separate discussions for two of the images. Would you be able to take care of that for me? I'll try and finish the last one tonight or tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
As the discussion became stale and the initiator of that original discussion was blocked as a sock. I don't think there will be much further discussion at the moment. There are enough editors who routinely patrol for WP:NFCC violations that if one of them feels discussion is necessary, a new discussion will be opened shortly. Thank you for closing these. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • When closing NFCR discussions, note that you must substitute the {{subst:archive top}} template. If you do not substitute the template, the archival bot will change the wikicode from {{archive top|rationale}} to {{tl|archive top|rationale}} in the archive, making it impossible for readers of the archive to see the rationale. The bottom template, {{archive bottom}}, doesn't need to be substituted as the archival bot doesn't mess that one up. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

WT:Verifiability#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag[edit]

This will be with us for awhile, so a close will be helpful going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Unscintillating:: I don't see any specific policy outcomes for that discussion, as the specific question (3RR exemption) is trivially answered but the broader question (who has the burden of justifying a tag) is not really something one could change by fiat as a result of the RfC, even if the discussion itself pointed us in a specific direction. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Archiving reverted.  IMO, the consensus here is that maintenance tags are article improvements just like any other edit, and are subject to WP:BRD.  There was also an interesting point that editors may choose to start the D in WP:BRD before the R.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move (initiated 4 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Free! (anime)#Move and Talk:Free! (anime)#Bold rename following opposition to it in the RM above in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC) RFC 3[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to

  1. Wikipedia talk:Link (initiated 17 September 2012)
  2. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
  3. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
  4. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
  6. RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
  8. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)
  9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
  10. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/ (initiated 23 November 2013)
  11. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December (initiated 3 December 2013)
  12. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
  13. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
  14. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
  15. RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
  16. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ (initiated 25 June 2014)
  17. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
  18. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
  19. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about links (2 July 2014)

Here are discussions with the RFC closer:

  1. User RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
  2. User talk:Hobit#Question re: RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
  3. User and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
  4. User matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 6#Varnasrama[edit]

Open since 29 April. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting#RfC: Should details about the alleged perpetrator be removed?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting#RfC: Should details about the alleged perpetrator be removed? (initiated 11 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Human shields[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Human shields (initiated 18 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Request for comments. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • You are asking about an archived discussion. Well, per Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions the thread is "immutable". Would it be a good precedent to go to the page and announce a consensus there? I don't think that is what you have in mind. In fact there is a current discussion going on at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Human shields. (So basically the old RFC is "closed" with no consensus.) Perhaps you could provide a link on the current thread to the archived discussion to alert editors about the archive. With these remarks in mind, this request should be closed as a Red XN not done. – S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for a discussion to be archived before someone gets around to closing it - it wouldn't set a precedent. The discussion does appear to have moved on in this case though, so a formal close might or might not be useful. Sunrise (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
What you say about archiving is true, and that talk page has a 5 day shut down. The precedent that I'd like to avoid is going back and forth between current and archived discussions, particularly in light of the "mutable" characterization we see in Help. When there is not a new thread open, the better practice is to open a new thread, link to the old archive page, and then ask for closure. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussions do not become uncloseable after they are archived. Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. The Help guidance says to start a new thread to reopen a discussion and Help says that archived discussions are immutable. (The discussion topic might be closeable, but an archived discussion thread should not be changed.) So the best course of action is to start a new thread, link it to the archive, announce the closure, then hat {{archive top}} the thread with a time-stamp. Later the bot will come by and archive the new thread. But what is the point? Some discussions just die out. In which case the practical result is "no consensus". – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Unarchived section to Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Human shields. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#Resolved? indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it "Longest RfC discussion ever"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic" (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Second was Symbol declined.svg Closed  by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places? (initiated 13 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should MOS:JAPAN continue to require disambiguation for unique place names?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin assess the consensus and close the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places? ? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited? (initiated 11 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera (initiated 10 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose topic bans. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Unarchived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera to allow for further discussion and closure by an admin. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cunard:. Now back in the archive at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera without closure. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:Uncategorized good articles[edit]

Admin needed to conclude discussion and implement renaming. Consensus is to use "Category:Good articles without topic parameter". – S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Tedman[edit]

Can someone please close this before any further damage is done? It was re-listed by User:Rcsprinter123 and I don't think he was wrong to have done so but there are really no opinions in favour of keeping this beyond the article creator who is getting more and more hostile and desperate and two suspected sock/meat puppets with non-policy arguments. The re-listing has had the (entirely unintentional, I'm sure) affect of simply delaying the inevitable and dragging things out for the proponent. At this point we're just propping up his dead horse so he can continue to flog it. Stlwart111 09:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: The consensus is pretty clear for delete, but I am not an admin and not sure if this falls under the category of non-admin closure allowed. Kingsindian (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian, if you don't have the tools then you can't functionally close it as "delete" and then delete the article. Best to just leave this one to an admin. Cheers, Stlwart111 12:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessive topic-ban[edit]

Let me begin by stating that I am a totally uninvolved administrator, having seldom interacted with any of the primary players beyond routine participation in some of the same discussions completely unrelated to this topic over the years. Moreover, I have not edited in this topic area (unless it was a simple vandalism revert that I have since forgotten). While this qualifies me as uninvolved, I would also like to comment that I do not have sufficient knowledge of the topic area to form any opinion on the matter. Now, to my findings:
1) There is no consensus for a site ban. Though the proposal initially drew significant support, subsequent commenters successfully refuted the arguments presented in the outline of the proposal, such that even the proposer stipulated there was no consensus for implementation thereof.
2) There is a consensus that the "discretionary sanctions" imposed by Salvidrim! on the three articles Ghost in the Shell, Ghost in the Shell (manga), and Ghost in the Shell (video game) (referred to in the discussion collectively as "GITS" or "GitS"), were in order, and should stand. Ultimately however, they will be superseded by the next finding.
3) I do find a consensus to indefinitely topic ban Lucia Black from all Japanese entertainment related topics, broadly construed. Cognizant of her previous restriction on opening threads on administrative noticeboards, when she would like to propose cessation of the topic ban, she may do so by garnering permission from myself or any uninvolved administrator in a similar manner as she did with Nick to open this thread. As in the arbitrary break subsection, some editors did not see a consensus for this, I will explain my thought process and reasoning on the matter. Editors who supported a site ban viewed a broad topic ban as a reasonable second choice if a site ban were not enacted, which it is not. Several editors commented that they opposed a site ban, but would support a topic ban of this nature to alleviate future disruption and dissent. In opposition to a topic ban, some editors felt that Lucia's contributions were a net positive, or that since there were many editors whom she had not alienated/engaged in unpleasant disagreement with, she was not a problem. However, other editors adequately countered and refuted those arguments by noting the amount of time her conduct had come up in various administrative and dispute resolution noticeboards. Secondarily, they noted her blocks on this topic, and reiterated past disruptive editing. Other editors commented that a broad topic ban was essentially de facto the same as a site ban, inasmuch as her contributions are predominantly in this area. I found this argument unconvincing. One editor in particular aptly pointed out that since she has shown the ability to constructively develop content, doing so in another area would be a net positive to the encyclopedia. As a personal aside, I would assert that productive and non-tendentious content editing in another subject may ultimately demonstrate ability to return to this topic area, where her interest ostensibly lies.
4) Some editors mentioned a one-way or two-way interaction ban with Ryulong. There is no consensus for this either way. I would encourage both Lucia and Ryulong to avoid interacting uncivilly, seeking to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, which both have shown propensity to do when not interacting with one another.
5) This finding of consensus is likely to make many people unhappy, not the least of which being Lucia. Rest assured that I did not take this lightly, and have stewed over an appropriate closure per the consensus I find for quite a while, and this seems to be an appropriate course of action. If you disagree with my closure, there are appropriate venues for review, and frankly I would welcome a review of the closure, but request that all parties act in good faith, and comment on the discussion, not the contributors. I would encourage all editors to seek to move forward in collaboratively seeking to build an encyclopedia, and to keep readers in mind in our editing. I would remind all editors that indefinite is not synonymous with infinite, but at the same time would encourage Lucia to avoid approaching another administrator to overturn the topic ban until having demonstrated ability to engage in appropriate interactions with other editors. Thank you to all editors who participated in the discussion for (largely) remaining civil and on-topic. I think all involved know that this is unlikely to be the final thread on this topic, and would encourage all editors to continue to act in good faith, and in the best interests of the project at large. God bless. Go Phightins! 23:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was given permission by the Administrator, Nick, to bring this matter to AN here.

Due to a dispute in the article Ghost in the Shell, Salvidrim! felt i was disruptive and had banned me from the article. If he feels so, fine....I'm not going to argue over it. However, i believe Salvidrim! over-stepped a bit. Salvidrim! has also topic banned me from Ghost in the Shell (manga), and Ghost in the Shell (video game).

The video game article has never been up for dispute nor disruption, and i have always been the main contributor. In fact, i just recently put it up for peer review, here to consider putting up in FAC, which i find too much of a coincidence and highly unreasonable. The manga has been relieved more than a while ago and since then, the article has barely been touched by me (mainly because the article looks fine).

As you can see here, Salvidrim! isn't really answering the questions i have, and i feel the response is lacking of what an admin should give. So i would like this to be reviewed primarily by what is allowed by the members under the current probation. I think the more appropriate way is focusing on the issue, not just make punishment for punishment sake. other members have seen the core of the issue. I believe right now, Ryulong specifically has an incredible advantage over Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga), by merging them, despite not being the main contributor, nor technically having the consensus. You can see my extensive comment on the situation here.

On a lighter note, (but not what i'm most concerned about): i feel the "indefinite" probation seems rather excessive (then again, i found a lot of issues in the past were taken care of excessively). I was more than happy when the appropriate topic/two-way interaction ban (not one-way) works REALLY well...and since then, i have been able to edit well and quicker, and even other editors have noticed my recent contributions. And i don't have to stress about members talking me and feeding fire to it all while i'm biting my really takes care of the core issue. This however, i don't feel is necessary, just being excessive. Lucia Black (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I personally would not have restricted you from the other two pages, as the dispute that resulted in the restriction is pretty focused on just Ghost in the Shell. However in the application of a sanction like this, the question should be whether the administrative action was reasonable, not what I would due if I replaced the judgement of the sanctioning admin with my own. One of the goals of the probation is to avoid the need to have a discussion, so overriding a decision should only be done if it is clearly wrong. In that light, I think the 3 page topic ban is well within reasonable admin discretion. I might slightly encourage User:Salvidrim! to reduce the topic ban to the one page, but don't think there is a case for the community overriding that discretion. Monty845 06:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • He would have need extensive consensus to do so, either way as its outside of "automatic topic ban" that he's allowed to do. So i genuinely feel like there is a may not be the biggest case, but i am bringing up valid points. Lucia Black (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your inability to comment on a merge I may or may not propose has no bearing on your topic ban.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In the past, you've merged without Consensus. So, what i'm saying is that

Endorse Topic Ban - If you look at the terms of the sanctions against Lucia, all it says is that it has to be an admin who feels she's being disruptive. She's been arguing with a battleground mentality for months there now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: We probably share same kind of opinion about this complaint and user. I admire your skills of evaluating and drawing conclusions, Lucia has been also engaged in misinterpreting a number of users. I think that topic ban on 3 pages was a good idea, from "endorse ban" you mean WP:BANNED or you were talking about the topic ban? Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 18:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I had only really meant Salv's topic ban. (I'd technically support both honestly, but there was no consensus to indef block/ban her last time that discussion was had, so I don't especially want to push for it now.) I've amended my first comment to make that clearer. Thanks for having me clear that up. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I will concede that extending to ban to the other two GITS pages seems like a bit broad, but there is ample history of unproductive disputes on all pages of this topic, which led to Lucia's probation and IBAN, as well as at least one previous pageban under the probation (applied by User:Nick). I felt it there was a more-than-reasonable probability that banning Lucia from the one page currently causing issue would cause the disruptive editing to carry on over to other GITS pages. I also stopped short of an actual GITS topic-ban because the wording of the probation specifies that she can be banned from pages and not topics, and I wanted to avoid seeing this reversed on a technicality. Lucia needs to realize we are putting these things (IBAN, probation, pagebans) in place to avoid having to ban/indef her entirely. As I explained to Lucia, the fact that she still sees disputes as combats that she can win or lose proves she is unable to conduct herself in a manner respectful of Wikipedia's behavioral policies. She also repeats this sentiment above, talking about how Ryulong now "has an advantage" despite "not being the main contributor". This convinces me that, at the very least, the indefinite probation currently in effect is still a perfectly appropriate remedy. I will not oppose removing the current pagebans from all but the main object of the dispute if the community thinks it is too broad a sanction. I would support a one-way (Lucia>Ryulong) IBAN. I would support a two-way Lucia<>Ryulong IBAN if Ryulong agrees to it. I agree with Ryulong that these IBANs would be potentially useless, but I think they can't hurt in trying to maintain a positive atmosphere. I would potentially, weakly support a proposition for a siteban+indef block for Lucia, as I think far too much time has been wasted in dealing with the drama that she seems to attract relentlessly, but I do not think that we are necessarily at this point yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73, Salvidrim!: The idea of indefinite bans, shows this isn't about how "disruptive" i am or how much you're preventing. Most of this seems mostly punitive rather than preventative. A topic ban of Ghost in the Shell, would've been plenty already, but the others just ostracize anyone from providing a consensus or establishing "no-consensus".
You know my history, but we also know how much it correlates to other members who have been equally (if not more) disruptive (even without me). Like i said, the topic-ban to the article you believe i was disruptive is more than enough. There is no "technicality", just misinterpretation. The point is to ban me from the articles i'm being disruptive...not to ban whichever one you want.
Whether you like me or not, shouldn't be a point Lucia Black (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Not this (Redacted) again. LB, I'm going to say this the same way that I said it to Ryulong, and to the other editor you love to conflict with. We don't give two rats asses who started it, who is contesting it, or who has an unfair advantage. What we do care about is seeing the persistent and perennial drama crops with respect to Japanese Culture (Anime/Manga/Video Games/Etc) and the 3 referenced editors to stop. Demonstrate that you can behave yourself and craft a appeal that addresses problems the community has identified with your actions. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support extended topic ban based primarily on this filing. Before posting here, Lucia should have read the boomerang essay. I don't know much about Japanese animation other than that it causes conflict between certain editors including Ryulong and Lucia. I know Ryulong enough from other areas to know that he gets into too many controversies, but that he is usually right and that he is primarily concerned about the quality of the encyclopedia. Lucia's post here does not focus on the quality of the encyclopedia, but on whether the topic ban gives Ryulong an unfair advantage. In other words, it appears that she is more concerned about her antagonism for another editor than about the encyclopedia in general. Based on her own arguments, I Support the extended topic ban. She is fortunate not to have a one-way interaction ban imposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Like i said, my "disruption" has always correlated between specific members who are equally (and again, if not more) as disruptive, so i know my actions, i just feel a lot of times its looked at in a very specific perspective. this isn't about whether Ryulong is right or wrong, you don't need to know how familiar with anime/manga media, all you have to do is know the topic well. but i'm not here to discuss the issue....after all, i am "banned" from it, however, i am here to contest the other two articles that have nothing to do with my disruption. the Ghost int he Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell (video game) article neither have received any disruption by me, and i have done nothing but contribute to those articles.

@Robert McClenon: What exactly do you want me to get out of WP:BOOMERANG that is related to this situation? All i'm asking is that they topic-ban "appropriately" by only keeping Ghost in the Shell topic ban, and wait and see if i ever become "disruptive" over the other two. And so far no one has proven that this is "NOT" punitive. What i'm most concerned about is the article, but at the moment, am i even in a position to even discuss it? I'm not even trying to appeal for the current article, that Salvidrim believes i'm being disruptive.

In this case, your post requesting a limitation of the topic-ban is itself the boomerang. You, Lucia, gave as your reason for requesting the restriction of the topic-ban that the extended topic-ban gave Ryulong an "incredible advantage" over you in a possible merge, not yet proposed. You didn't emphasize the value to the encyclopedia, but your long-standing contention with Ryulong. It is true that you wrote the request stating your real reason for requesting the limitations on the ban, a contention with another editor. However, that isn't a reason of the good of the encyclopedia. As other editors have said, you (Lucia) don't pay attention to responses to your requests. We do answer your questions. You just apparently don't consider disagreement to be an option. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

why isn't what i'm asking for isn't fair or appropriate? Lucia Black (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the general flow of just about all the discussions that go unfavorably for Lucia. She proposes something. It's opposed for a variety of legitimate reasons. She doesn't agree with them, and then proceeds to not to acknowledge them. She'll just continue to act like no one has given an actual reason. It's one of the reasons her talk page arguments go on forever. This very discussion demonstrates why Salvidrim's actions were a good, preventative choice. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For clarity, I oppose an anime/manga/VG topic ban as Lucia rarely edits outside those areas (she would be lost without them, I'd wager) and in my experience has been helpful overall there. I'm neutral on a GitS topic ban; I'd think how deep into the bedrock this discussion has sunk would set her straight, even if it wouldn't change her personal anger at the subject, but she has been obstinate and gotten warnings on the topic before. Tezero (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many threads about Japanese entertainment[edit]

Lucia Black and others: There have been too many threads here and at WP:ANI about Japanese entertainment. It doesn't seem to be such a contentious area, but there are certain editors who can't get along, including one who is usually right and who makes positive contributions to the encyclopedia. At some point, someone will get tired of all these disruptive threads, and will conclude that the only remaining forum is the ArbCom. Lucia: Every complaint that you bring here, and especially every complaint that you bring here that is poorly founded and where you won't listen, is one more step toward the issue going to ArbCom. Can you (Lucia) infer what will happen when ArbCom accepts the case? The first action, which will be a near-certainty, because it is what ArbCom does when there are conduct issues in a content area, is discretionary sanctions, optional one-uninvolved-admin draconian restrictions on editing. Do you really want discretionary sanctions? The second action, since Lucia Black is the editor who doesn't listen and doesn't learn, is a topic-ban on Japanese entertainment in general. Lucia: Do you really want to complain and complain and complain until you get topic-banned? I don't think so. Then stop pushing. If you keep pushing, the area will go to ArbCom, there will be discretionary sanctions, and a topic-ban for Lucia Black is very likely. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I assure you that Japanese Entertainment is a broad assumption. there has always been a specific range that has in WP:ANI between me, Ryulong, and the other member. I cover mostly media such as anime/manga and video games, Ryulong does very minor edits to those, mostly relating to format. The fact that you mention "including one who is actually right and who make positive contributions to the encyclopedia" shows me a lot of things on where your stance and reasoning is based on. It shows me this isn't out of whether my contributions are bad or not to merit a topic ban as broad, but because you know User:Ryulong's edits, and you personally feel he makes only good contributions t not even question it. And because i mentioned this allows Ryulong to get consensus by default, (not a true consensus), it shows more. And i'm not even misconstruing. SO here's my questions: What edits to Wikipedia have i done that have affected it negatively and it wont be cleared until i'm banned from anime/manga articles?
What makes this particular case "unfounded"? i have not made any disruption toward Ghost in the Shell (manga) nor Ghost in the Shell (video game), in fact, I've done nothing but good contributions to those, and even further. I recently just put up Ghost in the Shell (video game) to peer review to see if it gets to. So i make positive contributions to Wikipedia as well. You just have to actually "want" to see them.
You just asked me "Do you want to complain and complain and complain until you get topic banned?", and my response to that is "Are you suggesting that bringing up an issue can be the only reason to topic-ban? Is this what you were trying to imply when you provided WP:BOOMERANG? That i shoot myself in the foot, not because of disruption but the mere fact that the people who read the issue don't agree and that alone is "reasonable" enough to enforce even more sanctions?" i'm not treating this like a vote, i'm treating this like a discussion. I'm genuinely asking you these questions.
if you care about the well being of Wikipedia and the learning process of a member (even if its one you're not fond of), perhaps this is the chance to answer my questions. I recently asked you what WP:BOOMERANG had to do with anything. My questions have always been ignored. So it shows to me how punitive the method goes when it comes to me. Lucia Black (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick warning - please remember that you remain under an interaction ban with Chris and thinly veiled references to him here and elsewhere are still sufficient to have you blocked under the provisions of that interaction ban. This discussion needs to focus solely on your behavioural problems Lucia, you really need not mention Ryulong or Chris anywhere. Nick (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SITEBAN proposal[edit]

At this point, I believe a full siteban for Lucia is the best solution. The amount of time and effort wasted on the relentless drama surrounding her has far surpassed whatever benefit she may bring to the project. We have tried establishing an IBAN to try to get her to re-focus on content instead of editors. We have put her under probation to enable admins to summarily ban her from any page where she is being disruptive. We have banned her from opening a thread on any noticeboard due to incessant, unproductive ranting. How much farther will we go to enforce more and more restrictions around Lucia, for the sole purpose of avoiding having to indef-block her?

Now she has been topic-banned from 3 pages within the same topic because she was being disruptive in one, and mentioned that the dispute ranged across other GITS-related articles, under the provisions of her ongoing probation... and immediately sought approval to open an AN thread to rant again. When she was last blocked, she said she was "content" despite the block because her side of the editing dispute had "won". Just in the past days, she has demonstrated again and again that her attitude is almost the exact opposite of one that is seeking conflict resolution. She refers to editing disputes as "3-way tie"s, argues that her ban gives another editor "an unfair advantage" despite the fact that he "isn't the main contributor", as if that gave her some right over the content. I will admit I am floored and speechless by how casually she discusses "her disruption" as if it was just a fact-of-life. She gives no indication whatsoever that she recognizes the problems with her behaviour, and doesn't make even the smallest attempt at reassuring the community that she will not continue onto the same track in the future. Previous discussion - The last siteban proposal in January 2014 was archived before being closed and arguably failed to produce strong consensus for the ban, with a majority of opposers indicated they wished to give Lucia "one more chance", or that the circumstances at that moment didn't support a ban, or instead suggested an anime/manga broad topic ban. 7 months later, SSDD, I think the community's patience with Lucia's antics has expired by now. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just reverted Lucia Black's attempts at WP:CANVASSING editors (1, 2). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just been notified these were posted following a misguided recommendation by Tezero, so I won't hold it against her too much, even though she should've known better. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if indeed that was a mistake, it was my mistake. I do wonder where her supporters will come from, though, as I suspect this page has a sampling bias towards people who are strict and unforgiving. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree, but even if I did, I'd think you're familiar with the term "two wrongs don't make a right"? A WikiProject isn't the place to recruit help at AN discussions. (I'd "assume good faith", but your wording makes it quite clear that's what you're doing, so...) Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Salvidrim nails all the endlessly recurring problems with Lucia. My comments above also explain my stance as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There is no more water in this dry well of AGF. I note that in the January proposals I was already fed up with LB, and their "learning" appears to have not changed any of the problematic behavior we previously idenfified. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment @Salvidrim!: So basically, you want me to ban me indefinitely simply because you're "tired" and your patience is wearing thin? Let me be clear that all i'm asking for the moment is to lessen the topic ban to only the one you believe i'm being "disruptive". So i'm not asking for a lot. To "rant" is your choice of words, it's not close to helping others describe the situation. And honestly, you're only sole reason to ban me indefinitely is how you personally feel about me, not that my recent actions merit it. This is WP:PUNISH. Here's some of the points that can be looked at:

Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of community principles in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community.

Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Topic bans, page protections and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with her or him before blocking?

@Hasteur: if i'm not learning, maybe choose a better method. But i have not made any contact with you and you haven't made contact with me. so if you're fed up, its out of your own personal choice to do so. My learning depends on how you choose to teach me anything. SO far, the only thing i learned is "admins can do what they want, and if you question it, you'll be sorry" and i'm not even choosing to see it that way, that is exactly whats going on right now. And all i'm asking is for something completely reasonable. What reason do you have to ban me indefinitely? I rarely get an answer, my questions are ignored. Often times i'm being belittled, insulted, or certain things are exaggerated, not by my how actions affect Wikipedia but how you personally feel (for example: you just mentioned how "fed up" you are, not that my actions are worth being blocked indefinitely. Lucia Black (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
See also WP:IDHT and WP:BOOMERANG. Anything you reply with besides "I understand and will do what I can to fix it" only serves to put more nails into the lid of the coffin you've created for yourself. Hasteur (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur: I've seen many people use WP:IDHT against me for various things. to this day, people use it and feel thats all that needs to be said. I've seen people use WP:IDHT to make believe they have had consensus, I've seen it as an excuse to not answer important questions. The advice in WP:IDHT is to listen to what their saying and move on to the discussion. But theres a problem when one wants to "move on" to a discussion with no , and doesn't want to stick to the one that was provided. It shouldn't be considered disruptive to try to keep the integrity of the discussion.
The way WP:BOOMERANG is used that you don't tell us what you want to hear, than you're shooting yourself on the foot. But i dont need to say "I understand and will do what i can to fix it" because the situation doesn't call for it. The problem is that Salvidrim! banned me from an articles I've done nothing but good contributions to. I'm not trying to get rid of all of the issues, just the ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talkcontribs)
What Sergecross, Hasteur and Salvidrim! are insinuating is that i "admit fault" but their forgetting. And even if i tell them what they want to hear, thats not going to satisfy them. and for the record, thats not what this issue was brought up. All i was asking is that they topic ban "appropriately". Because I've been doing nothing but good contributions to said articles. What their doing is just using word-choice to ban me indefinitely, it has nothing to do whether i learned or not. Its what they choose to interpret. As Knowledgekid has said, objectively, what recent edits have that affected the article?
What bothers me is that no one wants to analyze the situation further. Knowledgekid hit the nail on the issue. that there is something that's bigger than me. Lucia Black (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: The other commentators get it right. More than anything, one more chance was given, taken, and squandered. Even such draconian remedies as an AN/ANI ban plus what I'd describe as "roving discretionary sanctions" have failed. From all appearances so long as Lucia Black remains on the project, articles in her preferred subject area will suffer, as countless editor-hours will be wasted addressing battleground behavior. Anything less is just too little, too late. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: How have i "squandered" that chance? What chance are you insinuating? I'm sorry, but what you're saying doesn't grammatically make sense. I don't even understand what you're saying. And overall, i'm tired of people Lucia Black (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Assumeably, Mendaliv's referring to how you were given one last chance after the last time it was suggested you be sitebanned, and here we are again, at a discussion about you being site-banned, due to your constant disruptive discussions all over the project. You haven't learned a thing from your past sanctions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Respectfully, if you think anything I wrote above is actually ungrammatical, the problem is entirely on your end. The longer you keep battling, the more people will be wasting time dealing with you rather than writing articles. It's a simple enough concept. The evidence demonstrates that you are a net minus to this project. I can't say it any clearer. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Lucia's contributions to anime- and game-related articles have still been beneficial overall. It's true that she comes off as confrontational and black-and-white sometimes, but to me it seems more like responding with anger when Ryulong disregards the importance of consensus. That's a "side" I don't want to win. The most problematic of her edits are focused on GitS-related articles, anyway, so I think a topic ban is the highest this should go. (What really needs to happen is a concerted, project-wide discussion on anime/manga article organization, because I've seen it be contentious before.) Tezero (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually recognize that a non-negligible part of her contributions are positive, but partially constructive activity cannot be used to excuse or justify the amount of time waster over the drama that she relentlessly surrounds herself with. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The main issue seems to be a feud between Ryulong and Lucia, either fix that or have other editors weigh in on Lucia's proposals so more of a consensus can be reached. I have seen Lucia get articles up to GA status and feel she deserves to be here as a productive editor. Also I have noticed that editors that Lucia have had issues with in the past are saying Ban her indef which to me seems a bit biased. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
None of the points raised in the proposal for the siteban even discuss the dispute with Ryulong or with anyone else. It's not a matter of dispute, it's a matter of general behaviour. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The most recent thing above deals with Ghost in the Shell all the other things piled on to her after the fact. As soon as her name was mentioned in the ANI board people piled on Lucia did ... back at such and such time. Are there any other recent reasons other than Ghost in the Shell and the long dispute between the two editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I encourage you to re-read the initial text of my proposal, which is solely about the long history of wasted time and unproductive behaviour. I purposedly avoided discussing specifics of any dispute, because even though this latest kerfuffle is probably the so-called "last straw", this is but the latest in a long, long line of incessant drama and ranting that never led to any change of attitude or even recognition of a problem on Lucia's part. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, that in itself is a massive, month spanning argument that has wasted all sorts of people's time, whether it be ANI, DRN, etc etc, so you really shouldn't downplay just that. But beyond that, it's these sorts of disruptive discussions that she's constantly a part of. She makes a huge stink over something minor, and treats the talk page like a battlefield to be won, where she speaks with an unwarranted sense of authority and refuses to listen to anyone else. Time after time these lengthy arguments ensue where she completely fails to assume good faith and sums up the other side's argument wrong, to the point where she tries to tell the others their own viewpoint. It's disruptive, and she puts a lot more into these timewasters than her GAs these days. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Pretty sure all the regulars follow AN anyway, making the canvassing a non-event. I'll not be contributing a definite opinion here myself, since my lengthy absences from the project mean I have no sense of patterns of recent behavior. I will note that there have been far more intense previous arguments which she was not banned for, however. --erachima talk 02:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that a ban could've (maybe should've) resulted from earlier events; this just proves that even at her worst, we allowed her one last chance, and another; now I think that, considering the complete lack of change (or even recognition that there is a problem), it's finally enough. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, its the culmination of years, not just a single event. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, Salvidrim. I consider massive arguments generally dealable as long as the involved editors are able to focus on content and go back to work afterward. Bans are for nuclear errors and various forms of terminal cluelessness. --erachima talk 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's exactly correct. "Nuclear errors" and "terminal cluelessness" are much more easily addressed with a summary indef block. This isn't a case that will uncontroversially end with a block. Formal sitebanning is appropriate where the situation is complex, and to give any wandering admin additional pause before lifting the block imposed to enforce said siteban. This is precisely the sort of situation that calls for a ban discussion, taking into account all the past problems, and carefully weighing the evidence. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ban-via-indef is the most common outcome for nuclear errors, ban-via-discussion for terminal cluelessness. --erachima talk 03:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support due to chronic, excessive battleground behavior that hasn't been corrected by lesser sanctions, and complete failure to acknowledge that behavior. I suggest that the editor contribute for at least a year without drama on another Wikimedia project, and then return here with a convincing explanation of understanding of past problems and a commitment to contributing positively going forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose siteban, though i do support the wider topicban Salvidrim! imposed and might well support an even wider ban (~Manga, animation, Japanese topics?) as appropriate to reduce the level of drama. I recall suggesting on this board, some time ago, that Lucia spend some time in a completely different area, and i suggest it again. If it is an area she feels less "interesting", all the better, as perhaps she'll be able to focus on the improvement of the project we all want rather than the competitive roundabout she seems to get stuck on at the moment. Cheers, LindsayHello 02:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason this seems like a rather mediocre solution is that since upwards of 90% of Lucia's edits are made within this topic area, a broad topicban and a siteban are functionally almost the same. Also, the issues leading to this proposal aren't about the topic of editing, they are about Lucia's general behaviour, and there is no indication whatsoever that this would be changed by changing the topic area, quite the contrary. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Precisely! She is so focussed on this one area, and yet is capable of performing good edits; thus, a siteban has the side effect of hurting us as a community, by depriving ourselves of those potential edits, while a topicban is a win-win, in forcing Lucia to refocus and (so i hope!) find a happier place. If this has the effect of a siteban, so be it; if it does not, well, that's good, right? Cheers, LindsayHello 04:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Rereading this, it sounds more light-hearted than i intend. My point is that a "mediocre solution" is a good thing, if we are using the adjective in opposition to "draconian"; a full siteban is a last resort, something the community moves to with heavy heart when there is no hope for an editor; while there is even a small glimmer (10% of edits, maybe) suggesting the editor might be redeemed, the community should aim for that glimmer. Cheers, LindsayHello 04:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't exactly oppose a topic ban, especially after this incident, but, at the same time, I don't think there needs to be a site ban. A topic ban, however, might be best. More specifically involving video games. Why not have just a topic ban on video games? GamerPro64 03:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you think just banning me will solve any of the issues. Recently, Sergecross also mentioned disruption from Ryulong aswell in his ANI. So he also sees there's not just one side involved. I don't believe just banning me will solve anything. It'll just satisfy a specific group of members... there's more involved people with the exact same(if not worst) history. So right now, there has been no frequent disruption with WP:ANIME related articles, which is indeed 90-70% of the articles i make. One isolated event wont help. And the fact that i provide good edits. shows more...
This is punitive not preventative. Lucia Black (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
A siteban is suggested to prevent having to waste more time whenever you're back at AN/I in a few weeks or months. The same pattern have been continuing for years, and you have never shown indication that you acknowledged the issues, nor that you desire to improve your behaviour. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What I'm suggesting is a slap on the wrist. The topic ban could be temporary even. Like a couple months or something. I don't want to see an editor who tries to do their best on the site. But this is absolutely not showing you in a nice light at all. GamerPro64 03:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
GamerPro64: After years of slaps, an IBAN, a draconian probation, a noticeboard ban, can you quantify how many more "slaps on the wrist" you would allow Lucia before coming to the conclusion that her editing's positive side do not outweigh the drama's waste of time? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I don't even believe a site ban would even work. Most likely this'll end up resulting in IP addresses made and sock-puppetry and anything else that will also make this conversation frivolous. GamerPro64 03:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
True. I don't personally think sockpuppetry, even when deceptive, is necessarily wrong, but Wikipedia policy definitively does, and jumping to the largest possible ban is a virtual guarantee of Lucia doing just that if she's determined to. I don't think any number of "slaps on the wrist" count in this context when she hasn't gotten any temporary ones for this area yet. Tezero (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has not annoyed the general WP:ANIME community, at least not more than any of the other regulars, and has kept the infighting away from those boards. If you're concerned about postings or sanctions on GITS then limit it to that. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim:To prevent waste time is completely based on your choice.....and i find that reasoning counter-intuitive, and quite frankly "immature". What i brought up was completely relevant, and i was given permission to bring it up by an administrator. That should not warrant any reason to ban me indefinitely.
@GamerPro64: A temporary ban to WP:VG isn't a complete problem for me but to me feels like its more punitive though. Preventing disruption to articles isn't whats happening with me in WP:VG. I agree this isn't showing a nice light, but showing in a nice light is all about perspective, and how one chooses to phrase things. To me, SergeCross, Salvidrim and Hasteur's pattern is blowing things up out of proportion.
All right. I believe that I have no clue what to make of this conversation as a whole. I'll just end my contribution to this discussion by being overall Neutral on the whole ordeal. GamerPro64 03:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And i agree @AngusWOOF: that the main GITS article is fine to be banned from, however the other two feels excessive, and counter-intuitive as another disruptive editor is often involved too. Banning one, is enabling the other. Which is why i ask this be seen completely Lucia Black (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If those editors really have been disruptive for a long period of time, they should be listed here as well. Tezero (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The one and only other editor who has yet to be affected by these type of bans is Ryulong, in the previous ANI, it was finally "preventative" rather than "punitive" because it finally caused a full two-way interaction ban rather than the one-way (causing sid member to take advantage of the situation and add flame) and topic-ban. But that's a history of where Ryulong was involved in some way. This is why i'm against a complete ban from Ghost in the Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell (video game). Lucia Black (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oppose: Lucia has certainly been the root of many ridiculous, unproductive disputes. But, if someone as impossible to interact with as User:SNAAAAKE!! has dodged the banhammer on content-generation grounds, Lucia should be treated no differently. Poor manners aside, she does do work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm against a site ban, as I was on the indef block in the last discussion. I did propose a blanket indefinite topic ban from Anime and Manga last time and propose it again. Proposing a ban on someone for just taking up time is harsh and very punitive. Although her attitude exasperates me as much as it does any number of other editors, she's not actively being pointedly disruptive, vandalising, socking, edit warring, lacking competence or any of the other things that editors are usually banned for. She contributes, she discusses, albeit confrontationally with a severe combative mentality, which she would do well to sort out, but on average does things in accordance with what is required on Wikipedia. If we banned anyone who was a pain in someone else's butt, there wouldn't be many people left here. Blackmane (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a site ban. I am aware that she has been given "one more chance", but maybe "one more chance" is punitive in her case. I support a broad topic ban on anime/manga/Japanese video games, where she is always getting into conflicts. If that amounts to a ban, that is her choice to be an SPA. Concur with Blackmane. I would also support a two-week block. However, just because she always disrupts Japanese entertainment and can't take part in discussions doesn't mean that she should be banned from the English Wikipedia, only from Japanese entertainment and from discussions at these noticeboards. Her insistence on responding to every post here by saying that we haven't answered her questions is deeply frustrating, and illustrates that she doesn't learn, but the remedy is already in effect, to ban her from posting to noticeboards. A site ban would be punitive. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - An immediate 24-hour block would be in her own interest to keep her from alienating her supporters, but that isn't the way we do things here. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - So, it seems pretty divided on whether or not a siteban is necessary. However, almost all of the opposes support a larger topic ban, related to anime and video games. Can it be assumed that the site ban supporters would also support this sort of topic ban? If so, then I would think we have a good consensus building for that at least. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sergecross73 I'm fine with an indef Japanese Culture ban (Anime/Manga/Video games/etc), but I see it only as kicking the can down the road 2 months till LB attempts to claim that the TBan was unfair and they shouldn't have to abide the terms that the community imposed on them (see also their indef article probation which the current "complaint" is a imposed topic ban from). I'll accept the indef topic ban if you promise that the next time that LB comes back stirring up trouble in the topic space that you carte blanche agree to sitebanning. Blocks haven't worked, Article probation hasn't worked, Limited scope page bans haven't worked, and Im almost certain that topic bans won't work. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed, it's not ideal, but it's better than nothing. If this is all dropped as "no consensus" and no action is taken, then not only was all of this a waste of time, but it'll just lead to more disruptive Lucia discussions, which will just ultimately lead us right back here again in 6 months. She takes absolutely no ownership towards any of her shortcomings, so there's no reason to think she'll stop otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I would also support a Anime/Manga/VG broad topic-ban as an alternative remedy. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
One could consider a broad topic ban analogous to how a doctor may excise an area of cancerous growth (and I am in no way comparing Lucia to a cancer, I'm comparing the process) but to prevent it spreading may cut a much larger portion or even the whole organ out. However, if as Hasteur predicts that we're just kicking the can down the road, i.e. the growth has metastasised, then there's not much more that can be done than to close up shop and call it a day. And if Lucia takes offense at my analogy, I do profusely apologise. A shortage of sleep and an impending move has left my creativity desperately short. Blackmane (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment In all the years I have worked in anime and manga articles, I have never had a problem with Lucia Black nor has most other editors in the same topic area. While I have seen her get bull headed at times with a couple of editors, I don't see that as grounds for either a site or topic ban. It appears to me that there is a small cartel of editor who are far too eager to ban anyone who they thing is creating drama. Such bans should only be reserved for editors who have demonstrated to be extremely disruptive or unwilling to work with anyone and should not be used for editors whom you are tired of hearing of or from. —Farix (t | c) 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • TheFarix Surely we can agree that the sum of the positive contributions should always exceed the sum of the distractions for every user? In that case please consider the numerous times that Lucia Black (either in concert with other editors in the subject area or by themselves) has been the subject of a topic at any of the Administrators Noticeboards (AN,ANI,ANEW) and see that their first chance, second chance, one more chance, and final chances have all been burned up. It's not a few activist editors looking to punish a user, it's the community standing up and saying No More. Her disurptions greatly outweigh her positive contributions, so it's time to be done with this persistent irritation. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question - Given Lucia's history (a half-dozen AN or AN/Is, 3 blocks in the last 2 years, 3 different sancions currently in place, persistent battleground mentality, unwillingness to compromise, etc.), the arguments made by individuals that they personally haven't had any problems with her and that consequently she should be left alone to carry on doing what she does are entirely unconvincing. Suggestions that those who have taken umbrage with her behavior are part of a conspiracy to silence her are equally silly. An editor's history can demonstrate patterns of behavior in need of correction. Once these patterns are acknowledged by the editor then they can be addressed. If the editor is unwilling or incapable of addressing these behavioral problems then further sanctions are warranted. I am interested to hear from Lucia Black A) whether she acknowledges that her behavior needs to improve and B) whether she can give any examples of steps she has taken to improved her collaborative shortcomings since the last set of sanctions were imposed. -Thibbs (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Answer to User:Thibbs: Your questions clearly are well-meaning and optimistic. Apparently you are hoping that, by using slightly different wording, you will actually get answers. I hope that you are right, but only in an empty sense, because I have no hope that she will answer your questions. All that she has done is to ask the same questions over and over again, such as what our real issue is, or to make the same statements over and over again, such as displaying her dislike for another editor. I haven't seen evidence that she intends to change her behavior, or any examples of changes to her behavior. Lucia: Can you answer these questions straightforwardly? I would prefer that the questions be ignored rather than getting the usual repetitive reply. Thibbs appears to be more optimistic than I. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's not critique her response before she gives it. She is the single person in the best position to provide evidence of any actual efforts to improve her behavior and if she can acknowledge that she needs to improve further in order to meet the standards of the community, then perhaps a sanctions of the ban variety is not yet necessary. Basically I'm looking for any sign that she is trying to improve herself in response to the obvious annoyance of her peers and I want to hear what she will say for herself. If her answers demonstrate that she is unwilling or incapable of addressing these behavioral problems then I'd support further sanctions. -Thibbs (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite these allegations of battleground editing, I think Lucia's good contributions definitely outweighs all others. Several other members of the community including myself have worked well with her and especially regarding Anime articles, she does seem to do a lot of good work. I absolutely oppose a site ban and I hope others can see it that they think the same. A site ban will not solve any problems (and is harsh), and maybe even a topic ban wouldn't solve anything. Maybe some work can be done to prevent further disruptions and the disagreements, but a site ban doesn't seem to work it. Jaguar 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Jaguar Thank you for that wonderful "Xe's a good person" response. Your response if effectively a nullity. Her conduct in multiple locations (including that Video Games discussion) clearly indicates that she sees anybody who disagrees with her viewpoint as an opponent to be defeated by arguing every point over and over until the opponent relents. Low level discussions wind up to be multi megabyte threads that get argued into no consensus, Medium level dispute resolution (including DRN) gets argued into a "I'd rather see this trashed than a change occur", high level dispute resolution (such as AN/ANI) gets argued untill she skirts by with the most minor of sanctions. How many more times is the community expected to deal with her persistent and unreformed disruption before she is restricted to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia as a whole? Her contributions may not be Grade-A disruptive inside the subject area she edits, but when her actions cause multi-meagabyte discussions to occur outside the subject area her contributions redeeming values are greatly outweighed by the disruption they cause. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps when AN becomes a forum for neutrally weighing a user's actions, instead of an arbitrary and inconsistent mudfight, some of that will matter. I've changed my comment above to an oppose. Lucia is guilty of disruptive and obnoxious behavior, but I've seen far worse slide by AN and AN/I on far shakier grounds. Sitebanning Lucia, while users like SNAAAAKE!! run roughshod over every civility policy unimpeded, would be a laughable miscarriage of justice. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • So you won't take care of the bad things on the sole basis that there are worse things also not being taken care of? That's so laughable that I'm not even sure you're being serious. Let's never ban anyone again, because there is obviously always a worse, unbanned editor. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) JimmyBlackwing, Niemti/Snake was indef blocked for quite some time, is currently in the middle of a 4 week block, and has been very close to being sitebanned again on a few occassions. I wouldn't see him as a bar of acceptable behavior, but rather someone who's probably on his way to another indef block himself... Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
          • He's been "probably on his way" to such a block for years. And Salvidrim, the point is (as I said yesterday) that Niemti has consistently skated by on the grounds that he generates content. If that defense works for him—one of the most widely despised editors I've ever seen—, then it should work for Lucia. That is, if we're trying to be even remotely consistent, rather than arbitrarily picking favorites. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Wow, talk about setting the bar low. Also, "arbitrarily picking favorites" makes absolutely no sense. What are you proposing? Don't even discuss banning an editor until they pass below the extremely low Niemti standards of civility? It'd be one thing if you were saying that to a bunch of Niemti defenders...but I'm not sure you've done the research to see that's the case here, and that certainly doesn't describe myself. But we're getting off topic. If you tolerance for behavior is truly that ridiculous, I doubt I'll convince you of anything... Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
              • My point is that content generation apparently covers over a multitude of sins, even for someone like Niemti. Therefore, the same should apply to a productive editor like Lucia, whose tantrums are almost mild compared to Niemti's. I know that both you and Salvidrim have gone after Niemti in the past, but it doesn't change anything—I was criticizing AN and AN/I in general for picking favorites. So, unless everyone at AN has decided that the content-generation defense is no longer valid as a general rule (instead of being Niemti's get-out-of-jail-free card), Lucia should not be sitebanned. I've never worked with her, and I find her behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games repulsive, but I find arbitrary AN decisions even more repulsive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
                • While I don't know Niemti well enough (I think I've only come across him once) there are some editors here that despite their disagreements and disruption, they can produce good quality work albeit the setbacks that sometimes they provide. Jaguar 21:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Opposse Siteban - I only have a rough idea of the situation regarding Lucia's past appearances here so I'm not going to try and debate the details. I can't judge the time spent by people on this subject. Lucia is a passionate editor, which can be both a blessing and a curse. I'm reminded of a another editor who while very experienced and good at writing quality articles could also find themselves in volatile situations. Unfortunately when two passionate editors are on opposing sides of a debate, it's no surprise things can get heated - it's more surprising if they don't. It's not necessarily deliberate, these things can simply happen very quickly and as such get out of control before you realise it. That said, it's something that should be learnt for the future so reoccurrence isn't a good sign. Personally I simply don't get involved in potentially contentious pages for this reason. In general Lucia's contributions to Wikipedia are of quality and she is one of the most significant contributors to WP:Anime. Is that a defence for any questionable actions? No, but I Oppose a site ban on the grounds that a already overwhelmed project would suffer as a result of a site ban. However, I think Lucia would help her cause if she voluntarily dropped the whole Ghost in the Shell topic, regardless of what subpage it may be, simply because it would show an attempt to meet halfway and there are many other pages she could work on instead. I also suggested she back down on any other contentious matters or further attempts to argue against any measures and drag others into it which make things worse by trying to argue the same point continuously . In short, I disagree with a site ban based on my experience of working with her, but believe Lucia is really not helping her case. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Standard Oppose based on insufficient evidence to take the most drastic move. Topic bans and blocks are available before we go to a site ban. This does not seem like a site ban case to me. Doc talk 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Her content contributions outweigh the perceived level of disruption. A topic ban (of some scope that we could define) could be viable, but I think a site ban at this point would be incredibly inappropriate. Artichoker[talk] 22:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Artichoker Thank you for your highly informed opinion. Clearly you've done your research and see that Lucia Black is already under an indef IBan with one editor, an indef TBan from filing AN* requests (even with leave of an Administrator), and an indef Article Probation (see Wikipedia:Editing Restrictions). If these lower level ways to dissuade LB from being disruptive, I think we would have found them already. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Hey, that's not necessary. None of what you said contradicts Artichoker's statements. If you dispute that Lucia's content contributions outweigh her disruption or that a topic ban would work, explain why. Tezero (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Hasteur said the same thing to me in the same manner... Jaguar 13:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • When you all present the "She's not causing any disruption" argument repeatedly when it has been refuted many times (and proven in this thread), you only show your innocence. The fact that we have multiple people using this same argument suggests in my mind an externally coordinated campaign to keep enabling Lucia. A Interaction ban hasn't worked (as she violated it in this request when she tangentially referred to the editor she is IBanned with), a Topic ban on filing AN* requests has failed (as evidenced by this thread where she points the finger everywhere except at herself), and Article Probation is the cause of her current TopicBan across GITS, a one month block (back in October) caused no improvement in her editing. Having witnessed her unique method of debate, I can recognize the same hallmarks of "respond untill they get tired of you" debaters. Put a number to how many more times she is allowed to disrupt wikipedia and how many more times she is allowed "one more chance" before we write her off as a lost cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talkcontribs) 14:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
          • That's a strawman; we're not saying she hasn't been disruptive at all (in fact, I noted in my oppose vote that she has), only that we feel her positive contributions outweigh this. That you disagree with us doesn't mean there's a conspiracy afoot. Now, I will say I didn't realize a topic ban had already been tried. (I must've missed the word "TBan" in your last response.) Having said that, I don't think an indefinite siteban is an appropriate next step, particularly when Ryulong, who in my experience has been at least as disruptive, has had no consequences anywhere at near this level and no one besides Lucia seems to be advocating for that. (SNAAAAKE!! [sp?] I personally don't mind as he mainly just exposes policy loopholes in a sometimes irritating way, but with all of the widespread vitriol against him, I'm surprised he hasn't been put up here as well.) Tezero (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Tezero See above arguments of "Just because one more disruptive editor hasn't been sanctioned doesn't mean that we should sanction the user of discussion here", that's a pitiful Other Stuff Exists argument and not a valid reason for not sanctioning Lucia. Ryulong has been sanctioned before (Via Desysop by ArbCom remedy). Yes Ryulong's behavior is similarly disruptive, but they have the redeeming quality of enough enabling friends to defeat (or argue into no-consensus) any proposed sanctions. I've also advocated for heavy handed sanctions on Ryulong as well for the exact same disruptive threads that pop up at AN* over and over again only to be shouted down as being too strict. Ryulong is not the subject here, SNAAAAKE is not the subject here, Lucia is the subject when she is attempting to overturn a page ban. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Hasteur, I would have more appreciated a reply that wasn't dripping with useless sarcasm. I don't quite understand how you can unilaterally judge my opinion to be informed or not; that honestly really puzzles me. Additionally, you don't get to randomly make unfounded accusations that people are colluding offline just because the hardline position you hold that she be banned doesn't seem to have enough support. Because it's within my areas of editing and I do have a vested interested in the Anime and Video Games Wikiprojects (the Anime and Manga Wikiproject talk page discussion was how I learned of this originally) is the reason why I chose to participate in this discussion. Person who contributes content to those areas -> someone I'm willing to scrutinize and see if I believe they really deserve a siteban. It's that simple. Just because I disagreed with you doesn't mean you get to throw around a bunch of undeserved snark. Artichoker[talk] 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. LB has demonstrated no willingness to engage in collegial editing, and instead has repeatedly shown a battlefield attitude. Some here have suggested a topic ban, but since LB only works on one area, that suggestion is effectively a site ban. I don't think LB will ever become a courteous colleague, not in Japanese entertainment topics nor in other topics. There is too much combativeness for that. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any indefinite site ban or topic ban, but I'm open to maybe one more temporary topic ban. I haven't really interacted with Lucia Black as much as some of the other editors here, but from what I can see at the Anime and Manga WikiProject talk page, she really works hard, especially in a time when the WikiProject has relatively few active editors (there are maybe only 15-20 of us who are very active on the project), and has made a lot of great contributions, such as Good Articles. If she has to leave the project, it's a very large void that has to be filled, which may not easily be done given the apparent low interest among users in joining the WikiProject. I have noticed that she has sometimes been a little disruptive in her actions, but for the most part this is really only affecting a few users (mainly Ryulong), and her good points far outweigh her wrong points. Even in this case, I think a site ban, particularly one that is indefinite, is too much. I've read on this discussion that she has already been banned/blocked a few times, and soon after restarted her actions, but perhaps this time will be different, and she will change for the better after this discussion. If needed, I would support one more topic ban (Japanese media articles) for a definite period (maybe a year at most), then, if her actions continue, I'll see what happens. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This comment suggests someone has shared the benefits the user has brought to the project: "The amount of time and effort wasted on the relentless drama surrounding her has far surpassed whatever benefit she may bring to the project." But, I don't see any effort to identify the positives of the user. Just the negatives. I have to admit, I seem to always oppose bans, and maybe that's due to my own inexperience with all the forms problems can take here. I just don't like the way these discussions always seem to pile negatives on one side of the scale, with no effort even to mention the positives. The statement I quoted seems to be intended as a given, but, actually, it requires evidence. What is the user's best work? Shouldn't everyone wanting to ban know the best work of the editor to be banned? So we know what we're losing? Howunusual (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Howunusual Shouldn't those who want to retain her effort in Wikipedia demonstrate how her positive actions have surpassed her detractions just the same way that those that want to keep an article at AFD must present a justification for keeping? Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No I think negativity has the burden of proof. Howunusual (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What's more, I think it problematic that this user's request for review of a overly-broad topic-ban is being used as justification to eject her from the community entirely. betafive 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Betafive If LB had asked for the topic bans for GITS to be overturned and presented a GAB styled justification we wouldn't be in this place. As it's evident that her appeal to have the page bans overturned is flying like a lead brick we have to consider her appeal in the history of all the threads that she has initiated, been party to, or the subject of to see that her contributions are seen as a significant net negative. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    You don't know that for a fact, if she did have her topic ban overturned the thing to do would be to have a discussion over at the article regarding Lucia's ideas. I highly doubt that Lucia just all of a sudden started acting disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasonings by AngusWOOF and Knowledgekid87. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Lucia's recent participation at an organizational discussion on the manga Uzumaki is of note here. Personally, I think she's doing fine and conveying etiquette that is, at least on the surface, reflective of a changed woman. Tezero (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I don't think her justification for the modification for her sanctions was at all acceptable, I don't feel that she should be further punished for questioning the sanctions alone. This action if not passed in previous proposals should not be passed now on the basis of request for review. AlanS (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    AlanS see above response to Betafive dated this same time. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are other actions that can (and should) be taken before a site ban. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- per Betafive. Excessively authoritarian. Appealing sanctions is not a crime to be punished with more extreme sanctions. Reyk YO! 01:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell[edit]

As I pointed out above I feel this whole issue stems from GITS, topic banning Lucia forever from editing anime/manga articles does not seem like it is the right way to go, or even for GITS for that matter. Looking back at the archives [1] there has not been any real discussion of Lucia's planned changes to the articles the only thing I saw was from a year ago. As for the merge discussion it did not get a wide scope of editors that joined in so I understand why Lucia feels like it was a weak consensus. My suggestion is to have an RfC on the GITS article on Lucia's proposed changes to the article to get more editors to weigh in and put this matter to rest. @Lucia Black: if you got more editors to weigh in on your ideas would you be open to accept the results and move on? I do not care what happened in the past as it all stemmed from this and would like to put this argument to rest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still convinced that if the GITS issue is fixed and Lucia accepts the results then things will change for the better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a huge if. These issues have been spanning months. I don't know why you'd have faith that a simple RFC would solve this problem where so many other RFC, DRN, ANI, etc, have all failed in past disputes with these anime-related articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Im looking at the first section here is all, what other anime related articles are there? Have the arguments been with the same editors to reach a consensus or have different editors been involved? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Indefinite ≠ forever. An indefinite ban can eventually be overturned if the editor re-earns the trust they previously violated, by becoming productive, civil, and non-disruptive in their editing in the rest of the wiki. If they can show that they can be an unambiguous asset to this project, and that they've learned from their previous infractions against community standards, then the topic ban can be rescinded. VanIsaacWScont 05:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The issue is finding out the spark that ignited the fire to begin with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as the RfC goes, we're going to need to have one eventually either way since the argument is long-running and the WP:CONTENTFORK implications are significant. The only question is whether we can get the Usual Suspects to limit their contribution to said RfC to just making their statements and letting the community hash out the argument, rather than sniping at each other or (as is the habit of one editor who shall not be named) constantly trying to restart the discussion in a more favorable venue. --erachima talk 01:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Question or Comment[edit]

If you, User:Knowledgekid87, are proposing an RFC on Ghost in the Shell as an alternative to Lucia's topic ban from Ghost in the Shell, I don't see that there is a consensus for the unban. There appears to be a consensus at least to retain the ban from the three GITS articles. I understand that you think that an RFC will be an alternative to the current limited ban and any proposed bans, but it appears that you have a reasonable opinion against consensus. I suggest that this subsection be closed (unless I have misjudged consensus). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel the RfC will help as that is where I feel the source of all of what unfolded lies. A choice was made that involved just 3 or so editors for a major merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There wasn't a merge though. The action of the subsequent dispute resolution et al. was that my words were misinterpreted and after circular arguments someone unrelated broke the tie and everything was split up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever there was then regarding GITS it needs to be fixed so the river of calmness can flow once again here (Feels like a fortune cookie). Seriously though something major was left unresolved and it led to all of this, I feel that Lucia's ideas should be heard out and a firm consensus be held on it rather than people taking these issues to ANI, AN, ect.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The RfC's necessary due to the content dispute, not the conduct issues. The conduct issues are a relevant concern because they have been what prevented the content disputes from being resolved previously (either by active disruption or by rendering the environment so toxic that nobody was willing to engage the issue) but even if all the belligerents were on block the underlying disagreement would require a conclusion founded on something other than attrition.
    The real challenge is how to conduct the RfC without it itself being disrupted by attempts at other process run-arounds or the page being flooded with hundreds of kb of bickering that drown out all community discussion. I believe an associated topic ban actually would be useful there, not from editing any particular article—they can burn the articles down while the discussion is ongoing if they feel like it, won't alter our ability to determine community consensus at the end— but from participating in the RfC beyond making initial statements or attempting to start other DR processes before it ends.
    And if the conduct issues continue after consensus is achieved? Well then, as far as I'm concerned you can just global-ban everyone involved. --erachima talk 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I just wanted to clarify that I propose the removal of the topic ban for the talk pages of GITS so that this RfC can be had regarding Lucia's ideas. Like erachima said if there is a firm consensus on GITS as a result and Lucia breaks it then I can say no more and would be more supportive of punishment being handed out that does not involve a full site ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

We're getting to the stage that discussion seems to be winding down a bit. To my eyes, there is obviously no consensus on a site ban and as such it may be pertinent for the ban discussion to be closed off, if an uninvolved admin would care to do so. I proposed a topic ban from Anime, Manga and Video game related articles but I don't believe that there is sufficient evidence produced that would warrant such a measure and will withdraw that option. As it stands, the only remaining point would be to ascertain whether there is community endorsement of the ban from all Ghost in the Shell related articles. After which, this should bring to a close this particular episode. Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • As one of the initial proposers, I agree with the assessment that there is consensus against a siteban, and no concensus on an Anime/Manga/VG topic ban. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree that there is no consensus on a topic-ban from Anime/Manga/VG. There are more supports than opposes. I am satisfied to let a closer decide whether there is consensus. I think it is clear that there is no consensus to reverse the ban on all GITS articles. In any case, I request that the closer also warn Lucia that the community's patience has already been exhausted, and the only question is what if anything should be done about her disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I will clarify that is not true. about 2/3 (if not more) of the votes are oppose. so i highly suggest you recount. Lucia Black (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Since TParis is a respected, uninvolved admin, and also closed the previous discussion (and thus is familiar with the situation), I have asked him if he would be willing to assess this discussion also. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If he (or no one else) does not do so, I would be willing to look at it tomorrow, although please note, as there is much reading to do, I would likely shut down the thread by closing it, and subsequently post a finding thereafter. Of course, hopefully someone will close it before then, but if worse comes to worst, just call my name, and I'll be there. Go Phightins! 03:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, not all votes regarding the topic ban are placed there. For example, I oppose a wider anime/manga/VG topic ban, but I implied this in my oppose vote to the siteban when I said I didn't think it should get any wider than the GitS topic ban. (I'll add a notice, but other voters may be in the same situation.) Tezero (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Upon re-reading the discussion, there were only a few voices that discussed the topic ban from anime/manga/VG, mine as proposer, Robert and Salvidrim as support, Tezero as oppose. Given the sheer number of participants in this discussion there's no way that could be deemed a consensus. For the time being, I'll put my endorse of the wider GITS articles ban. We might be kicking the can down the road as was mentioned before, but I don't really see the benefit of pursuing an anime/manga/VG topic ban. I'm sure most participants here have more or less exhausted themselves on Round N-1 of Lucia. Whether something else crops up to give us a Round N or a Round N+1 is to be seen. @Lucia Black: I believe that you've mixed up Robert's reference. He was referring to a consensus for a broad topic ban, not the site ban. Blackmane (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, i was refering to that aswell. i'm sorry, but i dont understand how you explained that in the last few sentences. what does "N" stand for? Lucia Black (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Variable (mathematics) --erachima talk 09:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban[edit]

Wow, I got to start off by saying that I am also completely oppose to a topic ban. Lucia Black has not been disruptive to want such one and such a ban is effectively a site ban. In fact this whole charade was nothing more than a headhunt by a few certain editors. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree. The topic ban could be a bit too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I was, too, but it's a bit late for that now. Hit up her talk page to see what's happening now. Tezero (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with all of the incidents either, but I watched it unfold here. I am baffled that this topic ban had to happen. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Closure review[edit]

As someone who is uninvolved with the original discussion, and the closure review, and as far as I can remember uninvolved with all mentioned articles and the specific parties discussed, I feel I am an acceptable person to make the close of this closure review.

Closure reviews are a look at whether applicable polices were followed in making the discussion close and that consensus was interpreted correctly. In this review, there was much discussion about the actual topic ban which is not relevant to the closure review. There was also further discussion about alternatives and/or changes to the topic ban, but once again these do not affect the actual closure review.

It was stated that the closure was a "close call," and many uninvolved editors felt the interpretation of consensus was sound. Multiple involved editors claimed they felt the closure was incorrect as the topic of the discussion was about a site ban. It was further explained that, like all good closures, the context of the whole discussion was considered in the closure.

Judging from the whole close review, in this case there is consensus that the close is endorsed and the topic ban stands. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The topic ban was the "closest" and toughest consensus or lack thereof to read. I would welcome any opinions of uninvolved admins or experienced editors to ensure I read it correctly. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved as an editor in this particular circumstance, I'll disclose briefly before beginning that I have worked with Lucia Black before on WonderSwan and we've had a few agreements and disagreements before. Speaking strictly on an interpretation of consensus, I would say, Phightins, that you have read it correctly. Consensus does appear to indicate a topic ban is supported by the community, but a site ban is not. Personally I question how specific or nonspecific "Japanese entertainment" necessarily needs to be, but at this point that's irrelevant to the determined consensus, and I believe that it is being interpreted correctly. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I question the interpretation of any consensus for a topic ban because (a) it was not the focus of the discussion relating to the site ban and (b) those opposing the site ban would also oppose any actions that would have the same affect as a site ban unless stated otherwise. As Lucia edits were entirely withing the subject area of Japanese media, a topic ban of Japanese media has the same affect as a site ban. —Farix (t | c) 03:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Farix, the discussion was focused on a site ban, this is the thing that editors were addressing, the full ban on Japanese entertainment with minimal responses was brought along for the ride. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Knowledgekid87 and TheFarix, a full ban on Japanese entertainment with minimal response has the same effect as a site ban (which in my view, is a little too much). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It does have a bit of a feel of "Welp, the siteban didn't get up, let's just ban Lucia from all the articles she'd ever want to edit". Reyk YO! 08:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Guys, he asked for possible uninvolved editors input, not "Opposers, continue to argue your point after it's been closed" - which is basically the last 4 responses. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Prior to this discussion I have had nothing to do with Lucia Black. I looked into it as an uninvolved editor, and the whole thing struck me as excessively punitive. In my view, those clamoring for a site ban did not make a good case for it. I also think that the topic ban is completely equivalent to a full site ban for this editor, and was imposed based on a very limited discussion- when there was clear consensus against a full site ban. You are now claiming my comments here are invalid because I voted to oppose the site ban. I also see that you commented many, many times arguing in favor of all kinds of sanctions on Lucia Black. Could I not just as easily try to invalidate your comments here, on the grounds that you're just pushing your own view? I also note that this post-close discussion has now had more conversation than the topic ban discussion itself, and it is overwhelmingly against the topic ban. Look, I get where you're coming from: too much dissent regarding this topic ban makes it much more likely that it will be overturned once she appeals it, and you'd like to prevent that by trying to invalidate these contrary opinions. But you actually can't do that. Reyk YO! 22:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I imposed the topic ban considering all discussion from the entire thread, not just the subsection on the topic ban itself, as many editors addressed the topic ban proposal in their discussion on the site ban. Just for clarity's sake, thought I'd point that out. Go Phightins! 22:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Reyk, That's not it at all. This section is called "closure review", and GoPhightins asked for "uninvolved editors" - I take that as editors uninvolved in these AN discussions, something that, you cannot claim to be, considering you took a stance in the discussions. Merely pointing out that those four responses were not what he was requesting. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Kudos to Go Phightins! for starting this review. Great example of true adminship! I'm not sure if I would count as uninvolved since I participated in the AN but only to ask a question (which ultimately went unanswered), and I have had both positive and negative interactions with Lucia in the past. But for what it's worth, I think the interpretation of consensus made by Go Phightins! is within the bounds of reason. I'm not saying it's my preferred solution. Frankly it isn't. But it's supportable and I don't think such decisions should be overturned lightly. According to WP:Closure review, "most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." The only new information I see as relevant is Lucia's recent comments on her talk page blaming Sergecross and Hasteur for her ban and claiming that "this is just for punishment's sake." These comments indicate to me that she still acknowledges no share of responsibility for her problematic history of battleground behavior. It's understandable that Lucia is upset right now but if I were her I'd refrain from making unhelpful comments like that. Go Phightins! has offered a clear path toward rehabilitation and I think Lucia Black should seriously consider it. I would like nothing more than to see her redeem herself. I am very confident that she can return to editing Japanese entertainment articles if she is willing to make substantive efforts at collegiality, collaboration, and similar forms of self-improvement. I've seen hopeless cases. Lucia Black is far from hopeless. -Thibbs (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
My comment suggest that i recognize Sergecross, and Hasteur's campaigns (which at this point, several members are noticing and referred to it in this discussion and in my talkpage) and that i find it for punishment's sake. i consider that "factual". I do not consider it batteground. I would've believed the same if it happened to someone else. Let me be clear, there are more WP:BATTLEGOUND happening in the siteban proposal.
Japanese media such as anime/manga was my passion. Not too long ago i improved "heavily" 4 anime/manga related articles and one of them is at GAN as well. So an indefinite ban, right where a GAN was at? I'm sorry, but you can't expect me to have any more passion nor any motivation. You all want me to prove myself, but i think you're asking for a lot more than just to prove myself. You all want a complete transformation, and in your eyes, that may be good. but its literally starting over for me. and i don't know where to start...this is indeed a site ban for me. I've attempted other articles in the past, i have no familiarity with them whatsoever, I've gotten practically nowhere in other articles that i attempted to fix such as WP:COMICS and WP:NOVEL. WP:VG i been helpful to japanese video games more than western ones. Not only that but WP:VG has the least amount of help. Every article i have remote interest in that is outside of Japanese media is always being heavily sourced, or everything that was needed to be found at the given time is already found.
Keep in mind Wikipedia is still a "Hobby"....people still have to edit articles they enjoy editing and fixing. And right now, thats taken away from me. its not that i'm helpless....i have no motivation to even continue...i have no other topics that makes me ant to even try to get my preferred topic back.....this is most definitely a site ban. Lucia Black (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A closure review seems to be a matter of examining the law not the facts. I have never to my knowledge interacted with any of the editors involved in this discussion; in fact, I have not even looked into the evidence beyond a careful reading of the above thread. From that vantage point, I think that Go Phightins! was within reasonable grounds to find consensus for a topic ban. As Thibbs correctly pointed out, overturning a close should not be taken lightly, and as no additional issues of fact have been raised that would call this close into question I endorse it. Regards, Crazynas t 00:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • fact-wise, the topic ban was indeed "underplayed". not much was focus. and was only used as an alternative, but was never suggested that was the best course of action. Keep in mind, there is still a split between "no additional action" and "additional action". Which is too close to even suggest there is a strong consensus to warrant. Basically, opinions are too split and would require an additional discussion. Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • When I said law not facts I meant that I was not personally examining the actions that led to this discussion. I realize (and so, I think does Go Phightins!) that this was a close call for them to make. However, since the burden of proof in this case is on those wishing to overturn the close, I believe that there is no reasonable doubt to overturn it. To be clear, I am not making a factual statement as to the correctness of the decision reached by the participants in this discussion (I have no opinion on the matter), but just a statement that the close was within community standards. Regards, Crazynas t 01:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I think the fact that it is a "close call" is reasonable doubt. afterall, its upto interpretation. if its that close, it should be "no consensus". I think that there is reason enough to ask for a proper discussion at least for the topic ban. Lucia Black (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The closer asked me to look over the matter, and I agree with the close. See also my talk page, "Request". Good work. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Since LB has violated the terms of her Editing restriction in the 00:14, 21 August 2014 post (in addition to continuing to make further posts disruptively attempting to overturn the closure in opposition to multiple editors) I ask if an admin would like to pick up the General Probation restriction and further apply it in terms of Blocking to prevent her from causing more harm both to herself and to the community at large. I'd rather she didn't need to be blocked/banned, but her complete passing the buck and claiming that it was a campaign to get her punished for punishment sake indicates that she continues to disavow the cause for her sanctioning. If this were a block appeal, it would have been declined because it doesn't deal with how her editing caused this situation. I would also note that LB failed to provide me a notice of mention in this further discussion after I had clearly dropped out of the main discussion here. Hasteur (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Meh, while technically the topic ban is effective from the moment of the closure, the fact this it is under review seems like appropriate justification for her to continue being involved in the discussion. Let's wait until the closure review is completed and the decision is fixed solidly before we start handing out enforcement if needed. She hasn't edited anything but her own talk page and AN since the close was first made, so I would say she is actually respecting the topic ban and continuing to discuss it, just like we are. I however recognize that she failed to notify you when mentioning your name but that's hardly a blockable offense, and you obviously got aware of it anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me just count up the votes in a more easier way to see.

  • Salvidrim! - supports site ban.
  • Hasteur - supports
  • Sergecross73 - supports
  • Mendaliv - supports
  • Tezero - opposes site ban. suggests keeping the GiTS related topic ban. Suggests finding the core issue that started it all.
  • Knowledgekid87 - Opposes any further action, siteban included. Similar comment to Tezero's
  • Erachima - no determined vote. suggests oppose a site ban. not sure.
  • Lindsay - Opposes site ban, but supports Japanese related (admits that this is equal to a site ban)
  • Gamepro 64 - suggests topic ban on video games. (but then seemed undetermined. no confirmed vote.)
  • AngusWoof - opposes site ban, or additional action.
  • Robert McClennon - Oppose site ban. suggests indefinite Japanese media ban.
  • Thibbs - undetermined
  • Jaguar - opposes site ban
  • SephytheThird - opposes site ban.
  • Doc9871 - opposes site ban(briefly mentioned topic-bans and blocks are to go before indef site ban, but wasn't suggesting any in particular. which leads me to believe he was only concentrating on the site ban itself)
  • artichoker - oppose site ban, supports a topic ban as alternative. (However, no specific topic ban was recommended)
  • Sergecross - supports indef site ban. (You listed Serge twice. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC))
    • Cause we like Serge. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Binksternet - supports site ban.
  • Sjones23 - oppose site ban.
  • betafice - oppose site ban.
  • Dusti - oppose site ban/additional action
  • Reyk - oppose site ban/additional action

I will say it again...this is a site ban....some people have admitted to this during their voting. There is a significant amount of people suggesting it, however, over all the votes together, its still not a clear "consensus". Mostly within the supporters. the opposers however, very few mentioned it as an alternative, but did "not" suggest which is the best topic ban to use. With that said, there was no consensus for an "indefinite" topic ban either, or how far the range should go. Reading it thoroughly, will leave you attempting to count each vote at a time to make sure where it leans most, but if its not "obvious" what the decision should be, that's where "No consensus" has to be established. Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: What you're asking for is more out of rage, then necessity. This campaign of yours has gone long enough. If no campaign exist, you can let it go, but it tells me alot when you want to put further probation, further restrictions out of an opinion. and no, i did not break my editing restrictions. You're just looking for an excuse for more. Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative: consider changing the duration from indefinite to one year. I've been following this debate almost since it began, but being a generally un-involved editor, I haven't considered myself informed enough about past incidents to impartially take part in the debate proper. Given that this is the final call for any further discussion or comments on the result, I'll step in.

After reading the debate, it does seem clear that there is a consensus for a broad topic ban related to Japanese entertainment articles. There is also no question, in my mind, that some action must be taken... given the behavior discussed in the debate, and the behavior exhibited by Lucia during the debate itself. But because of Lucia's history of being a single purpose editor in this topic area, a broad topic ban seems excessive - especially since it is indefinite.

A broad topic ban lasting for one year, however, might be more reasonable. Hopefully it will strongly communicate to Lucia the urgent need to be less combative and more civil in her editing and discussions, while still giving her a final chance, of sorts, to demonstrate change after the year is up. Meanwhile, during that year, she might discover a new area of interest on Wikipedia. As it is, an indefinite topic ban will likely drive her away from the project entirely.

I therefore think that changing the duration to one year should at least be considered as an alternative. If Lucia returns after the year is up, and continues her previous behavior, an indefinite topic ban would clearly be justified... perhaps even specify that if she continues her previous behavior after the year is up, the topic ban will be reimposed indefinitely. -BloodDoll (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Call to close the closure review[edit]

At this point, I think the closure review is outliving its usefulness. A few uninvolved editors have commented, predominantly endorsing my closure, while other editors who participated in the discussion continued to promulgate their personal viewpoints. I will leave it to an uninvolved administrator to determine and enact an appropriate course of action at this time, and will support whatever he or she decides (though hopefully we will not need a close review of the closure of the close review Face-smile.svg). Go Phightins! 03:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not too late to comment . . . I saw this discussion earlier and was planning to comment once I got home, but then I was busy doing other stuff. I think I am uninvolved, even though I edit anime/manga related articles and am sure I have participated in discussions where Lucia Black was also a participant. Anyway, I wouldn't read the above discussion as having a consensus for an expanded topic ban. It seems that the majority of participants were opposed to a site ban and didn't comment on a topic ban. Since a topic ban was kind of an incidental proposal in several comments, and not the primary focus of discussion, I doesn't seem correct to me to consider anyone who didn't address the issue as approving of a topic ban. It also seems to me that several of the people opposed to a site ban would also be opposed to a topic ban (for instance, betafive, AlanS, and Reyk all seemed to be opposed to any increase in sanctions). Also, I want to mention that all the people commenting on the site ban who I personally recognize from anime/manga discussions seemed to be opposed to a site ban (not necessarily all opposed to a topic ban), while people in support of a site ban seemed to me to have more often interacted with Lucia Black in AN/ANI discussions. I agree that I've seen too many AN/ANI discussions involving Lucia Black, and that she often comes off as annoying in those discussions (including in this one). However, my understanding from this discussion is that she isn't allowed to start such discussions without permission from an administrator. My impression is that much of the problem with Lucia Black would be solved by just denying her requests to start these threads unless there is a really good reason to allow them (i.e., a better reason than she had this time). (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in. Now that I do realize, I'm not sure I want to log in here. My main computer is being repaired, so I'm using an old computer running Windows 98, which hasn't had security patches in about a decade and has no working antivirus software . . . I'm not sure if I type in my password if someone could steal my account on this computer. Anyway, I am User:Calathan when logged in. (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Catathan, where else aside from GITS has Lucia been disruptive when it comes to Japanese Entertainment? Is this coming from her rants over at ANI/AN or is it coming from something not brought up yet regarding articles or such? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a comment at the end of the closure review section, just wanted to make sure to mention it in this section, so that it is not skipped over. -BloodDoll (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is whatever the consensus was, its not based on disruption of the articles or combative behavior as much as they claim it is. There really needs to be a WP:double jeopardy rule. I'm being tried for the same thing twice. I was permitted to question it. So theres no need to bring this about in general, regardless of consensus. (even then, there is no "clear" consensus. there is a consensus that is widely construed). Lucia Black (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between questioning the sanction respectfully and completely denying that the reasons for sanction are of your own making. I've said it before and I'll say it again (because you conveniently forget repeatedly) Unless Lucia Black starts taking responsibility for her disruptive actions that have caused the community to see SiteBanning as the only option to prevent further disruption, we only have further disruptive AN* threads and further SiteBan proposals in the future. Even this closure review is entirely about "It's not me who caused this problem, it's everyone else". As I discussed on my talk page with another editor, if this had been crafted as a block appeal it would have been denied long ago as WP:NOTTHEM and LB would have been referred to WP:GAB. Therefore each time she comes up in the future I will refer to this (and the ~6 previous AN* threads where she has come within a hairs breadth of sitebanning) as evidence that Wikipedia is insane. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think some of this discussion exceeds the scope of a closure review. I don't think this is the place to be re-litigating the previous discussion in stronger terms. I also don't think it's the place to be bringing up new alternative solutions for discussion. A close call had to be made and someone made it. The question is not whether we love the call. The relevant questions are: 1) whether the summary of consensus was reasonable, and 2) whether new evidence has come to light that negates the summary. Forgetting about question 2, we can examine question 1 narrowly. We all agree this was a close call and up to interpretation, but if that's true then it is obvious that the summary is one that other reasonable admins could have come to. In short I agree with Crazynas above. I have sympathy for Lucia Black, but I honestly think her best bet would be to take a wikibreak and then return soon to editing in other parts of the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if other areas don't specifically interest her. I don't for a second buy the idea that she's incapable of improving the encyclopedia outside of anime and video game topics. She should treat her edits in the next few months/year as demonstrative or evidentiary edits. Their purpose isn't to have fun, their purpose is to demonstrate that she has the maturity and self control to get the ban lifted and resume the "fun" editing of anime and video game articles in a collaborative manner. It's really not an insurmountable hurdle. If there are no more comments to be made specifically on the propriety of the closure then I echo Go Phightins!'s call to close the review. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appealing block conditions[edit]

After 5 days, there's certainly consensus to not reduce or remove the block conditions. The discussion shows very recent issues with files and copyrights overall the panda ₯’ 23:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was unblocked from editing Wikipedia in January 2014 under various conditions which are available here. Two of these conditions was that I was prohibited from uploading any files claimed as my own work. I also may only upload files which are not claimed as your own work via the Files for upload process. You may not upload any files outside this process. These prohibitions may be appealed at here no earlier than 07/08/2014. It's the 15/08/2014 and I would like to appeal these said prohibitions. I have adhered to the rules imposed on me since January and have followed Wikipedia's rules to a tee. I have no interest in breaking them and would like to remain a member of the community. Ashton 29 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I have a background question for you: Did you actually upload any files through the FFU process, and if so, which images? VanIsaacWScont 05:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ashton_29/Archive - This is extensive. It gives me pause. I see in your unblock request that you say you are not using socks anymore. I will take your word for that. I have not examined your contributions in detail but I have seen your talk page history and it does seem that you have not run afoul of your restrictions at all. I am on the fence. Chillum 05:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to support lifting the restriction. However I would point out that your FFU requests indicate CC 3.0, when in fact most of the ones I've checked have been CC 2.0. I don't see where anyone has pointed it out to you, and the actual uploads have ended up properly tagged. Just be careful with that in the future. Monty845 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral only because I haven't studied the details of the restrictions on his uploading of files (so that I won't oppose). However, I cannot support any further easing of restrictions on someone with a long (even if old) history of being a sockmaster. He should realize that he has gotten off easy being unblocked at all in January, with his long history of disruptive sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: "He should realize that he has gotten off easy being unblocked at all in January, with his long history of disruptive sock-puppetry." How is this operationalized? Should Ashton 29 not request an appeal of their unblock conditions? Should they be more contrite when doing so? Is it your position that these restrictions stay in place in perpetuity so that Ashton can learn their lesson? Protonk (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Basically, I don't think that anybody who has a long history of sock-puppetry can be trusted on anything. I am usually in favor of giving disruptive or tendentious editors a second chance or a third chance. I don't apply the same logic to serial sock-puppeteers. Maybe he has learned. Some editors believe that every editor should be given another chance. I usually believe that, but repeat sock-puppetry is a particularly serious offense. That is my logic. Maybe some editors think that sock-puppetry is part of the game. I don't. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
In other words, "Fool us once, shame on you; fool us a few dozen times, shame on everyone"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ashton 29 is still insufficiently careful in his use of others' work. A quick look at his current talk page shows 13 FFU requests since mid-May, of which 2 were rejected. (Both involved Flickr images; one had been uploaded to Flickr as a copyvio, and one was a duplicate of an image already on Commons.) As noted by Monty845, many of the successful FFU requests also provided incorrect license information.
Also troubling, about ten days ago he was flagged copy-pasting text from an external site into Adelaide Hills (wine).
Text from Ashton 29: "...While the first vines were planted in this area in the 1840s, the influx of boutique wineries in the 1970s introduced the area to bottlings of sparkling wine, Chardonnay, Riesling and Pinot noir. The area is beginning to see success with Cabernet franc, Merlot, Sangiovese, Sauvignon blanc, Semillon and Shiraz. The cool climate of this region encourages winemakers to use malolactic fermentation to help tame some of the wines' naturally high acidity...."
Text from external site: "...While the first vines were planted in this area in the 1840s, the influx of boutique wineries in the 1970s introduced the area to successful bottling’s of sparkling wine, Chardonnay, Riesling and Pinot noir. The area is starting to see success with Cabernet franc, Merlot, Sangiovese, Sauvignon Blanc, Semillon and Shiraz. The cool climate of this region encourages winemakers to use malolactic fermentation to help tame some of the wines' naturally high acidity...."
Ashton 29 was notified immediately by CorenSearchBot, but he has yet to take any steps to correct this problem. Taken together, I cannot recommend an easing of his restrictions at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
On the rejected FFU submissions, I don't think the one that was already at commons should count against them. As for the other, if this wasn't someone who should be taking extra care, I would say that an editor could be taking an appropriate level of care and miss something like that note on flicker; though I can also see how you might demand a higher level of care from someone who is subject to such a restriction. Monty845 20:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that anyone who intends to be a prolific uploader of images should be taking extra care to get the licenses right—something that he isn't doing. (That includes, as you noticed, on images that survived FFU.) Given that these restrictions were originally placed because he had been falsely claiming other people's work as his own, the fact that he is copy-pasting content into articles – and can't be bothered to clean up after himself when it's pointed out to him – is not a good sign.
Actually, I've just taken a closer at the article, and I'm having trouble finding a single word he wrote himself, rather than copied from somewhere else. I'm deleting it as a WP:CSD#G12. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to address a few things. Particularly the two FFU rejections and copyright content on Adelaide Hills. As far as uploads go, one of the images already existed on Wikipedia but I had no knowledge of that because of the process that I have to use. If I used the regular uploader it would have told me that the file already existed. I only found out it already existed on the website after I went back to check the status of my request and I believe once I had realised it was already on Wikipedia, I removed my upload request. I am unaware which image was a copyvio and would like someone to point that out to me and provide me with a link so I can explain. It's very likely, no it's actually definite that I would not have intentionally uploaded copyvio because this would obviously jeopardise my chances of remaining unblocked on this website. Also, no, nobody pointed out to me that my requests were CC 3.0 but the uploads were different. When I request an upload, I'm usually meticulous in checking that the requested license matches the one on the Flickr page, so I don't understand how most of the ones you've checked have been contradicted licenses. The main thing is that they ended up on Wikipedia with the correct license tags, though.
As for the Adelaide Hills article, most of that text I took was from a related Wikipedia article (South Australian wine) and I had no idea it was copyrighted from another website/external source. That is the editor who pasted it onto South Australian wine's fault and I don't know who nor when that was. You can go to that article and see where I got the text from here. I'd like to state again, I did not know this text was lifted from another website, I assumed it was Wikipedia's content as it is from a Wikipedia article! I'm going to be more careful with what information I select from certain Wiki articles from now on and anything I type while be my own words, not words from any other article since the possibility of entirely original writing can be so tenuous. Also, I find it interesting that TenOfAllTrades states that he had "trouble finding a single word he wrote himself, rather than copied from somewhere else." The only bit copied from elsewhere was the bit already mentioned. I wrote the rest myself.
My intentions are good, honestly, and it's a some of you cannot see that. Why can't it be recognised that the aforementioned slip ups (the two FFU uploads and the Adelaide Hills article) throughout the past 8 months were accidental. I have no interest in sock puppetry and have completely learned my lesson with regard to that. There's no point in even trying to get away with it on Wikipedia. It's a waste of time and can be detected so easily. Like I've stated, and thought I demonstrated since January, I'm trying to be a constructive Wikipedia member. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
For future reference, the guidelines for copying Wikipedia content within Wikipedia articles are here. Flagging the copying in (at least) the edit summary can help avoid attribution issues like this. In passing, thanks for also removing the copyvio from the related article. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll do so in future! Ashton 29 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the external site says (copyright 2013), and at least some of the material at our article seems to have been here since 2007. By Nov 2012, our article had pretty much all the content. Whilst that in itself is not conclusive (I haven't established exactly when the external site really added the material) - I'd say it might very well be unclear just which way the "copyvio" actually goes here, and we should probably be careful what we assume.
There's nothing at for prior to 2013, and an Australian ABN search says LANNISTER GROUP PTY LTD was created 2012 (Dec) - though the content could have been at a different url prior to that, or it may have come from here, a mirror, or another copy. This kind of uncertainty often occurs when old content is copied/mirrored. Of course, that's why always getting the attribution right is vital, even when copying within wikipedia. Begoontalk 08:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(Looking at the history of our article at South Australian wine, one also wonders if some of the phrasing is actually lifted from the sources cited there: The Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia and The Oxford Companion to Wine. In particular, the phrase about malolactic fermentation feels very specific and 'dropped in' without much context. That qualm doesn't bear on the Ashton's request, however.)
I remain concerned about the "wrote the rest of it myself". The passage Ashton copied from the South Australian wine article is larger than the section I quoted above, and constitutes most of the article. The small remainder comprises some puffery (the first sentence of the article was "The Adelaide Hills are internationally renewed for its wine production.", which contains at least two errors) and a borrowed phrase from another external source.
From Ashton's edit: "The region...has produced 90 wine labels with over 40 cellar doors."
From the external source [2]: "...over 90 wine labels and 48 cellar doors...".
While Ashton did cite the source, this remains problematic from a number of perspectives. First, it changes what the source says, from "over 90 wine labels" to "90 wine labels" – which is incorrect – and from "48 cellar doors" to "over 40 cellar doors"—which is at least still correct, but less precise. Second, it seems to be trying to reuse another author's metaphors and turns of phrase (the rather artful talk of "cellar doors" instead of "wineries") while mangling the passage just enough that quotation marks can't be used. Third, the effort to launder and use the borrowed metaphors would have been better spent writing a clear and unambiguous paraphrase, e.g. "In 2014, the region's 48 wineries produced more than 90 different wines."
I wouldn't harp on this so much if this sort of borrowing weren't evident in other parts of his recent history. At Maggie Beer yesterday, for instance, Ashton made
this edit: ""Her parents faced issues with bankruptcy as she was growing up and re-invented themselves as caterers."
based on this source: "...her parents who, after going through the trials and tribulations of bankruptcy re-invented themselves as caterers."
Again, a totally unnecessary reuse of someone else's turn of phrase. Is there really no other way to become a caterer than to re-invent oneself? To be clear, I attribute no malice to Ashton's actions. But I cannot recommend relaxing restrictions on an editor who has not (yet) internalized the necessary attitude and skills to properly respect the work of others. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Heh - it's funny you mention that. I did look at the history of the wine article a little, and, yes, I suspect the 2 "sources" you mention may have been quoted from somewhat "enthusiastically", shall we say. As you say, that's not really pertinent to this request, and sadly, probably not uncommon, either.
Back on the subject of this request, I suppose, yes, I'd still be quite concerned that the copyright awareness still isn't there. I also looked at the SPI, and that is a massive amount of disruptive socking, which still makes me nervous, that not being helped much by the comment above - "There's no point in even trying to get away with it on Wikipedia. It's a waste of time and can be detected so easily.", which might just be unfortunately worded, but seems to beg the question: "...and if you did think you could get away with it...?" If that sounds too strong an interpretation - yes, it may be - but it nags me it may speak to a mindset, in a way, so I've voiced it. As I say, I'm a little nervous about this. It's awkward, because the socking isn't really part of what's being asked - but neither do I find myself 100% able to look at the scale of it, and discount it from my thoughts. That's why I'd still be firmly on the fence. Sorry if that doesn't help, in the end. Begoontalk 16:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as an addendum, the edit summary of "If casual editors are going to edit Wikipedia, then at least learn how to do it properly" for this minor correction: [3] doesn't seem like the kind of message we should be leaving for an IP editor who introduced that small issue as part of this series of a dozen edits: [4]. Perhaps Ashton might consider something along the lines of "fixed minor bracket error" next time, so as not to WP:BITE a user making positive contributions. There's still, it seems, a whiff of "ownership" in edits concerning images on Australian articles, which is worrying. Begoontalk 06:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@TenOfAllTrades: Looking at the first edit ("The region...has produced 90 wine labels with over 40 cellar doors.") I don't see any problem. The number of labels and cellars is a fact and, provided the source is cited, is difficult to plagiarize. Sure, the order could be reversed or the sentence otherwise disguised, but there are only so many ways to state a fact about a subject. The second edit is a bit more like close paraphrasing, but remove the word "re-invented" and we're back to describing a fact. Protonk (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is how the numbers (the facts) are actually changed, though, surely. "Over 90" is changed to "90", and "48" is changed to "over 40". That's unnecessarily imprecise, and in the latter case inexplicably arbitrary, and shows that the skill of knowing what to rephrase and what not to is maybe lacking. It's not completely horrible, but when these factual things are altered, whilst creative phrasing by the author is copied without alteration, such as in the "re-invented" example, it suggests that while Ashton knows he "has to change something" so as not to plagiarise, he still lacks some skill and care in identifying how to properly do that and still remain faithful to the source. Begoontalk 16:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Of your last 10 FFU requests, all 10 have the wrong license version listed in the license field indicating Creative Commons 3.0, when they are in fact 2.0. Your link to license information leads to the correct 2.0 license. 3 requests, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The image being mentioned as a copy vio, is Image at flicker archived request. The problem with the image is that information on the Flikr page indicates the person uploading it probably did not have the authority to release it under a creative commons license because it says Image courtesy the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Honestly, its ambiguous at best, while its true that the uploader is not the copyright holder, it is possible, but unlikely, that the image was release to the uploader by the government under a creative commons license. Monty845 11:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I would note that the preload templates for the forms Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard/Preload/Attribution-SA actually have a comment in the code <!-- You should be OK to leave the above section alone --> below the 3.0 license template this is in error in your requests. Maybe we should add a warning that flikr uses 2.0 to that. Monty845 11:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe the incorrect license issue is happening because I have to use the FFU process and there are only two options for Creative Commons and I have taken a screenshot of them here: [5]. Not to mention the <!-- You should be OK to leave the above section alone --> message.TenOfAllTrades questioned that because I made the statement "There's no point in even trying to get away with it on Wikipedia. It's a waste of time and can be detected so easily.", that I may possibly engage in sock puppetry if the process wasn't so easy to detect. That's simply not true and I believe you are taking advantage of what I said (or rather, the part that I didn't say). Of course I wouldn't do it, even if I could get away with it. I understand that the way I worded that was alarming, but I didn't intend to give it any malicious subtext or allude to the fact that I would do it again. Honestly, I have no interest in breaking the rules around here. It took me a long time to learn this, and during that time I did partake in extensive sock puppetry. That was then, and what we should be addressing is my behaviour now. The copyright text was just lazy editing on my behalf, and also probably the fault of the author who put it into the Adelaide Hills from either the sourced books or the external website. Who is to tell the external website didn't copy it from somewhere itself? I also find the reference to my edit on Maggie Beer a bit arbitrary or inconsequential - it's not plagiarism, the wording has been altered and it's suppose to give an outline on how her family's financial hardship have played a role in her career. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't TOAT who pointed out your "socking" statement, it was me, and I did give the proviso that you may have just badly worded it. It's one of a couple of concerns I outlined, including one with an edit summary, which you haven't addressed, and I also said that they result in me being "nervous", and "on the fence", not opposed. I certainly wasn't trying to "take advantage" of anything (whatever that means, in this context), just giving voice to how I personally reacted to that statement, along with an explanation and some pretty extensive caveats. Begoontalk 09:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As for the edit summary, it is not my intention to be hard on editors who are just trying to help, but I really don't like lazy editing and obvious mistakes. I admit I certainly make them myself from time to time and in future I will not leave such comments and just fix the errors instead, with an impersonal message in the edit summary (e.g. "fixed minor bracket error"). All I'm asking for is a chance, given my January 2014 broke repeal and the conditions in it. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attribution question[edit]

Hi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople who died during their careers was closed as delete and I agree that was the correct reading of the consensus. Only problem is that before that article was deleted it was forked to create List of Australian rules footballers who died during their playing careers. My understanding is that when List of sportspeople who died during their careers still existed it was OK attribution-wise to just have a wikilink in the history of the new page, but now it's been deleted there is a problem that this new page doesn't meet our attribution licenses. So my question here is what should be done to fix this? I had a read of Wikipedia:Merge and delete, but it didn't seem really clear about which method is preferable and the two I am really familiar with (simply restoring as redirect and histmerging) don't seem appropriate here. Pinging Daniel and The-Pope in case they're interested. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As a quick bandage, we could do an out of process history merge and just ditch the 2 conflicting revisions that occurred between the time of the fork, and the deletion of the original. The only other choice is to restore the original, and just leave it somewhere (we can move it out of the way) as a redirect to the fork. The bigger problem is that our practice of treating a link to the old content as adequate attribution is a poor implementation of the creative commons attribution license. In particular, if off wiki parties follow our practice, and copy work from Wikipedia, using only a link to the history for attribution, we are under no special obligation to keep the history undeleted, but if we delete it, the people who copied off wiki are now in violation of the license due to our action. Obviously we can mitigate that onwiki by not deleting a history, but its not a very robust way of protecting the attribution history, as illustrated here. Monty845 13:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, yeah, I would prefer not to do a histmerge in this case. I know it would fix the attribution, but it butchers the page history a little in the sense of actually seeing how the page was created. That could just be me being a pedant though and wanting everything looking neat. Thinking on it some more, I'd prefer to restore it and then move it to somewhere like Australian rules footballers who died during their playing careers where it can exist as a redirect to the new article, but I'm open to other people saying "no, you idiot, a histmerge would be much better". I also agree with you that this is symptomatic of a larger issue. As an aside, because 'bigdelete' was needed to delete the page, can it still be restored by any old admin? Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If we move it without a redirect, the original attribution still breaks. We can "fix" that by adding a latter attribution edit summary, and talk page notices, but its still a less than ideal result. Monty845 14:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, I meant to say that we'd then add a {{copied}} to the talk page, but as you say that is probably less than ideal too. Maybe a histmerge is the way to go, much as I'm not really a fan of doing it for things where the page content has drastically changed. Anyone know about the 'bigdelete' question? Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
To complicate matters further, I'm planning to create an equivalent forked list for cricketers too, which could complicate any redirect solution, unless we make multiple redirect history only sources. The main delete argument was "too vague, not well defined parameters for inclusion". Single sport lists however can have very precise parameters for inclusion, hence the forks. As to the attribution, yeah, I can see how that is a problem. Time for a Deleted: name space to hold this sort of data? The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The page history must be restored, {{split from}} must be added to the talk page, if additional splits are made then additional {{split from}} must be added to the talk page and I would suggest the page become a WP:DAB. But the history must be restored. (Additionally, the page the text was copied to must have {{split to}} on its talk page.) Rgrds. -- (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea. What would you see being listed on the page to make it a plausible dab? Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Jenks24: The DAB suggestion was in response to The-Pope's statement that they were "planning to create an equivalent forked list for cricketers too". This would also accommodate future splittings/forkings or whatnot as discussed in the AfD. Although, in hindsight, DAB is the incorrect terminology; I see I really meant a SETINDEX. The main page should be tagged with Template:Sport index. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) -- (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I like it. And looking through Category:Death-related lists there seem to be several other lists that could also be included in this set index. Assuming no one has any objections for a while I'll give it a crack at restoring and then converting to a set index. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Copy the original history page and post it on the new page. All that is needed per the license is a list of authors for attribution. We do not need who did which edits.--v/r - TP 18:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • History merge the relevant reviosions into the current page, to maintain the attribution part of the license. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This is sort of nullified due to the planned splitting of an additional page, which is why I believe a WP:SETINDEX may be more appropriate. Rgrds. -- (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, before I got edit-conflicted (I wrote this comment very slowly!), I was going to say: how about moving it (along with the old talk page) to lists of sportspeople who died during their careers, and use that page to provide a list of these articles about this subject (the Aussie rules one, the future cricket one, etc)? That would be the neatest solution. And to answer the question above, yes the page could be undeleted by any admin. Graham87 11:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Good point. The page move is also necessary: from "List of..." to "Lists of..." (singular to plural). @Jenks24: When you restore the page, please move it to the plural "Lists of...." Rgrds. -- (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, done! (Or at least I think so anyway.) Got a gateway timeout trying to undelete it all but it seems to have worked out alright. Please feel free to take a look at Lists of sportspeople who died during their careers – I think this was my first time writing a set index so chances are there are improvements that could be made. Thanks to everyone who gave their advice, Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Long-running Hoax at Ceefax?[edit]

Doubtful content removed. Probably not a hoax, but unverifiable personal reminiscence. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There may be better places to mention this, but I don't know. I could be wrong (and hope I am), but I think that there may be a rather obvious three-year hoax at Ceefax. See my comments on the talk page. The problem is that, precisely because this information has been in the article for so long, it is now repeated all over the Internet. What's more difficult is finding any reliable sources that predate or are otherwise separate from the Wikipedia article itself. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have commented there: I don't think there has been intent to deceive, but there is a large chunk which should be removed as unsourced personal reminiscence, failing WP:V and WP:NOR. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advice on images please[edit]

I am a newly registered editor (but long time IP reader and sometimes editor), and have come across an image which I noted has EXIF data different to the date the photo was taken. I also noted that the EXIF data does not have a camera model. I applied CSF F11 to the photo to ensure the person is the copyright holder. They have since left a message on my talk page saying that they are the copyright holder and they took the photo. I assume good faith and was going to remove the notice from the image. Before doing so I did a quick search and I found this photograph. The photo uploaded to Wikipedia has had its colours modified, a crop at the bottom and has been reversed (look at the blue logo in the background). I want to continue to assume good faith with this editor, so I am turning to administrators for advice on how to continue from here. I won't leave the editor a message, just yet, advising them of this post as I don't want them to think they are in trouble, which I hope they are not. Help appreciated. PNGWantok (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a response to my talkpage to the editor. I will try to work with them through the issue. Any help to me and the editor would be nice. PNGWantok (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Depression Quest[edit]

'Any reasonable administrator', yada yada yahoo. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm bringing this here for review, just in case. I just semi-protected the article Depression Quest for three days, because there was a flurry of vandalism that looked like the start of a coordinated attack. Zoe Quinn, the developer of Depression Quest, has been subject to harassment online recently, and the vandalism is probably an extension of that. (Her page is already semi-protected, and is subject of a thread at BLPN.) The problem is that I am the creator of the Depression Quest article, so my protection could be argued to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. I thought that the obvious nature of the vandalism was enough to make this fall under the "any reasonable administrator" clause in that policy, but I would be happy to remove or adjust the protection if others here think that would be best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that you are involved. The question is, is that an OK admin action. I would have thought it better for you to alert an uninvolved admin to take action but I am unclear if this was wrong or not. Interesting and much appreciated for making this post.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Normally I would post at WP:RFPP and wait for an uninvolved admin to do this, but given the rate and the nature of the vandalism I thought that the article should be protected sooner rather than later. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Endorse - I've been involved in fending off all the vandalism and BLP violations too, so I'm also involved, but I support your move under the "any reasonable" clause. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Haven't personally touched the article but going by how Zoe's name is being made a mess of in social media circles, a semi-prot seems reasonable if there's IP's trying to reflect that on the article for her game. It's not wrong if you're involved with the article and are trying to prevent disruption particularly in relation to BLP-type issues. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I think the open and transparent nature of the protection along with the post here seems more than reasonable and I support the actions of Mr. Stradivarius.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Any reasonable administrator would have made substantially the same decision with regard to protecting the article. Where we have really really unambiguous vandalism, as we do here, I think acting while involved, and then seeking prompt review is fine. Monty845 02:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a note, my position is more permissive than the actual policy at WP:INVOLVED which deals directly with this in the third paragraph, for anyone who wants to see the actual policy. Monty845 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Per WP:BLPREMOVE: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there ya go. I should have known that as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a stretch to call the edits BLP violations. While the person may be getting attacked elsewhere, the edits to the article that got protected were attacks on the product, not the person, plus some straight up vandalism that didn't attack anything. Monty845 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heads up - EFF Wikipedia "Hackathon" coming up[edit]

[6] Saw this cross my twitter feed, and basically it's to encourage editors to improve articles on WP, using internet cafes and other sites to gather. As such we could see large # of edits on some articles from similar IPs during this time which should be considered under this. The event is planned for Aug 23, 2014. I note this is more aimed at Spanish text but might see some. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with Administrator who is vandalizing?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing duplicate discussion; head over to ANI for main discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


The user Deb ( is vandalizing the May 22 wikipedia page by constantly reverting to her edit which deletes many legitimate entries. I have tried posting on her talk page and she still continues to revert to her edits. Her edits are illegitimate deletions.

This user must be stopped. She is behaving in a malicious and inconsiderate manner, yet she is also an administrator. Where can I solicit help for this situation? I tried posting in the AIV page but an administrator told me that they were not going to block another admin.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to some of these edits? From a cursory perusal, all I see is her reverting one edit because it didn't have an edit summary. (That's a ridiculously dumb reason, but it's only one edit.) Tezero (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure. [[7]] Look at the red edits; she has reverted once and made serious deletions twice (-564 and -2,446) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, so you'd just discuss things on talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe it is vandalism. Please read the vandalism guidelines again. Removal of legitimate content is vandalism. She is pretending to use criteria for deletion, but the entries she deleted do NOT actually meet that criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a definition of vandalism. See: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Now, be specific and please provide a diff of the actions you feel violate the mentioned vandalism policy. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To quote the rest of the line from WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." There are lots of reasons someone acting in good faith could remove legitimate content. As you have not tried to talk to Deb about it, there is no reason not to WP:AGF. For it to be vandalism, we first must believe the editor was acting in bad faith, and there is nothing to support that here. Monty845 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way...I still believe both parties are in a slow moving edit war and Deb made one revert which I question, so it isn't as if they are without fault at all....but as I have said, it is not vandalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deb made several edits that I question. Look at the history page of May 22, and the recent red scores. Those were Deb's three recent edits in which she deleted several legitimate people from the births section. This may actually be disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The OP is forum shopping, having also posted at WP:ANI. The OP has never used edit summaries, except when they are defaulted. The OP has repeatedly been told that the deletion of content in a content dispute is not vandalism. Advice to the OP: The unfounded allegation of vandalism is a personal attack, and a very strong personal attack. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know what isn't vandalism. Discuss with the administrator on the talk page, or be aware that otherwise you will be blocked, probably indefinitely, for not listening. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I posted on two forums because I was told to try those forums out by an admin. And McClenon, please read the messages I made before replying. As I've already stated, I believe Deb was using the single lack of edit summary as an excuse to revert that edit. But she has made SEVERAL attempts to delete legitimate content. Take a look at the history page of May 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not forum shopping as this was also a referral from DRN by me on their talk page...twice, as was the same advice given by another editor from the other board. But, if no diffs can be provided and no further explanation of violations, I see this as having no legs.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have provided diffs already. Here are some more.



3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well...if I understand that first diff (and I don't always get the information right that can be technical in nature) this appears to be a pending change that was also...not vandalism by the OP. So...that could well be something to be concerned with...if that is what that is. But if this is not a pattern with Deb it could also just garner a quick and friendly warning that reviewer rights are dependent on following the guidelines for such a review of pending changes. I will look at the others.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No other issues that I can see. I will check further to see if the Admin truly declined a pending change that they were involved in and was not blatant vandalism. But, other than that I see no issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, it does appear to me that the Deb may indeed have declined non vandalism in an article they were heavily involved with...more than once. I ask for administrative attention to this history to verify this much and if so, that Deb be warned or, have reviewer rights removed if accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

One last thing from me. Pending Changes is not a policy or a guideline and I am not even sure if admin really have reviewer rights as they probably have the ability to review without the actual reviewer rights. this really needs admin eyes just to be sure but, at minimum, I don't think Deb was declining over the the reasons stated for reviewers: "to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content". Of course...if I am wrong please beat me about the brow as you see fit.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The OP did not notify Deb so I have left the template, but if there is nothing more I think a simple warning to deb that they should not decline pending changes unless they fall under the scope of the pending changes page and that they probably shouldn't be using their admin tools or reviewer rights in this manner...if what I see is accurate. I could still be wrong. Anywhoo....--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
What about her disruptive editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
To quote, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I would say that Deb's disruptive editing was intentional, and borders on vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And it's not really an edit war, as all I attempted to do was restore things to before she made deletions. I am not trying to "override" her "contributions" which are not really contributions but involve her deleting legitimate stuff then adding something minor to use an excuse for her deletions. That is a "hidden" form of disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

DYK overdue[edit]

Did you know needs to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC) via Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference desk trolling[edit]

I have only just seen the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Troll at Reference Desk where it was requested that an edit filter is used to block an IP range (the "Toronto troll") from the ref desk. Such a filter already exists; filter 618. I have added the Toronto troll to it and activated it (it was logging only). Pinging those that took part in the previous conversation @Red Act, Robert McClenon, OhanaUnited, Blackmane, Nil Einne:. By the way OhanaUnited, the range is not so big as you make out, it is only a /21 range. SpinningSpark 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

user:Kumioko ban review[edit]

I'm sure most regulars around here are familiar with Kumioko (aka KumiokoCleanStart and a number of other usernames, before and after his ban/block). His history is extremely complex because it's spread out over a huge number of accounts and IPs, and I'm not even sure I've got everything quite nailed down, but the best summary I can give after researching is this:

Long disillusioned with the project and prone to hopping among a number of accounts and IPs as the mood took him (see historical summary and list of IPs and accounts provided at the beginning of this ANI), he was blocked as "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Banned by the community per discussion at WP:AN" following this discussion in February, 2014. Kumioko has repeatedly declared that he feels this ban was invalid and the result of a small number of users trying to get him banned over and over until something finally stuck. As a result of what he feels was his mistreatment, he has committed to evading his ban as often as possible in order to point out that the "ban" was invalid and to prove that he cannot be restrained by a ban anyway; he appears to have access to sufficient IP addresses and/or technical expertise to do this indefinitely. This sockpuppet category has a selection of his activity since then, though he states that "only about 2/3" of those accounts/IPs listed are him. This is the most recent sock account I'm aware of, though that by no means ensures that it is actually the most recent one; this is the sort of edit he tends to make while socking.

Because this constant evasion has taken up a significant amount of community, administrator, and checkuser time, I have made a deal with him via IRC in the hopes of mitigating the timesink: we agreed that I would open a new discussion regarding whether he should be banned or unbanned (or blocked, or unblocked, or restricted in some way, or whatever the community desires), in exchange for his promise to abide by the result of that discussion, no matter what it comes out to be. I believe his hope is that a wider cross-section of users will participate this time around, to ensure overall neutrality; my hope is that this situation is resolved one way or another and the constant back-and-forth can stop. While this discussion is pending, he has promised that he will not evade his ban, email Arbcom, submit UTRS requests, or enter IRC. He states that he wishes to return to working on referencing and adding Wikiproject banners to articles if he is unbanned.

Kumioko has declined to give me a statement to paste here for the moment, and I haven't restored his talk page access, but someone may wish to do so if it's agreed that that's a good idea, so that he can have input into this discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was involved in the discussion with Kumioko which led to this thread. I'll make my own comment about the merits of the ban further down the page, but I would ask that the closing administrator allows the discussion to run for a sensible period of time, and considers a group closure involving more than one uninvolved administrator, to ensure the outcome of the discussion is unambiguous. Nick (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • What immediately concerns me over this is not only did he refuse to make a comment (so as to suggest he understands what he did wrong and apologize for it), he had to have a "deal" made in order for him to stop the inappropriate behavior - which indicates, to me, that he would continue. Support continued site ban. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Support continuation of siteban. When (and only when) he faithfully serves his siteban for an entire year (i.e 12 months without socking), I'll change my position. Actions speak louder then words. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of siteban - I'm sorry, but it comes across as saying "if a stalker keeps putting a lot of effort into being with someone, that person should quit complaining about imprisonment and rape." If he had been evading his ban by just contributing to the encyclopedia in good faith without egotistically drawing attention to his previous account, that'd be a different matter (and he'd probably be continuing to edit under the new account and we wouldn't be having this conversation). But instead, he's dedicated downright psychotic amounts of time and effort to causing trouble. Heck, I'd take evading the entire ban with only a good-faith clean start account as evidence that the ban was unnecessary, but that's the opposite of what happened. Even if the ban was initially completely unjustified and in bad-faith against a completely blameless editor (I mean, a literal saint being banned by the actual forces of Hell kind of hypothetical situation here), his actions since demonstrate that he needs help, not justification. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban given the following restrictions are met: He has to come back as a fresh clean start account, not a old one, the account must not be named "Kumioko" or anything containing it, and he cannot run for adminship for at least a 12 month duration. Give him rope. If during this time, he commits any serious violations or is evaluated by the community to not be reforming himself, he will be blocked with no more second chances. KonveyorBelt 22:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of ban Less than 75 days ago items like this and this were occurring too often. No more rope is needed. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Support per GoodDay. If you're sitebanned, you've pissed off a lot of editors and evaporated entire oceans of AGF. If and When the user serves the user serves the full siteban of 12 months no discernable editing and isn't sniping semi-anonymously from the peanut gallery will I consider modifications to the siteban. Until then this is just more attention that Kumioko has demonstrated time and time again that he craves instead of improving the project. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm probably one of the only administrators on this site who hasn't ever interacted with Kumioko in any way, shape, or form before. Having looked over the various links provided by Fluffernutter, I see an editor who is obviously pissed off at the project, for what he sees as a few individuals managing to get him banned. To be perfectly honest, I can see where he's coming from with this, although I may not agree with it myself, from the evidence Nick presents above. At this point, I'm just not seeing what the site ban is accomplishing beyond the formally keeping him off the site. I don't see what there is to lose by at least giving him one more chance here; if he doesn't change his behavior, then it's simple enough to reinstate the ban at a later date. It appears that when not disillusion with the site, Kumioko can be a great content creator, and having the chance to gain this back would be great for the site. In short, I support overturning the ban at this time, with no prejudice towards reinstating the ban at a later date if he continues his behavior from while he was banned. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There were two ban discussions in February, and another shortly before that, which would certainly leave an editor feeling that a group of users were intent on banning him. The later discussion, which resulted in his ban, was poorly conducted; it was closed early and the closure changed, most irregular. (as I mentioned above) The administrator who closes this discussion should think about drafting in a couple of other uninvolved administrators and doing a group closure, and not until we've let the discussion run for a good length of time, so there can be no ambiguity as to the appropriateness of the closure this time.
On the actual subject of blocking or unblocking Kumioko, I'd be happy to give him a second chance, despite his pretty dubious behaviour (which has essentially been canvassing anybody and everybody to unblock him). He seems to be reasonably open to stopping whatever it is he's doing, when asked, and he has made some good contributions during the time he has been blocked, has been helpful at times on IRC, instructing users on how to edit templates, and he has brought to the attention of other editors vandalism and unfortunate edits which should be removed or changed. He appears, from my chats with him, to have a deep seated interest and passion for the project, and is that, rather than malice which has resulted in him being in the position he's in today. I think he is still redeemable and can be returned to being a productive, useful, good faith editor. Nick (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban: Frankly should have never been comm banned in the first place. pbp 23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of ban. At this point, in my opinion, whether the ban was right or wrong in the first place is unimportant. To reverse the ban would be to say that socking is an acceptable response to a ban or indefinite block. Are those who argue that the original ban was wrong really saying that socking has no consequences? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban with one-account restriction - I'm not endorsing/excusing the socking, nor am I sayig the original decision to ban was wrong. Not everything Kumioko does is good, but I believe the positive outweighs the ranting. Anyways, we can't keep him away from the project; we might as well channel his obvious dedication into something productive. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A simple question. What are Kumioko's intentions should the ban be lifted? From previous off-Wikipedia comments, he has given the strong impression that he has no interest in actually returning to productive editing, and instead wants the ban lifted as a matter of principle. If that is the case, I can see no benefit to Wikipedia in lifting the ban, particularly since it might very well give the strong impression that it was being lifted merely to put an end to his relentless socking. If it is his intention to become a productive contributor, and if he provides a prior assurance that regardless of the outcome of this debate he will stop socking, I for one could support unblocking - but otherwise, what exactly is Wikipedia supposed to gain through this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Fluffernutter mentioned referencing and Wikiproject banners, but I sincerely hope if he is unblocked there will not be an active effort to stop him from taking part in discussions. KonveyorBelt 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
With respect, Konveyor Belt but the WPUS banner incident (strong arming many semi-inactive projects into joining the WPUS ultra-mega-super-project and deprecate their individual project banners in favor of the {{WikiProject United States}} banner) is foremost in my mind as a contributing reason for why Kumioko was dis-invited from the community in the first place in addition to the multiple messes now left behind in trying to un-merge the template and the "I'll take my toys and go home" attitude when a wide base of consensus arose in opposition to the aims of WPUS. Hasteur (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was not really around then. I was just repeating what Fluffernutter mentioned above. If that is what got him into hot water in the first place, then that is problematic. KonveyorBelt 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it really this easy to troll Wikipedia? (rhetorical question) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation -- harassment is too much. [8] Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - If we were to overturn the ban we'd basically be saying "Sock puppetry is fine" .... Despite the numerous block reviews & whatnot he won't ever learn and thus I probably won't ever support the ban overturn in my lifetime!. –Davey2010(talk) 00:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban, per StringTheory11. I haven't followed what happened closely, but it seems to have started as one minor thing after another, rather than anything major. He was by all accounts a good contributor, so if he wants to try again I think we should give him that chance. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support siteban for at least a one year period of zero socking or disruption. If Kumioko makes a statement at that time admitting that his socking and disruption was wrong, and pledges never to engage in such behavior again, I will happily reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Kumioko was socking within the last two days, and got blocked by me. I don't think this request is made at a good time. If Kumioko wants to quietly start a new account and behave nicely, nobody will notice or care. If they return to past patterns of unconstructive behavior, they will be identified and blocked. If Kumioko wants to get the original account unblocked, they should follow the Wikipedia:Standard offer. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Jehochman IIRC Kumioko scrambled the email and revealed the password on both the original and "CleanStart" accounts thereby require Meta-WMF to hard lock the account on account of it being potentially explotable. Kumioko has had more than enough opportunities to quietly start a new account completely unconnected, but just like an addict, they can't resist the temptation to make their presence as Kumioko known. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. No reward for socking. Let's see a decent period of no disruption first, then consider unbanning. SpinningSpark 01:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban - Kumioko was well-intentioned but became frustrated and little things snowballed into bigger things. I don't get the impression he is malicious as such and as such I am prepared to contemplate some Way Back. I am not of the opinion that six months's sitting on the sideline is going to change his (or our) world view on all this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban. I saw Kumioko in action after he assumed leadership of the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States in October 2010, demonstrating after a few months that his attitude was not collegial: it was more like 'my way or the highway'. He was getting some push-back with regard to his idea that all the various US state wikiprojects (many of which were moribund) should be folded into the US project. A WikiCup competitor, Racepacket, began challenging him on many issues, which Kumioko handled badly. I thought at the time that Kumioko was an absolutist rather than the kind of person willing to work on a compromise solution.
    After that, Kumioko got into some trouble for using AWB to make thousands of edits that did not meet everybody's idea of what AWB should do. Kumioko was willing to discuss the issue but he refused to stop his AWB activity in the meantime. By the end of February 2011 Kumioko said he was 'retired', leaving Wikipedia over the course of several days, removing his name from membership lists, setting a retire status, thanking his well-wishers, etc. At the beginning of March 2011 he changed his retired status to semi-retired. Another change of heart brought him to ask for his account to be blocked, but people said it was an overly dramatic exit tactic. Kumioko said he had scrambled his password on March 5, 2011, but then on March 9 he was back editing.
    At this point Kumioko was pissed off at resistance to his AWB work and to his US Wikiproject initiatives. He continued to contribute but he was brought to various noticeboards. From here the story is familiar to more editors, with increasingly Kumioko stomping angrily around discussions of policy, suggesting fixes, but also suggesting that Wikipedia should be allowed to crash and burn (as he predicted would happen) so that someone such as himself could come in and remake it but in a better form. Now my opinion of him is that he is a frustrated demagogue.
    Once he was community banned (a process that could have been conducted better, but would have had the same outcome regardless) he demonstrated through massive disruption that he was never, ever going to be re-admitted to Wikipedia. There is nothing in the world that would make me !vote to restore editing privileges to someone who showed such immaturity and vengefulness. I agree with Ian.thomson that Kumioko must not have his ban lifted. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban continuation - my reasoning behind this is that given his disruptive actions and sock puppetry over the past few years, there are no more chances. His actions demonstrate that cannot waste any more time on this individual. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban. We need to stop running off our own contributors. If he wants to help, let him help. I'm not convinced there was any good reason for this ban to begin with, and even if there was, we've got to be willing to put things behind us after a while and just move on. Furthermore, if he edits under a known account he will be easy to monitor and can easily be blocked if he does cause problems. Everyking (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban continuation per this statement in the OP's synopsis: "he has committed to evading his ban as often as possible in order to point out that the "ban" was invalid and to prove that he cannot be restrained by a ban anyway". If so, he is treating wikipedia like a game of "Catch me if you can" and not an encyclopedia, and thus, even if he thinks his initial ban was invalid (and let's be fair, the proportion of banned users who think their ban is invalid must be actually OVER 100%), all he done since his ban is to prove the exact ban rationale true. He's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to "prove" things or to entertain himself by seeing how much he can dodge his ban, or whatever motivates him. Contributing to an encyclopedia does not seem to be on his list of things to do... --Jayron32 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Undecided, but leaning strongly toward supporting the site ban. User talk:Fluffernutter, thank you so much for the hard work of community outreach that you have done in talking out this deal. Things like this are not easy and I appreciate you willingness to put in the time in your attempts to save the Project from the labor entailed in dealing with the present situation. That being said, it sounds too much like we are being blackmailed into something. I am a huge proponent of second chances, this user clearly has technical skill and I like to think that there is still a positive role here for him, but Wikipedia cannot be seen to be negotiating. What ever deal is reached (if any) cannot be any better than would be offered to a sitebanned editor who had not edited until their appeal. I am open to something, but it cannot be something that we, as a community, are being pushed into. Juno (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I would be willing, and probably several others, to reconsider my(our) positions if he were to make a public statement and list all accounts he has used to evade his ban. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Anything along those lines would need to include individual apologies to the numerous editors whose talk pages were trolled. I only linked to two of the egregious cases from the past June. There were a great many more then that. Perhaps this could be done while compiling the list of the sock accounts. This is just one item and there are others in the WP:STANDARDOFFER that should be fulfilled as well. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the "no negotiations" thing involves thinking of a Wikipedia contributor as some kind of terrorist, and I really wish we wouldn't do that. It's all right to make reasonable agreements that can get people back to editing and doing good work. We're all just people contributing our time to a volunteer project, and we need to acknowledge and respect Kumioko's continued willingness to contribute here. Everyking (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of site ban. Anyone who wants an overview of the editing history should look in order at the editing history of Kumioko (renamed) (2007 to Feb 2012); Kumioko (April 2012 to March 2013]; and KumiokoCleanStart (March 2013 to January 2014). What I see is a user who used to make hundreds of productive edits to an article such as Smedley Butler and List of Medal of Honor recipients deteriorate into a user who from December 2010 has made only about 5% of his edits to article space. (The three accounts had edits to article space of 45.6%, 6.5%, and 4.3.%.) The vast majority of his edits were to add unwanted WikiProject USA templates to articles, files, templates, and categories. Well over 90% of his edits were made using AWB (85%, 99%, and 95% for the three user accounts), not substantial improvements to article space like he did do in the long-ago. Edits to public areas were of the Wiki-is-broken-everything-sucks variety, not worthwhile suggestions (example, example). In my opinion the benefits to the encyclopedia are far outweighed by the disruption and negativity he generates. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban continuation The ban seems to be serving its purpose well. This whole thing seems like extortion, reconsider the ban or I will continue socking. Chillum 04:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I support an overturn of the ban if a few conditions are met. First of all, though, let me say that I'm well aware of Kumioko's widespread and just totally silly and tirritating disruption--I blocked a couple of his socks and IPs, and I think he knows how I think about his commentary. I think Hasteur mentioned the US templating, and that was ridiculous, so a return to that behavior is unacceptable. Second, I think this should only follow a statement by Kumioko hisself, not necessarily for an admission of guilt (though I wonder if he knows that far from a gadfly he has been nothing more than a complete and utter timesink) but for an indication of what he will and won't do. Third, coupled with that, I would like to see restrictions which would include a ban on posting on Jimbo's talk page and on ArbCom pages, and perhaps others where he's had to have his opinion heard. Cause that's the thing--no one cared for those opinions, and if he is to come back, it will have to be because he's done article work or other useful stuff, and because he can do useful work in the future. I'm all for second, and third, and fourth chances, but always with a ROPE attached. One shitty post on Jimbo's talk page and it's over, again. I appreciate Floq and Jayron and others who are saying that enough's enough, and those that say we're giving in to a kind of blackmail may have a point--but as an old-fashioned liberal I prefer to see the glass as half-full. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban. Kumioko has a half a million edits, a dozen featured content, a couple dozen GA's, hundreds of articles created, and has done a lot of work with templates and reverting vandalism.
He has also annoyed some people by complaining, but the ban was overkill. True, he continues to leave messages on arbitrators' talk pages asking for a lifting of the ban, but these are always quickly reverted by talk page stalkers. By rights, if someone is banned, the admins are supposed to delete and WP:DENY recognition, this is what WP:RBI was invented for. But Kumioko has been continuously poked and prodded by people who should have left him alone, including a notorious incident where an admin publicly threatened to contact his employer, followed by someone actually contacting his employer.
Much has been made of Kumioko "socking" but his edits have always been signed, even after some admins designed an edit filter to prevent him from signing his posts. Every time they re-configured the edit filter that prevented Kumioko from signing his name, Kumioko kept figuring out how to circumvent it. Throughout this whole episode, Kumioko has not turned mean or vicious, but has kept his sense of humor. This signature is actually pretty funny.
It would be nice if Kumioko would post a reasonable request after staying away for a while, but all his talk page access is blocked. It would also be nice, and seem less whiny, if instead of just complaining, he would give some concrete examples with diffs.
Sooner or later, the community is going to have him back. Why not make it now. —Neotarf (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced. The block evasions shows a disrespect to the community consensus, and not respecting community consensus is how this all started. Just because he signs his name does not make it better.
Why do we have to have him back sooner or later? Because he will keep being stubborn of we don't? Chillum 05:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko used to be a valuable contributor, but somehow, something went very wrong. This is a chance to turn that around. I would endorse Worm's proposal as a way forward that would encourage constructive edits.
Kumioko is not the type to grovel. It is unlikely that anyone can make him lick someone's boots. In fact, I believe he is in the habit of emailing various arbs and telling them they suck, at the same time he requests unbanning. What can I say. Some of them do suck.
The time to do this is now. Justice delayed is ______ (fill in the blank). Kumioko's posts about abusive admins on external sites stopped some time ago, but if he hasn't stopped posting on the arbs' talk pages by now, he is unlikely to ever do so. He believes he was wronged, and he is the type to speak from the heart. Revisiting this in six months or a year is unlikely to change anything. It will just make it harder to deal with. —Neotarf (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A straw man argument if I ever saw one. Nobody is asking for groveling or boot-licking, to characterize it as such merely re-frames the debate into something easier to defend. We are asking for respect of the community consensus and to not engage in block evasion. The same thing we ask of every user here. Chillum 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban. Any editor who wages war with the community in this manner is simply a diva (using the very best assumption of good faith). There's no need to "negotiate" with this individual. Doc talk 05:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral I really can't make up my mind about this, and I comment here so as to disqualify myself from closing or participating in the closing of this discussion. Kumioko did many good things for Wikipedia, yes, but he threw everything out of the window when he decided to go rogue. If he's going to come back, and I wish he does, he has to change his practices and make a true commitment to change. The current socking is not a good indication that this is the case, so I can't really support overturning the ban. However, I can't support continuation of the ban either. → Call me Hahc21 05:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban. Kumioko's original crime was to voice constructive criticism of the deeply flawed admin and arbcom system. We all know now that these systems are terminally under the control of legacy admins and their enablers. Kumioko, along with other crushed voices for rational change, presents no realistic threat whatever to the life long privileges and asymmetric power enjoyed by the legacy admins. Legacy admins should simply relax and savour their rout of the content builders who are not admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban, not as a reward for bad behavior, as an act of clemency for the 100s of thousands of well behaved edits Kumioko made prior to becoming disgruntled. Also, it is worthy of mention to note that Kumioko was often prodded and poked by the other kind of troll, and the worst of his rants were reactions, not planned disruptions. Also worth noting, while Kumioko did disrupt some talk page discussions, he never vandalized an article in Wikipedia—even during periods of his greatest agitation. And as well, while Kumioko did evade his block on multiple occasions, he never deceived or mislead other editors regarding his identity. Instead, Kumioko identified himself right away in every example I am aware of. All in all, this is enough mitigation for me to set the past aside to look towards a better future—potentially the best of times.—John Cline (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn with strict namespace restriction - Let him put his money where his mouth is. Allow him back, but can only edit article space and associated talk pages for an indefinite period - of no less than 6 months. If keeping him banned is "harming the encyclopedia" this should be a good compromise. WormTT(talk) 06:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban per Epipelagic. Writegeist (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I just wish to express my dissapointment in the calls for his early re-instatement. I was never shown such compassion, during my 13-month (including 12-month talkpage block) siteban. A ban that I never evaded. GoodDay (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of ban per Binksternet and Diannaa, with standard offer. His current tactic is: "I was banned for being disruptive and a time-sink, so to show that ban was wrong I will be even more of a disruptive time-sink and will make all the arbs' lives hell until you let me back." That is blackmail, and to fall for it would set a disastrous precedent. Kumioko's whole history shows someone who must have his own way, and throws his toys out of the pram when he does not get it. His history make me doubt whether he has the temperament to work in a collaborative project, but six months without making a nuisance of himself is one way he could demonstrate self-control, and is the least we should ask. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of ban: the way to show you'll behave well in the future is to behave well now. The ongoing disruption and socking does not bode well should he be re-admitted, and overturning the ban would be a dangerous precedent. I don't believe I can add to all the above editors who reject this request as blackmail, so I'll just note that I concur with them. BethNaught (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban. The bottom line is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and should do things that help to build the encyclopedia and avoid things that hinder building the encyclopedia. Kumioko editing (under any name) has the net effect of helping the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 13:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of ban He has continually flaunted it and socked. I see nothing that makes me think he won't continue the inappropriate behavior which got him banned in the first place. He is completely incapable of playing well with others. As such this ban is necessary to prevent disruption to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continuation of ban The level of block evasion here combined with the tantrums doesn't give me any reason to invite him back.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban, with close monitoring. Kumioko, as he admits, has socked since his ban, but he has not, as far as I can tell, done so with the intention of misleading other editors.. in fact, he seems to have gone to extremes to do the opposite. He has never, from what I have seen, do anything to damage content, and has in fact done the opposite, including coming to IRC specifically to point out edits that obviously need to be made. It is my feeling that, if anything, Kumioko should merely have been topic banned from certain project boards in the first place, and encouraged to work on the encyclopedia itself. This ban seems, IMO, to have been the result of people that didn't like him forum shopping until they got the result they wanted. Blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and I see no way in which this site ban (as opposed to some relevant topic ban) is preventing anything other than Kumioko making positive contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Reventtalk 13:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're sweeping statement about "like" has no basis and is factually incorrect. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC) \
  • Support ban. I am sorry, but allowing a user to harass his way back onto the project sets a seriously dangerous precedent that many of the overturn votes are ignoring. Beyond that, the one thing Kumioko needs most is to disengage from the project for a time, and his statement reinforces this, particularly given his continuing efforts to play the victim. Kumioko was not targeted, nor did he face attempts to ban him "over and over". There were two ban discussions in quick succession, yes. But despite the fact that he was very clearly WP:NOTHERE, the first closed in opposition to a ban because his constant complaining on various drama boards was not viewed as worthy of such a measure. The second discussion happened shortly after because Kumioko began going to the talk pages of new users to push the same complaints and was actively hampering the ability of others to guide such new users. That is when his disruption began to have a real impact, and that is why the second vote went the way it did. Also, Kumioko is completely full of shit when he claims his ban is having a negative impact on the project. He has not been a "high volume editor" for a while, and his activities at the end pretty much related only to his own overzealous whining about the project. Wikipedia lost nothing by banning him. However, despite this criticism, I do believe Wikipedia can gain something if he chooses to return as a productive editor. But given what has happened, there is no way I could support an unban right now. The deal Kumioko deserves is the same one we WP:OFFER other banned users. Take a break. Come back in six months of no socking, no harassment, no disruption. After those six months, I will support an unban. Resolute 14:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support continuation of ban - based on Kumioko's comments below. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, if he made it clear that he intended to stop socking regardless of the results of this discussion, but he has made no such assurance. Furthermore, his suggestion that the fact that his socking has caused damage to the project (through block filters) should be taken into account as a reason to end the block can only be read, regardless of his claims to the contrary, as blackmail. If he wishes to stop damaging the project, all he needs to do is stop socking. His attempt to shift the blame for all this onto other people can only reinforce the impression that any benefit Wikipedia might gain from him being allowed to contribute one more would be entirely outbalanced by his continued insistence that 'abusive admins' are responsible for anything and everything, that he is some sort of martyr to a cause, and that his disruptive behaviour is somehow justified. Unblocking Kumioko in such circumstances looks a sure and certain recipe for further disruption, given his refusal to take responsibility for his own actions. Giving in to blackmail is seldom a wise course, and to do so in circumstances where the net result is likely to be further disruption down the line is untenable. And frankly, given Kumioko's apparent inability to behave in a rational manner over this, I would have to suggest that it would be better for him personally if he were to drop his obsession with all this, to walk away from Wikipedia, and to find another outlet for his talents where he has less emotional involvement. There are plenty of other projects out there that need help, and I'm sure he could find one that suited his temperament better... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban. Much of the agitation has been in response to what the subject regards as the unfairness of the original ban, so much like we allow blocked users a little WP:NPA leeway to"blow off steam" on their own talk page following a block, consider it the same here. This project has allowed and continued to allow some egregiously horrid editors to remain in the project just because they are "good content contributors". Kumioko's "crime" of coming back repeatedly while blocked is a drop in the ocean compared to what the "vested contributors" get away with in the project these days. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Kumioko[edit]

Kumioko emailed this to me last night and asked for it to be posted here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"I want to tank Fluffernutter and those so far who are supporting my return. I solumnly apreciate it. I want to clarify that I wanted to wait for this discussion to get going before I made a statement, not that I refused to make a statement. Now that it has started I want to respond to a few concerns. I also want to apologize for my conduct. At times i reacted poorly when I felt I was being unfairly attacked. It pissed me off and I felt betrayed but I could have done things differently.

It has been noted that the Kumioko account is locked and inaccessible. That is true. If allowed to return I request and recommend I be allowed to use the Reguyla account. That is my account name in Wikia and other Wikimedia projects and for those that know my real name it should be clear its me.

I also want to clarify that comments that I have been socking for years are being grossly exaggerated. I hadn't socked prior to my ban in February. I did have multiple account renames, a bot and edited from some IP's as well as an ill received attempt to start new, but I never socked prior to my ban. Since my ban, I have gone out of my way to identify the accounts I used as being me. Even when edit Filter 608 was created preventing the use of Kumioko by an unconfirmed account, I made it clear who I was. The point of the socking policy is to prevent editors from attempting to mislead the community as to their identity and prevent things like voting multiple times so I beleive I followed the spirit of that.

A couple of editors (Hasteur and Binksternet) have mentioned WikiProject United States and how I tried to strong arm other projects. This is utterly false and frankly is just hyperbole and lies. I did ask every US project and some said no. I had no problem with that and moved on. Several other projects agreed and other still were completely defunct or inactive. In every case I gave the opportunity for discussion on the projects talk page and this is easily verifiable for anyone who wants to take the time to look. In fact, whenever a project wanted out, I assisted them in doing so even creating and or expanding their WikiProject banners and helping them do maintenance on their projects afterword. Again, this is all easily erifiable. Its also interesting that Binksternet is so desperate for a justification he mentions Racepacket who has bee banned for years due to his conduct on the project. So I challenge both Hasteur and Binksternet with providing some proof of my misconduct with relation to WikiProject US. WikiProject US has absolutely nothing to do with my ban and Hasteur is just making that up. Some projects and editors have severe article ownership issues and took my tagging "their" articles with the WPUS banner as a hostile takeover.

My intentions if allowed to return are to return to some editing. It is exceedingly unlikely I will return to high output again any time soon but there are plenty of things that need to be done and articles that need to be created. Most likely I will do things like categorization and stuff relating to Medal of Honor recipients and perhaps some tasks around WikiProject United States and probably template work.

Now setting aside my return, my ban is also having negative effects on this project and its users and editors in some obvious and not so obvious ways. First, I was a very high output editor with a lot of experience in technical areas. Secondly, multiple edit filters were created to keep me out and they all failed to do anything except block others and slow the project. Every edit made has to go through the filters, so that means every edit made goes through the multiple filters put in place to futily keep me out. All they, and the rangeblocks that were put in place do is keep out other editors from contributing. This also adds work for other people, for example as [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman] stated above I did some positive edits yesterday and he reverted them blindly leaving multiple articles without references or a template saying they were unreferenced for no other reason than I am banned.

I also notice that several editors have likening this to blackmail. I obviously disagree with this. I have contended all along that my ban was done in an abusive way to manipulate the outcome in their favor. They did that because 2 previous attempts to get what they wanted failed. So they continued resubmitting with shorter duration to ensure that only those few who wanted me out of the project would comment. Additionally, banning a long term editor for making a snide comment on a users talk page is just a weak excuse to justify another ban request.

I will continue to follow the discussion and provide input when requested orto clarify misunderstandings or false statements."


Sadly, this reinforces many of the "Support ban" items above. Claiming that other editors are telling lies and asserting that the ban is having a "negative effect" on the project demonstrate that K just doesn't get it. The claim that the socking has been minimal is laughable and there is no contrition at all for the personal attacks that those socks performed over and over again. This statement will not be changing my opinion of the need to maintain the ban. MarnetteD|Talk 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You could have done things better? What? You are using Wikipedia for WP:Battle. I even recall one your socks comment on NE Ent, merely because they changed their mind about your behavior, and proposed the ban. It appears you are convinced that everyone who disagrees with your behavior and its consequences is your enemy for which you seek retribution -- but no one is here, or wants to be here, for that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That the user denies that they went on a proactive campaign of forcing projects that were semi-inactive to join with WPUS against the advice of several similar projects (see USROADS venomous rejection of the WPUS scope) and the level of scope that caused many projects to unite in a "NEVER" consensus only to have the user sneak around behind the scenes and force their interpertation of the policies through suggests that there is cause for their sitebanning. That he uses deliberately charged language that implies intent in their denial of the charges instead of other language (lies vs. mistaken in their assertions) shows that their temperment has not mellowed since they were last up for consideration. Add to that (IIRC) 2 candidacies for RfA that demonstrated the same "I'm taking my toys and going home" mentality that they demonstrated in WPUS and the numerous "The Wikipedia community is corrupt for banning me" messages that were sent semi-anonymously. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This quote "multiple edit filters were created to keep me out and they all failed to do anything except block others and slow the project. Every edit made has to go through the filters, so that means every edit made goes through the multiple filters put in place to futily keep me out" confirms my suspicion that this request for unbanning is essentially extortion. Unban me because I am causing shit here and it will stop if you unban me. "futily keep me out" speaks volumes as to his opinion. If anything this increases the resolve of my opinion that this user should not be welcome back. Chillum 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here - one of which is K's iterated problematic behaviour concerning the site ban (which is not likely to impress a majority of editors opining here), and the second is the question as to whether some specific rules ought to be made to prevent small groups of editors (under twenty, as a suggestion) from making decisions without a broad discussion over an moderately extended period (certainly more than 48 hours). While this is not the proper venue for such a change, I fear, I would hope someone would propose in a proper venue that "site bans on editors shall be discussed for no less than 5 days, and be addressed by no fewer than 36 editors" in order to prevent any future assertions that such bans are either placed by any small group of editors, or placed without a full discussion (noting that many editors do not actually live on their computers). Collect (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason User:Newmancbn has valuable contributions that need to be made to Jewish articles[edit]

Request in violation of topic ban.--Salix alba (talk): 07:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: I'm not a Christian. I am an Orthodox Jew who is of half Sephardic and half English ethnicity, I was raised non-observant, and am a biblical and Hebrew scholar in training who studied at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, with ambitions to attend Oxford. I am fluent in biblical Hebrew and have expertise in the Tanakh, the Mishnah, the Gemarra, proto-Masoretic texts, Karaite topics, Jewish history, ancient Israel, and archeology, among other things. I made corrections to articles in the topics mentioned above because they contained vital missing information on details of the Bar Kochba revolt, namely how it resulted in the Roman exile, which does not have a page or even a mention on wikipedia, the proper use of the terms YHWH and Yahweh in academic settings, the genetic and historic ties that the Buba clan, Bene Israel, and Palestinian Arabs have to ancient Israel, and the Ipuwer Papyrus, which is not even mentioned in the Exodus article, which currently states no artifacts have ever been recovered that could indicate the Exodus, which is untrue and deceptive to readers, since the Ipuwer has been known for 150 years, and even many atheist scholars think the Ipuwer indicates the charter myth of Israel has some historical basis, who usually think the reference to the Nile becoming blood is a description of a natural phenomena whereby algae discolour the water, and the Hebrews took advantage of the natural disasters and escaped, I am in agreement that the plagues of Egypt could have been all caused by natural disasters, but the Ipuwer Papyrus really needs to be mentioned in the Exodus article, and the sentence "no archeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit" needs a serious qualifier, because as it stands now, it is an actual falsehood appearing in an encyclopedia. Another problem is there should be a page titled YHWH dedicated for the god of Israel as he is seen by Jews and Samaritans, or change the article "Tetragrammaton" to read that way. The reason is you have the article Brahma, and then God in Hinduism, you have Jesus and then God in Christianity, and you have Allah and God in Islam. For us you only have God in Judaism, where is the page for our god? The issue people seemed to raise was not that my edits were inaccurate, but they were un-sourced. I provided sources from scientific papers, the books and chapters from josephus, or whatever other citations were required, but was told they didn't count because I needed the exact quotations from them and not just the name of the paper, a level of rigor I don't really see applied universally across wikipedia, but maybe extraordinary claims (like Palestinains are descended from Israelites) require extraordinary evidence (which exists), but I digress. I think I may understand why these mistakes occur on wikipedia, perhaps I wrongly assumed the errors were intentional in a passive anti-Judaic way, which explains why I came out "guns blazing", like my Rebbe Sgt. Lincoln Osiris from the film Tropic Thunder, and for that I apologize, but now it becomes clear to me. There are billions of Hindus, Christians, and Muslims in the world who will voice their opinions to make sure Hindu, Christian, and Muslim topic articles accurately reflect their history and traditions, however the only people who are qualified enough, and know enough about the Tanakh, Jewish history, and Judaism, to be able to correct the Jewish topic articles, are Orthodox and Karaite Jews, Samaritans, (secular Jews outside of Israel usually know very little about Judaism), the average well educated Israeli, biblical and Hebrew scholars, and some archeologists. The people who wrote and monitor the articles are most likely none of those things, in my discussions with them it seems none are versed in biblical Hebrew, or know extensively about Jewish history, (one in particular named User:Nishidani is an open Japanese anti-Semite and I seriously suggest barring him form editing Jewish and Israel related topics), which would explain the gaps in Jewish history and misrepresentations of Judaism, which are actually very few, and the articles as a whole are surprisingly accurate I must gladly say, however the errors that do exist are rather significant and result in a misrepresentation of Jews and Samaritans. The pool of Jews and other people to speak up for the accuracy of Jewish articles is extremely tiny, which I think better explains some of the obvious errors on these pages, and my frustrations, rather than a cultural bias on wikipedia, or a case of Esaw soneh l'Ya'aqov. I may be back in six months, I may be back in a year, and will have amassed a legion of sentence by sentence, line by line quotations from an exhaustive list of peer reviewed academic journals for each and every one of the above mentioned topics so there can be no ambiguity about the sourcing, or just gather an army of Zionist Israeli scholars from Hebrew University and Bar Ilan University to aid me in correcting and adding the missing bits of these articles. At which point I hope the information can be published, and in the mean time if anyone wants to ask me any questions about these topics, just post it here and I will respond soon. I hope this clears some confusion, and I would love any of you to respond if you have time, sincerely, Newman.--Newmancbn (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Really N? ANI was not the proper place for this and neither is AN. You need to drop the stick because you are not going to get anywhere with this kind of thing. I would suggest that you read WP:GREATWRONGS as well if you ever want the topic ban to be lifted. MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand, the person who banned me seemed to direct me here, I'm confused, where should I post this? Also I read Great Wrongs, there is no "great wrong" in history I am trying to correct, I am trying to simply make Jewish articles more accurate about Judaism and Jewish history, like give the details of the Bar Kochba revolt.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32:@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @MarnetteD: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: @Mendaliv: The ban seems like it was founded on the assumption I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, and I actually was never involved in any editing wars. I don't think I ever broke the three edit revert rule, I just reverted several articles when people reverted my edits and I changed it to be a compromise between the two, and I later realized that editing in that way, beginning with the revert button, gives the impression of an editing war, and so I believe Dougweller asked me on my page to not edit that way, which I haven't. The other thing that seemed to contribute was when I changed about 50 Jewish articles with the word 'Yahweh' to 'YHWH', which I thought that would be welcomed from wikipedia because that is the standard practice in scholarship when using the Name when referring to Jewish subjects, because us Jews have a prohibition against speaking it and say Adonai or HaShem, so to write Yahweh on a Jewish topic page is deeply offensive, especially to Orthodox Jews. Some compare it to being more offense to Orthodox Jews than ethnic slurs, like kike or nigger, or like saying Muhammad Pig-Raping bin Abdullah, so it really is a big deal for us. Instead I was blocked for violating the rule of making changes without consensus, I had no idea that was a rule, and when I came back on today I found I have been banned. So I think the entire thing is rather silly. I really didn't do anything wrong, except provide sources without giving the exact quotations, and revert people's edits a few times, but I always took it to the talk page if there was disagreement after a few reverts, and the above mentioned YHWH incident. I didn't brake any rules intentionally, and until the YHWH incident I was engaged in what I thought were fruitful and meaningful discussions on the talk pages. It was said I wrote too much text, and I am working on that. I didn't brake any rules intentionally. I think it is kind of a misunderstanding, do you think so or not? This is not a rhetorical question, but a sincere one.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)--

As I posted on your talk page your faith, in no way shape or form, had anything to do with your topic ban. You have now posted this "Wall of Text" for the second time on this page. You have had useful advice given to you by numerous editors which you have ignored. I am starting to have concerns about WP:COMPETENCE problems. Oh and this post violates the topic ban again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Newmancbn, you're pinging me and everyone else with the same insistence you displayed in the edits that got you topic-banned. This is not the way to turn people your way. One of the problems was that you seemed to care less for working on the basis of reliable secondary sources, and you have an opportunity to prove that you can do that, but in other areas. Good behavior elsewhere (that is, sticking to the community norms--policies and guidelines) is what might get a topic ban lifted eventually. Constantly pinging folks won't, and violating said ban here in this forum won't help either. Thank you, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need for a new page titled YHWH that is distinct from Tetragrammaton or Yahweh, or the rephrasing of "Tetragrammaton" to reflect the views of normative Judaism[edit]

Request in violation of his topic ban as is use of sandboxes for articles on the topic.--Salix alba (talk): 06:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hope I am proposing this in the right place. There should be a page titled YHWH dedicated for the god of Israel as he is seen by Jews and Samaritans. Or the article "Tetragrammaton" should be changed to read that way (which currently states that YHWH is a pagan god called 'yahweh' from the Canaanite pantheon, a highly speculative theory with little tangible evidence other than the assumption it must be so, because where else did Judaic monotheism originate?). The reason is you have the article Brahma, and then God in Hinduism, you have Jesus and then God in Christianity, and you have Allah and God in Islam. For us you only have God in Judaism, if I type in YHWH I currently get Tetragrammaton and its pagan views, where is the page for our god?--Newmancbn (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A better place to ask about this might be at the talk page for WikiProject Judaism. This is more a noticeboard for administrative issues, rather than article writing issues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, this is not really an administrator issue at all. What you need to do is discuss the matter either on an article talk page (such as at Talk:Yahweh), or at the talk page of a WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Administrators don't involve themselves (in their role as administrators) in content issues; this is the board for dealing with technical aspects of the administrator job. Good luck with your discussions! --Jayron32 02:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this a violation of the topic ban? MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This post and the one above it are a direct violation of a Topic ban -- see User_talk:Newmancbn#Topic_ban. Time for a site ban, it appears. The Bushranger administered the topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're right, I just saw that. Newman is topic banned from Abrahamic religions, and a great deal of other topics. See WP:ANI#Topic ban for Newmancbn. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I was told I was banned from editing Abrahamic religions, so does that mean I can't suggest the creation of a new page to administrators? I am confused, I thought the ban only applied to Abrahamic religions? Can I comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism?--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: Sorry I messed it up, it won't revert now. I didn't see your edit my bad.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Newman, what a "topic ban" means is that, for the duration of the ban, you are not allowed to edit, discuss, propose, or have anything at all to do with, the entire topic you are banned from. It means you find other areas of Wikipedia to help with. When it says you are "topic banned" from "Abrahamic religions" (among the other things) it means that you don't touch the topic with a 10-foot pole. You don't enter into discussions, you don't edit articles, you don't propose changes, you don't come up with ideas, you don't ask other people to help out with the topic, you do nothing with any thing at ALL related to the topic; as though it didn't exist for you. That's what a topic ban means. Your banned from working on ANYTHING related to the topic, in ANY way. --Jayron32 03:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Okay I understand now. So if it is a violation of the ban for me to request the ban be removed, what is my recourse addressing the ban? Especially since the one who proposed it thought I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, I am a Jew trying to help wikipedia accurately represent Jewish articles, and I think the ban was founded on the wrong assumption.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Part of the ban terms was that you take 12 months before you request it be lifted. The community has lost its trust in your ability to work peacefully and collaboratively in this area. If you want to earn the community's trust back again, you need to show that you are capable of working well in areas you don't have the same emotional attachment to, and show an understanding of Wikipedia community norms, and then we can revisit it in 12 months. It's been one day. Find some other, less controversial area to work with, establish an ability to work well with others, and then after 12 months of that, we can revisit the issue. We're not saying you can never have the ban lifted ever. We're saying that one day is not enough time to establish that you've learned from the mistakes you made earlier, and that you're accepting of Wikipedia community norms. Do that first. --Jayron32 03:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jayron32:@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: @Mendaliv: Okay I get it, however the ban seems like it was founded on the assumption I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, and I actually was never involved in any editing wars. I don't think I ever broke the three edit revert rule, I just reverted several articles when people reverted my edits and I changed it to be a compromise between the two, and I later realized that editing in that way, beginning with the revert button, gives the impression of an editing war, and so I believe Dougweller asked me on my page to not edit that way, which I haven't. The other thing that seemed to contribute was when I changed about 50 articles with the word 'Yahweh' to 'YHWH' on Jewish articles, I thought that would be welcomed from wikipedia because that is the standard practice in scholarship when using the Name when referring to Jewish subjects because us Jews have a prohibition against speaking it, so to write Yahweh can be highly offensive. Some comparing it to being more offense to Orthodox Jews than ethnic slurs. Instead I was blocked for violating the rule of making changes without consensus, I had no idea that was a rule, and when I came back on today I found I have been banned. So I think the entire thing is rather silly. I really didn't do anything wrong, except provide sources without giving the exact quotations, and revert people's edits a few times, but I always took it to the talk page if there was disagreement after a few reverts, and the above mentioned YHWH incident. What are your opinions? I am asking sincerely.--Newmancbn (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Folks with this edit Newman removed the section header that they created and - again - removed posts by other editors. I have been trying to restore them through several edit conflicts but I may have missed something so please feel free to restore anything that slipped by. This has got to stop and I would recommend a block should anything else be blanked. MarnetteD|Talk 03:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD That was an accident, for that I apologize. I was told it was the wrong section, and so I removed it. I didn't know it wasn't allowed. While it was reverted, I was making an edit and when I hit save I saw the revert and the page got stuck. I apologize again. Thank you for restoring the section.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Will someone non-involved please close this violation of the topic ban? And inform him he can't use User:Newmancbn/sandbox to violate the ban either? Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hello sir[edit]

my name is rajvir singh randhawa and i make Randeep Singh Nabha,Kulbir Jhinjer and Ammy Virk two of three is deleted sir and one is still there Randeep Singh Nabha i'm blocked on wikipedia but i dot know what i did wrong and if i wrong so why you do not delete Randeep Singh Nabha and if i make good right thing so why deleted Kulbir Jhinjer and Ammy Virk that's it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs[edit]

Can an administrator go through and remove the unsourced BLPs?

Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs

jps (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)